Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 19

Proposed text for "Transgender people" section

 * Previous discussions and source dumps in Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 16.

I've tried to rework the "Transgender people" section. Here's what I came up with, but am not wedded to it, so it's okay if everyone hates it. Working on this section literally gives me migraines, so I've hit a wall for now and leaving up for discussion. The new sources (Whited & Henderson) didn't format as I wanted inside the cot/cob templates so it is as is. If someone knows how to fix, that would be great. I'd suggest we also consider pulling the "Transgender people" section out from the "Views" section and give it it's own level two section as we do with "Philanthropy". Maybe put it above "Philanthropy". Also this page is overly long, but I'm not able to manually archive today. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 19:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Continued at . Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope we'll defer the discussion of changing the structure/flow of the article until we are closer to having a nearly-final draft of the Transgender section (the structure reflects a chronology from the Smith and Kirk sources of how her success led to fame and wealth led to philanthropy led to her being more willing to speak out on issues ... but placement of content can be discussed later). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of first draft
I've (partially) fixed the source listings and the cot cob, and archived some of the long page for starting over (leaving a hat at the top of the new section), but there is still one glitch in the Whited source that will need to be repaired if we cite more than one chapter in the book. As an example, see here how we cited multiple chapters in Anatol, and in Berndt, but I am out of time to do that, and it's a lot of typing with sutures in my hand. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the draft sucks it's not relevant and so far only the intro from Whited is used, and Henderson from the other book. I tried with the Anatol templates (harvc) but got lots of errors and either I spend time with text/s or with templates & decided text gets the limited time I have. Thanks a ton for fixing my many many errors - especially with a hand wound. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We can fix the trivialities later ... thanks for doing the REAL work !!! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bailing me out. When I'm less screen blind I'll try to figure out why those harvc templates don't work. I thought it might work better once it's all in mainspace. Victoria (tk) 18:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel the sequence of ideas should be: Say her views are controversial -- say in what way they're controversial -- then give the specific examples -- and then give Rowling's rebuttals. I'd also slightly simplify (e.g. "referred to as"--> "called") and somewhat reduce the number of semicolons.  For a worked example of how I'd do this, please see my sandbox here.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's exactly how it should be organized. I knew I'd lost perspective at some point & needed extra eyes. Thanks so much for redoing it. We can probably paste that in as the next suggested draft. Victoria (tk) 18:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objections.—S Marshall T/C 19:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This draft does nothing to fix the main issue with this section, which is neutrality. I'm sorry, but we can't not mention that she consciously and repeatedly misgendered transgender woman in a section on her views on transgender people. It appears flat out dishonest, especially if we're going to spend a whole paragraph quoting her four-year-old essay, using mostly news sources from the day it was published, as the most recent expression of her views. WikiFouf (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, so this is an iterative process & eventually we get to the point where everyone agrees. In my view, S Marshall's point re structure/flow is correct, so those changes should be made. As far as the refs for the four-year-old manifesto - that's covered in Whited & Henderson so all the old citations can be dumped & we can source to two 2024 high quality scholarly sources. Because those sources cover the manifesto, we really should too. As for the misgendering, if you're referring to India Willoughby - I thought about adding it, but the RfC seems to be failing. And, well, recentism. But the "She will not shut up" statement does cover the string of comments. We don't need a digest of her comments but an overview. Let's take this a single slow step at a time & see where we get? "Flat out dishonest" seems a bit strong, in my view. Especially given the last three days of migraines, so I'm basically ready to call it quits. You all can take it from here. Or scrub it all and begin new. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I wasn't saying that your intentions appear dishonest but that the text does, something which I stand by. If you missed it, she tweeted a list of transgender women weeks ago, including India Willoughby (again), Munroe Bergdorf as well as a handful of convicted sex offenders (for good measure), and wrote that they were "men, every single last one of them". Again, this is a section titled "Views [of J. K. Rowling] on transgender people". Misgendering is not just an insult towards an individual but a flat out rejection of transgender identity; that I even need to argue for its inclusion here is beyond me. WikiFouf (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not delighted with WikiFouf's level of rhetoric, I do agree that Rowling's tendency to misgender trans people bears mentioning as a separate point. I'll add something to that effect to the draft.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The point I made was that omitting J. K. Rowling misgendering transgender people, in a section titled "Views [of J. K. Rowling] on transgender people", would appear dishonest. This is my honest concern. I did not call Victoria dishonest, I don't think that they are, I don't think being frank is low rhetoric. WikiFouf (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, nobody here has any trouble at all understanding your point. For future reference: you can also say things less dramatically.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles strive to reflect the highest quality sources and avoid recentism and news-style blow-by-blow reporting. That's what Victoria-- an experienced FA writer-- is striving for, so let's aim for constructive criticism and concrete draft proposals rather than wording that can be easily misunderstood on the internet. I see no consensus on this page for bringing in blow-by-blow news-style unencyclopedic recent newsy issues; text that will endure is the goal. Thank you Victoria; your first draft work is appreciated! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".
 * This whole bit is backed only by breaking news sources, I don't see anyone here asking for its removal.
 * As for recentism, "writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view", it isn't a blanket ban on anything recent. As far as I know, we have to actually talk about it, case by case. On my end, I have repeatedly explained why I believe her misgendering of trans women is important. If you believe it to be unimportant, please explain why. WikiFouf (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WikiFouf, I'm fairly certain I already explained that on this page, but I understand if it was lost in the volume, so please pardon my repetition. During the FAR, several editors read all the scholarly sources.  We strove to cover that which was covered by scholarly or the highest quality sources, and give that material its due weight, although there were some places where the FAR was constrained by the result of a poorly conceived but well attended RFC, and we were stuck with some bits.  And we all acknowledged then that those bits would need to be rewritten as better sources become available. Because some of the scholarly sources aren't freely accessible, at times we also substituted in a high quality news source when the material we were citing was also due weight according to scholarly or high quality sources.  I hope that, along with Victoria's response, answers the question.  Perhaps you will read all five archives of the FAR to understand how the collaborative editing process worked towards consensus in a collegial environment that developed once people understood it was an iterative process. Have you accessed and read all the scholarly sources ?  I believe your other concerns are being addressed in the second draft below, which is headed now in the right direction, but we need to make sure our content conforms closely to the sources. You can see below concrete suggestions for text changes and improvements.  Robert F. Kennedy was Rowling's hero and role model; do you think her giving back the award is misplaced in the article?  Do you want GLAAD removed? Then say so in the next draft with concrete suggestions and see if you can find consensus.  The Willoughly issue has been on the page for days and has not found consensus; there is a better way to write encyclopedic content than RECENTISM, and much content can still be expanded at the sub-article, Political views of J. K. Rowling, keeping this article conforming with summary style for a broad overview article of a very large topic.  Have you been able to do some expansion over there? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Not SandyGeorgia, but as the author of the draft & the person who read the sources the section you quote After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate", is all covered in the three or four 2024 sources I read. The Kennedy Award is covered; Daniel Radcliffe's comments are covered (leading actor); GLAAD is mentioned. I don't have the sources all open at the moment, but we can swap out the sources just as the sources for the other section you mentioned can be swapped. Personally I'd prefer to swap them as long as people okay with using far fewer sources. It's fine to put these things up for discussion in a collaberative and collegial manner. As for misgendering, I believe that's been added in the subsequent draft, so we can move on to that discussion and point out deficiencies there. Victoria (tk) 03:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I sorta/kinda prefer leaving in freely accessible sources at times, for the benefit of readers, but that's not at all a sticking point for me. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe a bit of both would work? There are some sources I'd marked for removal, so let's add it to the list of things to do for the next draft & see where we end up. Victoria (tk) 17:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I took the actors out of the notes, and actioned some other of 's comments - will elaborate later. Am going blind again. Victoria (tk) 21:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of second draft
the template that we used during the FAR for viewing drafts side-by-side is at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5; it makes it much easier to compare where we are versus what is being proposed. (Also, word count matters :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I get 466 words, compared to the 429 that were in the article before the edit warring, newsy edits started last month. I suspect 466 words can be justified as due weight relative to the new scholarly sources, and WP:SIZE would still be reasonable, but it would be good to hear from others on the size relative to her overall bio and work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions (it would be much easier to see the original and the proposed side-by-side):
 * 1) The original Duggan wording (her views on sex and gender have provoked controversy) was changed to "Rowling has controversial views on sex and gender." That's a significant difference: What does the source say?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Words can be trimmed and the issue above can be addressed by switching:
 * 3) * Rowling has controversial views on sex and gender.[1] Rowling's statements[1][2][3] have been called transphobic,[4][5] and she has been called a TERF ("trans-exclusionary radical feminist").[5][6][7] Her statements have shocked her fans,[8] divided feminists,[9][10][11] fuelled debates on freedom of speech[12][13] and cancel culture,[14] and ...
 * to ... (controversy is implied by rest of context)
 * 1) ** Rowling's stance on sex and gender[1][2][3] has been called transphobic[4][5] and she has been called a TERF ("trans-exclusionary radical feminist").[5][6][7] Her statements have shocked her fans,[8] divided feminists,[9][10][11] fuelled debates on freedom of speech[12][13] and cancel culture,[14] and ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Is it possible to reduce overquoting here, without losing the thought?  "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal and, in a few cases, flippant about gender identity." We should strive as much as possible to keep Featured articles in our own words (not always possible, and I'm terrible at it, but others might have ideas).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Rejig this to avoid tweet ... tweeted redundancy in the same sentence: "In another tweet in June 2020,[8] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][19]" Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Potter scholar Tolanda Henderson, self-described as "gender-queer...non-binary transgender", ... not necessary. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) New paragraph, so ... She rejected these characterisations -->  Rowling rejected these characterisations ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) (redundant) writes the June 2020 tweet revealed Rowling's Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) Serial commas were decided against in the FAR ... and denies being transphobic,[40][4] in an essay she posted to her website on June 10, 2020,[40] where she stated that her views ... can be adjusted in next draft. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) Vague "literary scholars" ... one source is cited, so is it Whited suggesting this, or is Whited citing others ?  "Literary scholars suggest that French literary ... " Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 9) The source says: Rowling commented: “I’ll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex.”  Our text says: "Rowling has said she would rather go to jail than use a trans woman's preferred pronouns.")  This needs work to better conform source-to-text integrity; if not possible, this might be an area where we might resort to a direct quote. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * these changes are fine, with a couple of caveats:
 * The "fanned the flames" quote can maybe be trimmed and should be attributed. I understand re overquoting but in this case a Rowling scholar is making the statement, which in my view holds some weight. If you or others disagree, maybe we can just delete that sentence
 * Tolanda Henderson's voice, in my view, is important, not only because they are a talented young scholar but because they are transgender, yet immersed in Rowling's work. That should somehow be signaled.
 * "literary scholars" >> Barthes is mentioned in Whited's "Introduction" and also in her volume by the author of "Accio, Jo" (the one who did the survey of fan fiction); in Henderson's "A Coda", published in Cecilia Konchar Farr's Open at the Close: Literary Essays on Harry Potter", and in Konchar Farr's "Introduction" to that volume. Of the four essays I read it was mentioned four times. We can cite all four if needed. Or none. Or something.
 * I didn't add the quote from the Independent, so leaving that for now.
 * I'm scheduled for a brain scan tomorrow, so don't know when I can get back to all of this. If I'm not back tomorrow, they're easy fixes that anyone else can do. Victoria (tk) 02:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope your brain comes out pretty :). My sutures come out Tuesday; maybe there will be a third draft up, consolidating all commentary, by Wednesday (too much typing for me until the hand works). On The Independent bit, I think the intent is heading the right direction (generalize), but she said something different. Hope you have good news in a few days! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a headache for two years or more but something about Rowling seems to spark them. It happened during the FAR too. I'm sure all is well, but the dr doesn't want to hear about the Wikipedia/Rowling/dense mark-up in the edit window excuses :) I will be back when possible. Good luck with the sutures. Victoria (tk) 02:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, that's reminded me why I don't touch featured articles. FA is its own subculture where everything I'd do elsewhere is always against some convention or guideline.  Personally I prefer considering the new draft as a piece of writing in its own right rather than in comparison to a previous text, but going forward I will use the format.On the substance, I fully agree with both of you except:On point 1, I would defend my revision of the first sentence.  Its purpose is to say what the issue is in simple terms and introduce the rest of the paragraph.  It ought to be a simple declarative sentence in the active voice.  The source is writing for scholars; but we're writing for curious, uninformed teenagers whose first language might not be English.On point 8, definitely don't string that many semicolons together.  We're not writing eighteenth century literary fiction.  If some authority has mandated "no serial commas there" then I'd tend to contest its reasoning.On point 10, I'm not summarizing Rowling's tweet.  I'm summarizing the article about Rowling's tweet.  We need a sentence about misgendering transwomen (nb: Rowling doesn't detectably do it to transmen).I'm happy to redraft if nobody else gets to it first!—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On point 1, we can avoid asserting something as fact in WikiVoice (which might not be supported by the source) by just rephrasing the whole construct as in point 2.On point 8, I'm not fussed about serial commas, but as we move towards a final draft, just something to keep in mind. Rephrasing usually resolves too many clauses. On point 10, we have a neutraility issue, since we're not reflecting what she actually said, or apparently thinks, if we take the context of her earlier statements together with that one quoted.  What she seems to have said, in context, has been lost by some of the earlier deletions of content, which is why it's helpful to see side-by-side the last FA version (before the non-consensual changes started).  The context of the quote in point 10 is about being "compelled" (by changes in law) to deny the reality of sex (wording she used earlier).  This context of the change in laws was deleted by the non-consensual changes in the article, and by the time we reach point 10, we've now lost all context ... continued in response to Andrew below ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The second draft does not seem neutral because it is one-sided – it presents criticism of the subject's views but fails to balance this with prominent support such as U.K. Prime Minister Backs J.K. Rowling....  The last word is not given to a VIP like Sunak but instead to some quotes by Henderson.  But who is Henderson?  The reader has look back to find that this is Tolonda Henderson who is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article.  Their quoted views seem to be given undue weight because they are just cited to their own work rather than third parties. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think Victoriaearle's draft is right to give the last word to an academic study by an accredited Rowling scholar, rather than to a transparently politically motivated off the cuff remark by our unelected and totally-unqualified-in-sociology Prime Minister. In fact I see Victoriaearle's draft as excellent, needing only reordering and a few tweaks.—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall: No prime ministers in the United Kingdom have been elected as such; being at all qualified in sociology is not a required qualification for the post. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for grasping my point.—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Accredited Rowling scholar? The draft gets the name wrong but they seem to be this person.  They are still working on their PhD but have several masters degrees in a variety of fields such as religious studies.  None of their theses seems to be about or related to Rowling and they declare that they are "no longer a Harry Potter scholar". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the text says Harry Potter scholar. The metric in literature is whether someone gets publishing and Henderson is being published very very early in their career. Whited cites them in the "Introduction" to her volume, so we can use her quote of Henderson's quote or just quote from Henderson. Fwiw, very view literary scholars have Wikipedia pages - not vastly published scholars such as Michael Reynolds who I use for Hemingway pages, so that's not a great metric. In my view Henderson's voice is valuable, so if consensus is needed to do so that process should begin before the next draft goes up. Victoria (tk) 17:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Andrew gives another example of why we should see the last consensus version side-by-side.  The context of the criticism (changes in the law) and support has been lost in the rapid-fire, non-consensual editing that begin in March.  The last good version I can find before all these changes is here; the context of changes in law, and the fact that Rowling's views also have support in some sectors got dropped and those were not cuts that gained consensus, rather that stuck because others didn't edit war them back in.  I suggest in Draft 3 putting that version side-by-side with the new proposal for discussion purposes.   I don't pay much attention to "who gets the last word"; prose flow is more relevant.  But I do agree that we've lost some neutrality that was reflected in earlier versions, and points 1/2 and 10 need particular work to more closely reflect sources and context.  It might help to keep in mind that this page has many watchers who remain silent while we are drafting and until we get closer to a consensual draft; when we do, if the text is non-neutral, watchers do speak up, and it won't gain support for insertion, so working collaboratively towards compromise is key.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like better clarity on the "Literary scholars" line and otherwise think this constitutes a significant improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have some issues with the way this new version seems to present Rowling's perspective nand Whited's quote on the subject. This seems to set up an idea that the disagreement with Rowling is the views that she is at times flippant, rather than presenting the description set out by Whited (or something like that) as a relatively NPOV descriptor, while also noting what the actual criticism of Rowling that has been presented is. At present, this draft somewhat increases the existing issue that this section seems to be rather from Rowling's POV, more than neutral -- missing out that she's posting personal attacks on trans people seems somewhat crucial. (On a more minor point: I feel like the sentence talking about Forsttaer would do better by being phrased as "In December 2019, Rowling commented [on Maya who had...]" would frame things more accurately than starting a sentence with "When Maya's employment contract was not renewed, Rowling Responded", because the currently suggested phrasing implied Rowling's comments were a response to Forstater's contract not being renewed (Feb 2019) as opposed to responding to the outcome of the employment tribunal (December 2019). WorthPoke2 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree re Forstater, we need to explain that Forstater was let go for misgendering. That's in one of the sources I used. The "flippant phrase" will be cut for the next iteration. Thanks for posting these remarks - very helpful. Victoria (tk) 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

First sentence
My position is that the version to the right is the better opening sentence. It's a topic sentence. It's a simple declarative sentence. It simply and accurately summarizes the paragraph that follows. And I don't see how anyone who's read the sources could possibly dispute it? A reasonable alternative could be "Rowling's views on sex and gender are controversial".—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick comment and fwiw, my sandbox shows the first sentence as "Rowling's views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy", which is nice & declarative. It does look as though the gender recognition laws got cut b/c of word count, but it should probably go back in. It it mentioned on the sources. But I agree w/ S Marshall that it should start with a good declarative general topic sentence. Victoria (tk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's declarative but personally I might tend to prefer the active voice for a topic sentence? On the gender recognition laws—yes, you're right.  How about two sentences?  "Rowling has controversial views on sex and gender.  She uses X and her blog to share her thoughts about them, where she has been particularly outspoken about changes to gender recognition laws."—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it might be worth going back to the drawing board - reread the sources, take more notes, then try again with the first sentence. There are some good suggestions landing on this page. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Duggan source is attached to this sentence, but it's not very clear to me how "controversial" is all we're getting from that source for this opening sentence (MOS:CONTROVERSIAL), especially when this 2021 peer-reviewed article unequivocally states "Rowling’s personal, conservative views on sex and gender have recently been made abundantly clear through her repeated and escalating anti-trans commentary".
 * If NPOV is the concern for not using "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" as a descriptor for the years of continuous activism that the paragraphs that follow describe (despite the Duggan source using the term), we should at least consider gender-critical (which has been used by high quality news sources and herself to describe her views). Umdlye (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's useful. I made a mental note to reread Duggan and to make notes. Whited does use gender-critical, so that can easily be slipped in. Victoria (tk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reiterating my thanks to for checking the source for this. The words "controversy/contreversial" are not used in Duggan & the commentary (as frankly it is also to some extent in other critics) is framed in regards to the Rowling/Harry Potter fandom. The most relevant sentence is the one Umdlye mentions above Rowling’s personal, conservative views on sex and gender have recently been made abundantly clear through her repeated and escalating anti-trans commentary which only goes to 2020. So, yes, I think we should rethink how to start. Victoria (tk) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Second try

Easy enough. :)—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we should have more sources but I also think that this is the best starting sentence proposed so far, and it's not close. Loki (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not working for me, as I explained in the third draft section. Removes context, and we already work in gender critical later in the text. Restore context first-- Rowling's statements refer to changes in laws. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Sandy, I'm stuck on this. Could you be more specific, please?   Is your position:
 * 1) That Rowling isn't a feminist?
 * 2) That she isn't gender-critical?
 * 3) That she's gender-critical and feminist, but not a gender-critical feminist?
 * 4) That she's a gender-critical feminist but we shouldn't just come out and say it?
 * 5) That she's a gender-critical feminist and it's okay to say so if we add more context?
 * Thanks.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Misgendering

 * Context: A newspaper writes a speculative article about how a future Labour government could make misgendering into an aggravated offence, carrying a maximum sentence of two years at His Majesty's pleasure.
 * Rowling tweet: I'll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex.
 * A different newspaper covers the tweet, using the headline: JK Rowling claims she would ‘happily’ spend two years in prison for misgendering a trans person.
 * Proposed sentence about this: Rowling has said she would rather go to jail than use a trans woman's preferred pronouns.

What's the NPOV issue here?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not what she said, although it's what a (clickbait?) newspaper headline claimed. And context is missing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me. It's accurate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the sentence is prefaced with "Rowling has said" (as it is), it is false as written: she did not say that. She said “I’ll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex.” It would be true if attributed, for example,   (It's still not what she said, and may not even be what she meant or believes, but we can't know, so attribute this as The Independent interpretation of her actual words, which were much more qualified than implied in the news report --  and that's why we have to take care with news reports.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of NPOV; it's a matter of accuracy. WP:QUOTEUSE recommends that "Editors of controversial subjects should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas."  So, it's best to quote such tweets verbatim rather than paraphrasing them. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just read the Independent article. The tweet itself is quite long & there isn't much context if only the tweet is quoted. Suggest we find something better. Victoria (tk) 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm a big fan of writing everything in WP:OUROWNWORDS. I think that we have to mean what the sources mean, but we don't have to say what the sources say.The sources are writing for their audiences—often scholars, with the best sources—but we're writing for our audience which is the general public.  A decent Wikipedia article manages down its Flesch-Kincaid score.  We ought to write clearly, using topic sentences, and preferring short words and simple indicative or declarative constructions.  Let's not feel constrained to crib sources' wording.  Our job is to summarize the source, not repeat it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, there's a nuance. The phrasing makes it sound as if she would rather be jailed than use any trans woman's pronouns. Her tweet doesn't say anything about "any". Not to be the broken record but we have a much clearer, more widely covered and more meaningful quote to include: she tweeted a list of trans women and wrote that they were "men, every single last one of them". You can't get more concise than that —WikiFouf (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to developing that idea instead ... at least it reflects exactly what she said. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  08:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Rephrase #1

I know, it's bloating again.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This doesn't provide context, and is still not what she said. The context, repeatedly, has been about changes in laws.  That context was in the previous versions and should be restored, and we have to take great care to not put words in her mouth she hasn't said.  It's possible to use preferred personal pronouns in one's daily personal interaction and not be opposed to doing so, yet still be opposed to laws that criminalize language.  In the olden days, it was referred to as "freedom of speech". Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We have to explain why the trans community and allies are annoyed with Rowling. We can't do that fairly and accurately unless we discuss her refusal to stop misgendering people. We shouldn't give her tweet in full with all its weaselly self-justification because we only have 475 words. We have to reduce it to a hard-boiled nugget of telling it like it is.Hate speech isn't protected speech, and rightly so. Your freedom of speech doesn't extend to racism, sexism or homophobia. Whether it should extend to transphobia is a live debate and I can see both sides of that, but if your position is that Rowling's fundamentalism about it should be protected speech, then I respectfully join issue with you.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "freedom of speech" is a red herring here because the facts are pretty clear that Rowling regularly does say transphobic things, including misgendering specific people, on Twitter and that's a big part of why people are annoyed at her. It doesn't matter if she is legally right that she can't be punished for it. That is not the notable part of her statement. Loki (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * From the sources it seems that she's reacting to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and saying she'll misgender whomever she wants. Is this a correct reading? If so, then we have a scholarly source for the first part (Whited) and would need one for the second. Victoria (tk) 20:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it's more general than the Gender Reform Bill? The Independent article is about Rowling's reaction to the Gender Reform Bill, but it says at paragraph 8: Harry Potter author Rowling has frequently argued online that trans women are not women and last week vowed to continue “calling a man a man” despite what she called the “ludicrous law”.  This is accurate: she has frequently argued this online in several different contexts.  In fact Rowling's gender-critical tweets go back before the Bill was passed.  (It passed in 2021, but the law wasn't enforced until 2024 to allow time for enforcement training.  Rowling's gender-critical behaviour goes back to December 2019, although at that time she was speaking much more mildly and hesitantly than she does now.)—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that it's not new but because there are proposed sanctions my sense from across the pond is that it's escalating. Can we write something like, Rowling continues to oppose gender self-designation,(cited to Whited p. 7) and last week vowed to continue “calling a man a man” despite what she called the “ludicrous law”. (Independent) Basically the post about people who menstruate says it all, but I'm getting the sense it has to be spelled out? Maybe? I thought the Henderson quote that it invalidate "People like me" spelled it out, but maybe not? Word count is always a problem ... Victoria (tk) 23:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of third draft
I've actioned many of the comments made on this page and encorporated into the next draft. There are still issues to be worked out & the text is growing, but this keeps it moving. Victoria (tk) 23:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) P.s if anyone is interested, my work can be seen here. Victoria (tk) 23:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this draft is a lot better than past drafts as far as WP:NPOV and covering recent sources goes, but a lot of the wording is awkward. I'd rather split up some of the longer sentences here. Loki (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Hate Crimes para doesn't belong in the current; it is not a consensual change, and we should be comparing to where we started before all those changes..
 * I'm thrilled that you pushed forward, but the word count is simply too high in relation to the overall size and weight of sources on her entire life and work. I agree with Loki on splitting some sentences, but first trimming will be needed.
 * The context (changes of laws) has been eliminated, and stating Duggan's opinion as fact, before explaining the context and evolution of statements, could be leading the reader. We repeat gender-critical later, so that leading sentence isn't needed. Get the context first (changes in laws), then in to opinions of the scholars whose focus is on gender issues.
 * I'm not sure we should use our precious word count on a laundry list of he said-she said, which was previously rejected; dropping that entire sentence will help contain the bloat.
 * Pending still is to work out the sentence that she did NOT say; how about if we delete that sentence entirely, and the "lived reality" tweet in favor of the more recent tweet suggested by Wikifouf at ? We might use the Hate Crimes para in some form to incorporate that tweet, which I agree with Wikifouf is a better way of summing up her most recent stance.
 * How about if we trim some of her older statements like the "lure of womanhood" bit ?
 * Overall, tightening is needed to this version, as well as getting back the context and keeping under 475 words. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  08:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: point 3: when "gender-critical" is repeated in the first paragraph it is in the context of Forstater's views, not Rowling's.
 * The draft writer was aiming for a simple declarative sentence to open the section. If we're considering the Duggan source not enough context for this declaration, shouldn't we be aiming to back it up more instead of returning to vagueness? I would like to stress that "gender-critical" in the context of the Duggan article is already nuancing the language used there, and it is a term Rowling has used to describe her own views. Umdlye (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, agree with your comments. Victoria (tk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that the reference in this draft to Forstater misgendering a colleague is incorrect. I am unable to see the source quoted, so unsure where this comes from, but a reading of the court documents  would show this was not the case as confirmed in this interview with her solicitor. Daff22 (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wondered about that. It's gone now. Victoria (tk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I like the first sentence less in version three than in version two but it is, in general, very good. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We're now at version 3.1. I've commented out a few things here & will clean up later. It's easier for me to action quickly before comments get lost on talk. I went with the first sentence until we get consensus on it (speaking for myself, I like it), but, yeah, maybe the change in laws should be put back in. It's not in Duggan. I also went with misgendering as it was until we get a better source & agree on wording. Sandy which sentence/section are you referring to re "he said, she said"? Victoria (tk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The bit about which actors support her or not ... we went over that several times during the FAR and decided it wasn't a good use of word count. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean it certainly presents a pretty clear picture of an age-divide with regard to reactions to her antics; and I think it's also relevant that the three actors who were the central stars of the movie adaptation of her books all distanced themselves from her. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we need to reconsider the decision made during the FAR. In my view it's important to have at least Radcliffe mentioned b/c his comments made to The Trevor Project are covered in sources, and probably we should have Watson too. We could maybe slit the difference, mention some, shove others into a note. I hadn't considered Simonm223's point, but that's valid too. I'll add to unresolved issues. Victoria (tk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the responses of Radcliffe, Watson and Grint are particularly relevant because of their prior position as something of mentees of Rowling's. However including that some of the older Potter actors supported Rowling would allow for some balance and neutrality rather than making it look like all the actors distanced themselves. So basically I'd strongly defend keeping in mention of the younger stars and would support mention of the older actors in the spirit of balance but don't see them as being as critical from a WP:DUE perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. When I was thinking about this, it seemed to me that having Harry, Hermione and Bellatrix agreeing is something. So if anything, I'd want to see Helena Bonham Carter, but the list as is seems ok. Let's see what others say. Victoria (tk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223 @Victoriaearle I would maybe suggest using the framing used by Sutherland Borah in Ivory Tower, who writes: "The films’ millennial-age stars—Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Bonnie Wright, Katie Leung, and Eddie Redmayne—expressed their support for the trans community." Mentions the three most relevant actors of HP (+ main actor of FB) without implying a consensus from the cast against Rowling's rhetoric, because it singles out the millennials. WikiFouf (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thanks so much. Do you have a page number off hand? If not I'll access it a bit later. Victoria (tk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! Simonm223 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * p. 375 WikiFouf (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to rain on the parade, but I'm not at all satisfied with Draft 3, but don't have time to weigh in for a few more days. If I had time, I'd put up a Draft 4, but can't get to it just yet ... please remember that we need to come up with something that a broader audience will approve when we get to a point of putting it forward via something final, and I don't think we're headed that way just yet.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I just put up the final one I'll work on. I wanted to do something with the reading I'd done, so jumped in while I could. We do need to work in the UK gender recognition laws (which needs linking), the misgendering needs to be sorted, and I'm not crazy about the stucture, but I'm a big believer in working the content until it's right. If it's going in the wrong direction, then we've discovered what we don't what. So it's all good. Victoria (tk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We're now at version 3.2, which has only small changes in response to today's comments. I've tweaked the first sentence a bit. Victoria (tk) 02:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I very strongly prefer "Rowling is a gender-critical feminist" to "Rowling has controversial views on sex and gender". The second version does not give any relevant information about what her views actually are, and also violates MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Loki (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, starting with something about what her actions are (or at the very least, why they're controversial) is more encyclopedic than just saying "her views are controversial". &#45;sche (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree, "gender-critical feminist" is one of various labels that have been used to characterize her views and singling it out wouldn't be NPOV. I think we should write something along the lines of "Her views have been associated with transphobia and gender-critical feminism" WikiFouf (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm treading carefully here because my personal opinion of what to call Rowling would probably violate BLP standards; which is why I've mostly left this distinction alone. But I think we may be over-thinking this a bit. I guess where I'd start would be an examination of how Wikipedia frames the TERF occupation of the term. And the answer is that Wikipedia frames the TERF occupation of the term quite well. As such I'd weakly support "gender-critical feminist," notwithstanding my personal misgivings regarding the incompatibility of gender-essentialism with feminism, provided the designation has a wikilink on it to the associated Wikipedia article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The various responses ("sparked controversy, shocked her fans ..."): were they to her comments generally or her support of Forstater in 2019 specifically? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good question. First of all, I put that in as placeholder and changed from from this version because in my view we have to be careful re what goes in Wiki voice & at this point it's best for someone else to come up with the next draft. As to your question: recent scholarly sources say her support of Forstater shocked/alienated and to muddy waters even more, framed in terms of fans vs broader population. Victoria (tk) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The third draft concentrates on how Rowling's views have been received in the Harry Potter community and by diversity activists. But it says nothing at all about how this is playing in the wider world of mainstream UK politics.  This is proving quite significant as the latest development is that the SNP leader now faces a vote of no confidence in which Ash Regan holds the balance of power.  And Regan is very much an ally of Rowling.  See JK Rowling may have the last laugh...
 * This follows prominent statements of support for Rowling by both Conservative and Labour representatives – U.K. Prime Minister Backs J.K. Rowling..., Labour’s shadow justice secretary ‘agrees’ with JK Rowling’s ‘gender-critical’ views. It appears that Rowling is getting support across the political spectrum and so is quite influential.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 06:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure we can assume that's because "Rowling is influential" rather than just because both transgender rights supporters and gender criticals span the political spectrum, despite what the culture warriors would have us believe. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Potter scholar Tolanda Henderson writes the June 2020 post revealed Rowling's "stance that invalidates nonbinary people like me" garden-pathed me the first few times I read it, how about Potter scholar Tolanda Henderson wrote that Rowling's June 2020 post revealed a "stance that invalidates nonbinary people like me". Also I don't think there's any need for the information about Forstater to be cleft in two by the "would rather go to jail" thing. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussion seems to have petered out now. Can we confirm that 3.2 is how we want to go? I still don't love it using wiki voice to call Rowling any kind of feminist but, as I was saying before, I'll accept it as long as it wiki-links to Gender critical feminist Simonm223 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We could probably do some more work on it. I don't think that it's perfect yet, though it's definitely a large improvement. Loki (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It needs more work in my view. I'm tied with some spring projects & can't get back here immediately but I've been letting it percolate. I'm thinking it's gone too far in the direction of what others think of Rowling rather than focusing on what Rowling believes. Ideally, since this is her bio & a BLP, the latter should come first. When my time frees up, I can take another crack at it, but in the meantime more than happy if someone else gives it a try. Victoria (tk) 02:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Fourth draft
Sincere apologies for the delay in posting this. I've re-ordered the ideas as well as cutting and rewriting.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of fourth draft
I think we need to look carefully at what the sources are saying. For example, Steinfeld says J.K Rowling has been labeled a TERF (2nd para)(as opposed to saying she is); Schwirblatt says that one side of the Twitter community labeled her a TERF in reaction to her #IStandWithMaya tweet (p. 368); Whited says "Rowling’s manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)", (p.7). This is the reason I kept changing the first sentence; sometimes in response to comments here, sometimes in response to sources. Bottom line is that we have to be careful what we put in Wiki voice. That's why hedging is good, though it does result in tortured prose. But that's often characteristic of writing here. Victoria (tk) 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would we prefer "Rowling's views are gender-critical"? I'm looking for a simple declarative sentence without vagueness, evasion, or waffle of any kind.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support that if we feel like we need to for sourcing purposes, though I would say that we can use sources that phrase it like that to source "is a gender-critical feminist" in most cases. Depends some on the particular source, though. Loki (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable fallback. I can't imagine a good faith Wikipedian reading the sources and then denying that she's gender-critical.  I'd prefer gender-critical feminist because our page on gender-critical feminism so clearly captures what Rowling says.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A couple of thoughts. First, we have to hew to the sources. If references exist for the sentence as written, then we should just swap out sources rather than use the ones that don't exactly support it. Another idea would be to use a three-pronged thesis, something along the lines of "Rowling's views about sex and gender have alienated fans, affected her reputation and [fill in the blank]". I suspect something like that would be easier to source.While I'm here a couple of other nitpicks: there's no source for the sentence "She has tweeted a list of transwomen, writing that they are "men, every last one of them". Right now it's cited to Pape but that article is about Ratcliffe if my memory is correct. Also, "principal film stars connected with her work, have condemned her remarks" is in the 2nd para & again in the 3rd. One mentioned should be deleted.The structure is looking much much better! Victoria (tk) 22:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the duplication of principal film stars is one of my nitpicks, and I have a suggestion for how to fix it. If we're on the right track overall, maybe rather than add a list, I could just put up the next draft fixing these nitpicks? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: the inclusion of: 'She has tweeted a list of transwomen, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".':
 * I think it's right that this incident is included because it's notable and there's not much point discussing her views on transgender people if we entirely omit what she's saying to and about transgender people.
 * We should, however, be saying "trans women" rather than "transwomen". A point of note is that "transwoman" is deliberately used as a dog whistle by people who deny trans people are of the gender with which they identify; per MOS:GIDINFO, we should use people's gender identity affirmatively. Using "transwomen" as a separate noun differentiates them from other, cisgender women. By contrast, "trans woman" is labelling someone as a woman who happens to be trans.
 * As mentioned, we also need to provide references for this sentence. Here are some first options to consider:


 * I do think it's important to provide context as to why she did make this thread: the perceived possibility that misgendering trans people might become illegal in Scotland under the new act. Although the threshold for criminality is a lot higher than a lot of people seem/seemed to believe, as discussed in the Washington Post article above and by Humza Yousaf who himself said he wasn't surprised her comments weren't criminal, she made this thread to be the one to take up the challenge over the chance such comments were now criminal. 13tez (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * agree on your comments, but I am not finding the specific quote about "men, every last one of them" in the sources above ... which one has it ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah ha ... found in The Guardian (my first preference for sourcing is usually AP or Reuters, but The Guardian works). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that alernate (16:36, 1 May) as well. Victoria's three-pronged idea works, too; I still dislike the declartive sentence in WikiVoice.  And we don't know how she "feels"; we know what she has stated.  Overall, I think this draft is headed the right direction.  I've got my usual list of nitpicks that I'll put up if others agree that this draft is the way to go overall.  I also want to point out that this kind of structured process works!!!  If we get it close enough on the next version to call it final, we can ping the world for approval before installing, and then move on to using the same process to re-do the lead.  Holding off on my list of nitpicks until others indicate this is close.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With a reminder that this is where we started (some elements are still missing). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of fifth draft
I think the fourth draft is a great improvement. In Draft 5, I tried to address the following (which I consider minor):

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Address the uncited statement "every last one of them" sentence.
 * 2) Address the lead declarative sentence.
 * 3) Work back in some of the laws so readers (particularly those not from the UK) are given some idea what these laws are.
 * 4) Fix duplicate on supporting actors.
 * 5) Threats to her safety which was deleted is supported by Whited
 * 6) Transwomen to trans women
 * 7) Address the word feels
 * 8) The broader introduction to this section in the article already addresses that she often/frequently uses twitter, so some redundancy there.
 * 9) Fix all the citation formatting to agree with the article style.


 * PS, this statement needs a more concrete time frame: "although sales of Harry Potter books grew by 28% after she made them" ... I haven't had a chance to check Pape, but we should specify change from x year to y or something. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the source that Pape cites:
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm going to bang on about starting each paragraph with a simple declarative topic sentence again. I think encyclopaedia writers are educators, and I feel it's important to write in an educational way.  Introduce each idea before we explain it.
 * 1) The new draft's first paragraph begins with a compound sentence, which means a sentence with sub-clauses.  Let's preface it with: "Rowling's views are gender-critical."
 * 2) The second paragraph begins with a compound sentence.  We can fix that by changing "Controversy over Rowling's gender-critical messaging started in 2017, and became more fraught in 2019..." to "Controversy over Rowling's gender-critical messaging started in 2017. It became more fraught in 2019..."
 * Done. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The third and fourth paragraphs start well.
 * I know I've said this several times, and I'm sorry to keep badgering on about it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect some editors' desire for starting paragraphs with topic sentences, but I've seen it cause problems at other articles, where it led to accusations of OR. If my suggested first sentence is too complex, I'm confident better writers than I (which is almost everyone :) can fix that without using a declarative sentence that has other problems (for example, as in the fixes in your suggestion #2, which works).   You're not badgering about it; I hear you, but disagree that the way one writes an essay is always the best way to write an encyclopedia.  If those are your only two issues with Draft 5, we are making progress !!! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, with the change suggested by 13tez, the first sentence no longer seems overly complex. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about what these "other problems" are? Rowling's views are, very clearly and obviously, gender-critical.  I'm concerned that it could come across as POV if we're evasive or obfuscatory about this.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 15:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why label her in WikiVoice when the succeeding paragraphs make it possible for the reader decide ? Always write in a way that let's the reader decide ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, in fact, that's quite why I like your rewrite in Draft 4 -- it sticks to saying what she said to let the reader decide. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because we're an encyclopaedia, so we have to write concise summary of our topic. I thought we'd agreed on "Rowling's views are gender-critical".—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, per discussed here, where I continue my concern about the missing context (changes to and proposed laws). Her comments have consistently opposed changes to laws. I made this adjustment to hew more closely to discussion above. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I only tonight realized that the fourth draft had taken the prior sources about "labeling her as a TERF", and used them for the declarative that she is gender-critical; we can't do that (and this is a BLP). All sources say "some labeled her" as a TERF.  The first sentence will need work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think Always write in a way that let's the reader decide is true, and in fact I think that's specifically bad advice a lot of the time. We don't "let the reader decide" whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK or not, we just say that he did.
 * Similarly, we should not do a lot of hedging about whether Rowling is a gender-critical feminist if the sources say she is (and they do). Loki (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See related comments here from Victoriaearle about how we are misapplying labels. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the choices seem to be, accept Sandy's watering-down or go to RFC. I don't mind which.  If we accept Sandy's watered-down version then we should simplify "Rowling has used the internet to express gender-critical views" to "Rowling has expressed gender-critical views".—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said somewhere else on this page, it helps process-wise to focus on the good first, before moving on to the difficult. Are we yet at a place where, besides these few sticking points, we think we're headed in the right direction or where we want to be ?  Spend some time finding where we agree before moving on to sorting disagreements.  Overall, since Draft 4, I'm pleased with the direction, where we are doing more of letting her words speak for themselves, and less of he-said, she-said and lists of supporters and opposers, while also focusing better now on recent scholarly sources, with limited reliance on news sources or recentism. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, trimmed (internet is stated in global introduction to the entire section anyway). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor tweaks
We've got five (5) instances of "expressed". Can we simplify all of them please? Suggest: find/replace "expressed the view that" to "said", "expressed support for" to "supported", and then "expressed that" to "said".—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I changed some others also. Does changing the first expressed to espoused (adopt or support as a cause, belief, or way of life) help address your concern that the first sentence is "watered down"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I still aver that we should open with "Rowling is a gender-critical feminist". My position is that she's so undeniably gender-critical and so undeniably feminist that it's wrong to omit those words.  If we absolutely must shy away from that, then okay, we should go to "Rowling has gender-critical views."  With the full stop immediately after "views" and no tacked-on hedges or qualifications.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We still disagree on the first part (I hoped that espoused would help move us closer towards each other's position), but on the second part, where then would you work in the bit about which laws she opposed? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the overview paragraph that comes first, I would write: Rowling has gender-critical views. She has often shared thoughts on trans people, mostly in the context of proposed legal changes in Scotland that would make it easier to transition. I'd push back the detail about which laws, specifically, to the history paragraph.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By the time I did all that, it was at 485 words (getting too long), so did this. Cuts the first sentence to a simple declarative, but had to make some cuts elsewhere (no meaning lost I hope). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Further queries
what are we citing from page 17 of Whited here ?? that page is the footnotes. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She opposes gender self-recognition,[55] ...
 * Take the Whited citation out, I suggest. Is it strictly necessary to cite that she opposes gender self-recognition?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, I think so, because what she actually opposes is gender self-recognition as it applies to "legal" gender status without additional processes ... again, we have to get the context ... it's not individuals living how they want to live that she has opposed, rather the laws involved. That's why I was hoping to see exact wording from Whited ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She literally puts hashtag #notoselfID on her tweets.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We still need to source that statement. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. According to this BBC article, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill would make anyone over the age of 16 who'd lived in their acquired gender for three months eligible to apply for a gender recognition certificate.  This would remove the requirement for doctor's reports.  At paragraphs 9 and 10, the BBC say:




 * It's my position that this reduces to "Rowling opposes gender self-recognition", although if you want to go to "self-identification" instead (as closer to the source), then I would accept that.
 * As a cross-check that this is a fair characterization of what Rowling really does say, I refer you to her blog post here, which says at paragraph 26:




 * I'd very much prefer it if this could be said without obfuscation or waffle, please.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I, as usual, second the desire to avoid waffling and obfuscation. The issues with this section as it stands are primarily an excess of WP:FALSEBALANCE and overly-complicated wordings that obscure simple facts. Loki (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On saying it simply, is that covered (now) with "proposed legal changes in Scotland that would make it easier to transition"? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it still doesn't say she opposes gender self-recognition anywhere that I can see.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 01:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whited page 7 may work -- there are three moving pieces now, including the UK/Scottish law/legal stuff to fix, including the first declarative sentence, which was still pushing what the sources say -- see Victoriaearle at "Discussion of fourth draft"). We should keep in mind that this is a BLP and hew closely to sources, and avoid stating something as fact in WikiVoice.  I'll work further on the Scotland legal bit and self-identification part tomorrow.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that not wanting to say something as fact in WikiVoice is the main remaining hurdle we have here.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , now that Victoria has also weighed in, I'll move forward with Draft 6. Since all the earlier drafts were yours and Victoria's, I wanted to wait 'til I had heard from both of you before putting up the next, but we're at a point where we need a reboot on the talk page to see what's left! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, it's gotten hard to find what's left to do on this talk page :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this too-closely paraphrased from Duggan 161 ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and has implied that some transgender women are a threat to women and trans-positive messages can be a threat to children.[56]
 * The original reads: "[Rowling] not only suggests that trans individuals are a threat to women and that trans-positive discourses are dangerous to children". I weakened that to "some" transgender women and "can be" a threat to children, which is more consistent with what Rowling says.  I'm certainly content for that to be rephrased in fewer words.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not my strength, so I hope someone will give it a go ... it's a bit too close for comfort. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Some" here feels too weak, especially when combined with "implied": evident in her actual words is a strong and repeated emphasis on the threat of trans women with some hedging sometimes. If we want to keep the word count down I'd just drop "some" and "can be". Otherwise I'd go with and has suggested that children and cis women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages. Loki (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Did that, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations to fix

 * I looked at the Vanity Fair article being used as a reference for "Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic." It's from 2023 and quotes her from a podcast she did rather than the article used as the other reference for this statement. I think the two following articles which touch on her same comments (in the podcast) might be better references than the Vanity Fair article:
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jk-rowling-podcast-trans-harry-potter-comments-hogwarts-b2283266.html
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64729304
 * 13tez (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree; swapped in BBC as it is not paywalled and links endure. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reference currently used to support "Criticism has come from ... Human Rights Campaign." currently has nothing to do with the HRC criticising Rowling. It's talking about Dave Chappelle saying he's "team TERF" and then says "TERF views 'deny the validity of transgender people and transgender identities,' said Sarah McBride, national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign." We can substantiate the HRC criticising Rowling with this article instead.
 * Similarly, Wizarding World isn't even mentioned in the reference used to substantiate "LGBT charity the Wizarding World spoke out against her stance."
 * You'll probably prefer to use this article to substantiate GLAAD's comments rather than the current reference from USA Today. 13tez (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking those, 13tez; it had not occurred to me that our citations could have gotten corrupted in the journey. I will track back on these, if not today, then first thing tomorrow. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Human Rights Campaign: I used Milne, Reuters instead, as it is freely available and NYT is paywalled. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On Wizarding World, that got mangled in Draft 4 (it is not an LGBT charity); I've restored to what is in the article now, which is correct. My apologies for not seeing the error when I copied text from Draft 4 to Draft 5. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On GLAAD, USA Today is as reliable as AP -- why do the work to switch citations, since USA Today does verify the content? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * USA Today is as reliable as AP -- why do the work to switch citations, since USA Today does verify the content?
 * I've seen a widespread aversion to using references from news sources that aren't from the most reputable outlets (NYT, Reuters, AP news, The Guardian, etc) in past discussions and what you said above ("my first preference for sourcing is usually AP or Reuters"). I just thought you might prefer to use the AP article. 13tez (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, then ... will switch it in when next on real computer. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't feel obliged! I just thought it'd be your preference and the preference of others generally. 13tez (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

13tez feedback

 * We should probably change "Scotland's Hate Crime Law enacted in 2024" to "Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act". There are multiple acts that make up Scotland's hate crime legislation, so we should be specific. We could retain the fact that it came into force in 2024, but the article on the act already covers that, and we're trying to summarise here.
 * Should the section's content be in roughly chronological order or have more context as to when she said/did what? For example, her "April fool's thread" was this year and is at the start of the section, but she said "Trans people need and deserve protection" in 2020, and it is at the end of the section. Presently, you could easily be left with the impression that she said the former first and the latter later, even though the opposite is true and her comments have escalated over time. Could it make it easier for the reader to chart the change in her views and speech over time by having the contents of the section ordered chronologically rather than thematically?
 * Should we rephrase 'She has tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".'? My thinking is that the specific quote isn't the biggest issue of her comments in this incident. Imho the bigger issue (when compared to her misgendering them) is that she listed famous trans women alongside sexual offenders who are also trans women in what has been called "an apparent attempt to draw a connection between trans people and sexual perversion". Furthermore, it would enable the use of more of the possible references I listed earlier, which cover the incident without the specific quote, and which you've said before are your preferences for sourcing from news articles. Would it make sense to re-write it without the specific quote, but to summarise what she did to capture its spirit (listing famous trans women alongside trans women who are sexual offenders, mock them, and misgender them)? Should we also mention this was a response to the new act and speculation (albeit unfounded) that misgendering could become a criminal offence?
 * Should we seek a higher-quality independent/secondary sources for the first sentence in the last paragraph ("Rowling rejects these characterisations...")? We're currently citing Vanity Fair and her own statement, which is obviously biased on if she's transphobic, and since we're not using it to reference direct quotes it would probably be better to use somebody else's analysis/summarisation of what she's said (in a reliable source) than to do so ourselves. Similarly, we could use this article to reference the fact that her essay was published on 10 June 2020 rather than the essay itself. 13tez (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Did the first. On the second, I tried to get chrono order in Draft 5, but couldn't make it work.  On the third, suggest that be better explored in the sub-article ?? We're covering it broadly to avoid going too much into recentism/news sources, although it's too new for mention in a scholarly source.  Will work on the fourth; we can do it without using news sources, since Whited 2024 covers her "manifesto", but since this is her bio, her own words should also be cited/linked as primary, backed by the secondary.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * if you could just add URLs on talk, that would help avoid the constant need to add reflist-talk to this page to avoid mucking up subsequent sections. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Worked in secondary sources, added back some Henderson for more secondary analysis, but left the news sources for accessibility, since Whited is paywalled. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is "a background of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws" definitely accurate? My own understanding had been that the issue was largely based on proposed changes to the law in Scotland. I remember reading that Rowling donated to a legal case seeking to overturn the inclusion of trans women in the broader category of women in a (pretty beige) Scottish law (Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018) after it was granted judicial review. I did have the impression that proposed legal changes were chiefly in Scotland since the UK government decided not to change the GRA in September 2020 and there has been a back-and-forth between the UK and Scottish governments over whether Scotland can pass acts of this kind (see Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill). Maybe this is an issue of timing if this was written before the September 2020 decision and while Rowling was voicing opposition to reforms? Certainly since the decision, however, Scotland is the only place gender recognition laws have had proposed or actualised changes. It might be worth mentioning Scotland has its own devolved Parliament which can pass bills on devolved matters, similar to states in the USA.
 * Regarding what's said in the references used, the Reuters reference says "Rowling is unhappy that Scotland plans to relax the law". The Guardian says "she felt compelled to write about after reading of the Scottish government’s latest progress towards changing gender recognition laws." Pedersen says "a new women's cooperative constellation has been established in Scotland around the issue of the Scottish Government's proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act." Suissa says "in 2017, Rowling shared an article critiquing a proposed change to the United Kingdom’s Gender Recognition Act (2004), which was interpreted by some commentators as a change that would allow trans women to access women’s spaces, such as bathrooms". Duggan says "These debates about sex and gender are not abstract. In the UK, they have been triggered partly by proposed legislative change, in the form of changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which would allow individuals to change their legal sex on the basis of self-ID, without meeting any diagnostic or other criteria."
 * From what I can tell, Rowling was, circa 2017-2020, voicing opposition to proposed changes to the (UK-wide) Gender Recognition Act 2004 and that, since the UK government decided not to pursue such changes, she has been voicing opposition to proposed and actualised changes to the law (or even entirely new laws?) from the Scottish Parliament which are inclusive of trans women as women. Do you agree with this assessment, and do you think we should re-write the way this is described? I don't think it's accurate to say her opposition is to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws since, as far as I can tell, it has mostly been to proposed and passed changes to gender recognition laws in Scotland. 13tez (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's accurate and reflected in the sources used; first it was UK Gender Recognition, then on to Scotland Hate Crime. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Rowling has certainly voiced opposition to the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which some incorrectly thought made misgendering trans people a criminal offence, but changes re gender law in Scotland also includes acts like the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which sought to make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender, and the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which includes some trans women (those with gender recognition certificates) in its definition of "woman". We probably need to find some references as to which specific laws, bills, and proposed changes she's spoken out against. Maybe relating to how she called Sturgeon an eraser of women's rights, IIRC. 13tez (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the sources we have now cover it. We are already at 470 words ... an addition of 40 words.  Can this detail be explored at Political views of J. K. Rowling? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's what I was thinking of - Rowling called Sturgeon "destroyer of women's rights" over the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill (which the Scottish Parliament passed but the UK gov later blocked). In that sense, she's voiced opposition to that bill, donated to a legal case trying to overturn trans inclusion in the Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, and tried to directly challenge the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. This is far more opposition than she's ever made to proposed or actualised UK-wide laws: she only opposed possible reforms to the GRA while the consultation was ongoing, and the UK government is pretty much in agreement with her now.
 * Re too many words, I'm not suggesting we explore each of these instances here. I'm suggesting we change "a background of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws" to "a background of proposed changes to Scottish and UK gender recognition laws" since there are many more instances of her being opposed to a proposed change to Scottish law (and I'm sure I could go and dig out even more) than UK law. 13tez (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this: I'm suggesting we change "a background of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws" to "a background of proposed changes to Scottish and UK gender recognition laws" It helps to keep proposals brief and readable :) I will work that in as soon as I get a moment ... things suddenly got complicated around my household! But, since the United Kingdom includes Scotland, why would that not be redundant ? Would you rather we just add to the footnote to include a citation related specifically to Scotland? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Scotland has its own devolved Parliament (separate from the UK Parliament) which can pass bills on devolved matters in a manner similar to states in the USA. In this sense, saying Scottish law separately is like saying the law of a state in the USA separately from the USA's federal law (sort of). Most of her opposition has been to acts and bills in Scotland, since she basically agrees with the current UK government on trans issues. 13tez (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be out the rest of the afternoon. I think we have the UK issue broadly covered in the UK footnote, and regardless if they ended up agreeing, her tweets were intially related to those UK proposed laws.   Could you give me one high quality source that I could use to work in Scotland on gender recognition when I'm home later today? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we cover her opposition to Scottish laws (separately or in detail), only to say that her opposition has been to "Scottish and UK gender recognition laws" rather than to "UK gender recognition laws" because most of her opposition has been to proposed changes to Scottish gender recognition laws rather than UK gender recognition laws.
 * To make it more concrete, the three acts/bills which I mentioned Rowling opposing earlier are acts of the Scottish Parliament. This means they only apply in Scotland, and not the rest of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland). This is the sense in which they are Scottish gender recognition laws rather than UK gender recognition laws. Most of her opposition has been to changes in gender recognition laws proposed or passed by the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, most of her opposition has been to proposed (or implemented) changes in Scottish gender recognition laws. Her only opposition to changes in UK gender recognition laws (I can find) is when she only opposed the UK-wide proposal (dropped in 2020) of reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004. She also opposed changes to Scottish gender recognition laws at that time. Since then, she has only opposed proposed changes to Scottish gender recognition laws because, as far as I can find, there haven't been any more proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws.
 * "her tweets were intially related to those UK proposed laws"
 * Her initial statements were not only related to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws. In her June 2020 essay, she says "On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one." She is referring to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. It's also mentioned in the references currently in use. The Reuters reference says "Rowling is unhappy that Scotland plans to relax the law so that trans people can change their birth certificates without having to provide a medical diagnosis." The Guardian says "she felt compelled to write about after reading of the Scottish government’s latest progress towards changing gender recognition laws." Pedersen says "a new women's cooperative constellation has been established in Scotland around the issue of the Scottish Government's proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act."
 * "Could you give me one high quality source that I could use to work in Scotland on gender recognition when I'm home later today?"
 * Please could you tell me what qualifies as a high-quality source? I've seen the term used in talk pages a lot, but I've never seen anything in WP:P&G that actually defines source quality.
 * You might find these sources helpful:
 * https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o3057
 * https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2608
 * https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2023.2229216
 * 13tez (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm truly at a loss for what you want added and why so much discussion about it. The footnote already mentions the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill that you want added (which as you note is discussed in the Reuters source already given), and since Scotland is part of the UK, I don't know how I can add the words "and Scotland" to that text without it being obviously redundant.  Perhaps someone else is better able to understand what you're asking for, as I'm not seeing it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm truly at a loss for what you want added
 * Thanks for trying to work through it regardless. I'm suggesting we say that her opposition has been to "Scottish and UK gender recognition laws" rather than to "UK gender recognition laws" because most of her opposition has been to proposed changes to Scottish gender recognition laws rather than UK gender recognition laws.
 * Scotland is part of the UK, I don't know how I can add the words "and Scotland" to that text without it being obviously redundant.
 * As discussed, the majority of her opposition to proposed or implemented changes to gender recognition laws has been within Scottish law passed by the Scottish Parliament, not UK-wide law passed by the UK Parliament. Even though Scotland is part of the UK, its devolution allows it to pass its own laws that don't apply to other parts of the UK. It's like how bills passed by the California State Legislature don't apply in any other state, so they're "Californian law" and not "American law", even though California is part of the USA. In the same way, Scots law only applies to Scotland, so it is not UK law. For example, The Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Act 2010 makes it illegal to buy alcohol in supermarkets in Scotland after 10PM, but being part of Scots law, this doesn't apply in any other part of the UK. It wouldn't make sense to call this "UK law" when it only applies in Scotland. I discussed it more above ("To make it more concrete..."). I appreciate this might be hard to understand because Scotland is part of the UK if you're not from the UK yourself, but it's a matter of correctness.
 * Thanks! 13tez (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to understand too, and I'm as British as roast beef. I don't see any equivalency with US state law vs US federal law.  In the US state law is subordinate to federal law.  The UK operates parallel legal systems: the Law of England and Wales, Scots law, and Northern Ireland which is its own thing again.  None are subordinate.  When you cross the Scottish border you enter a different legal world.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to get bogged down in a political science discussion (perhaps we should move to a talk page?), but:
 * None are subordinate.
 * This is not true. There are reserved matters: areas in which only the UK Parliament can legislate and the devolved legislatures cannot.
 * When you cross the Scottish border you enter a different legal world.
 * Again, this isn't really true. Although Acts of the Scottish Parliament now apply to you, UK-wide legislation created by the UK Parliament still does as well. This is why Scotland has seats in the House of Commons. 13tez (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * On the second, I tried to get chrono order in Draft 5, but couldn't make it work.
 * Yeah that's reasonable. Do you think it might be helpful to say when she said/did all this stuff, since it will be ordered thematically?
 * On the third, suggest that be better explored in the sub-article ?? We're covering it broadly to avoid going too much into recentism/news sources, although it's too new for mention in a scholarly source.
 * I'm not suggesting we should give a summary of the type I proposed as well as the quote currently included. I'm suggesting we replace the current text with a summary of the sort I proposed, so long as it's roughly the same length as the current sentence. I think this would give readers a better picture of what she said than what's currently included for the reasons I mentioned before.
 * Will work on the fourth; we can do it without using news sources, since Whited 2024 covers her "manifesto", but since this is her bio, her own words should also be cited/linked as primary, backed by the secondary.
 * I don't see why we shouldn't use news sources, but if you reference it from academia, that's fine. I think it's arbitrary. However, I think we should rely mostly on secondary sources because of WP:BLPPRIMARY and the following from WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." 13tez (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re it might be helpful to say when she said/did all this stuff, yes, absolutely; I know a few people are reluctant to add any extra words, but I think we can afford to include "in 2017", "in 2023", etc so people understand the chronology. &#45;sche (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I've just looked over the draft with an eye to adding dates, and I can't find a place where the dates aren't already included or implied. The first paragraph is an overview, and every other para seems to have dates where they are needed. Could you provide a concrete example where they are missing? It's good to avoid writing that reeks of WP:PROSELINE, which I hope we've done. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasoning to not include dates in an overview section. I was personally thinking of: She has tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them." Even though we will want brevity in an overview, it's worth weighing that up against the benefit of making it more obvious how her rhetoric has changed over time by including the dates of her comments. 13tez (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added date on that one (could you all start a new sub-section when you start a new issue-- following this discussion is getting very hard-- I think I got everything, but it's hard to tell). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Scots Law is certainly included in the phrase "UK law". This article definitely shouldn't try to explain the distinction between Scots Law and the Law of England and Wales, and it shouldn't try to summarize the competence of the respective parliaments. To avoid getting bogged down in that I do prefer "UK law", particularly when no law anywhere in the UK has the effect of doing any of the things at issue!—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still at a loss; I added "Scottish and" to the draft, but I'm fairly certain that is open to criticism for redundancy. Should I now remove it again? This has seemed to be a full page of bogging down on something seems redundant, but maybe that's only me. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should move on and discuss something more productive until a consensus arises because I've explained my reasoning and it's not a point of utmost importance. 13tez (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your thoughts.
 * This article definitely shouldn't try to explain the distinction between Scots Law and the Law of England and Wales, and it shouldn't try to summarize the competence of the respective parliaments.
 * I'm not trying to, but almost all of her opposition to proposed gender-related legislation has been within Scots law. I just think that should be reflected by saying "Scottish and UK law".
 * no law anywhere in the UK has the effect of doing any of the things at issue
 * The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 includes trans women in its definition of women. Rowling has donated to a legal case brought by For Women Scotland seeking to overturn this. As discussed, it's one of several bills in Scots law she's publicly opposed.
 * Scots Law is certainly included in the phrase "UK law".
 * Scots law is one of the legal systems within the UK, but Scots law is different from the laws passed from the UK Parliament. It's honestly probably a semantical point and not worth discussing further: there are probably more productive things we could be talking about. At this point, I've explained my reasoning, so it's probably just best to let consensus decide and move on to something else.
 * Thanks! 13tez (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you want to move on, but I want to register that I'm not able to follow your position on this and in fact think I'm misunderstanding you quite badly. You're surely aware that the Westminster parliament writes Scottish law, and that more Scottish law originates in Westminster than in Holyrood?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that many (not all) acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom apply to the whole of the UK, including Scotland. I'd be interested to read an article discussing what proportion of Scots law is created in Westminster vs Holyrood, excluding common law.
 * Political science aside, my reasoning to add Scottish law explicitly was that most of her opposition was to bills/acts of the Scottish Parliament which are exclusively part of Scots law, and a lot of her campaigning (for lack of a better word) has taken place within Scotland and to assist groups like For Women Scotland who are trying to change Scots law. This isn't relevant to the rest of the UK. This is ultimately because the Conservative UK government wouldn't propose or enact any gender identity law she would oppose, but the SNP Scottish government did several times. See exhibits A, B, and C.
 * To me, the test is what you'd say if it was California (or another US state) and the USA instead of Scotland and the UK. Imagine she'd publicly opposed proposed and enacted Californian state law several times and opposed proposed changes to US federal law once. Would you say "Rowling has expressed gender-critical views against a background of proposed changes to Californian and US gender recognition laws" or just "US gender recognition laws"? If you're of the former opinion, we should say "Scottish and UK laws" and, in the latter case, just "UK laws". 13tez (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with S Marshall re not following this at all, and it's taking a huge portion of this talk page. Please try to remember that Wikipedia's audience is global (not only beyond UK in the English-speaking world, but beyond the English-spearking world as well).  For the huge majority of our readers (who may not understand what is going on in the UK with this whole matter anyway), complicating it with a further parliamentary issue isn't adding anything helpful.  The UK includes Scotland, and the relevant laws are in the footnote for those readers who want to know what proposals were made and what laws were involved.  We're risking now the talk page being so long that the earlier drafts -- which may contain bits we may want to revisit -- will soon have to be archived.  I hope I have incorporated everything now (we're still stalled on the opening sentence), but it's become hard to follow the talk page as there aren't separate sub-heads for separate topics. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with 13tez here, actually. It's not accurate to say that she objects to UK law if what she actually objects to is laws passed by the Scottish Parliament. Loki (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The current (Draft 5) mentions both (Scottish and UK). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Should we add the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 to the list of laws she's opposed? I say this because she's donated to a legal case trying to challenge its inclusion of trans women in its definition of "woman". If we are providing a list, it should probably be complete, unless we say "laws such as" or something similar to indicate it's an incomplete list. 13tez (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't strike me that specifically was part of the whole brouhaha; see footnote d, where everything there is cited to a scholarly source. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia, I'm (very) sorry that this is taking so much time, but we are now phrasing it differently: "legal changes in the UK/Scotland" now vs "Scottish/UK laws" previously. I think the former indicates geography and Scotland is in the UK, so its laws are in the UK (albeit only one part of it), so I think we can say "...mostly in the context of proposed legal changes in the UK that..." Even though all but one of these instances (as far as I can tell) was within exclusively Scottish law, she did also oppose proposed UK-wide legal changes too, so it wasn't just legal changes in Scotland. I think (hope), then, that we can probably all agree on: "mostly in the context of proposed legal changes in the UK that would"?
 * I was proposing adding the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 to footnote d. You can read about her opposition to it in Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_issues ("In February 2024, Rowling donated £70,000 to a crowd-funding appeal..."). Is the footnote one of the places in the article where we're only using references from academia? 13tez (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be repeating myself, but saying it once again. The scholarly/academic sources are provided to demonstrate issues that are covered in recent scholarly sources (due weight).  We also sometimes, but rarely, use non-scholarly sources to provide accessible text when others are paywalled, more background, or out of necessity when a recent issue warrants it. I don't mind adding this content to the footnote; I would mind expanding the article body to include it, when it's not something mentioned in scholarly sources or that has received the amount of coverage other issues have (due weight).  I'll add it in the footnote of Draft 6. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Can't we just link to Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is mentioned in at least one source. Victoria (tk) 19:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We do; it's in footnote d, and has been since the FAR version. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback (Victoria)
A few remarks: That's all for now. Victoria (tk) 15:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First sentence - will revisit after re-reading sources (hopefully sooner than later)
 * Maybe a bit of prose tightening for this phrase "She has often shared opinions on transgender rights" >> possibly try something like "She is vocal about transgender rights ...."
 * "She has suggested that children and cisgender women" >> if she still believes this (which seems to be the case) then maybe consider writing in the present tense >> "She suggests that children and cisgender women ..." This would probably involve tense changes throughout & might need discussion
 * Sales of Harry Potter books during Covid >> not sure it's needed & could be cut to save words
 * 2nd para looks good
 * 3rd para looks good
 * Tolando >> Tolonda (I had to double check!)


 * Thanks, Victoria; I was waiting for you before resuming, as the talk page has gone outta control. I will work your comments, and the stragglers left over from above, in to a new Draft 6, in a new level two heading, because we are now at a talk page length that will necessitate archiving of the five previous drafts.  I feel more comfortable starting a new level 2 given that you seem broadly satisfied with the direction so far -- need a few hours to work in everything. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Victoria (tk) 15:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Continued at . Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)