Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Talk:J. K. Rowling

Featured articleJ. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
April 15, 2022Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2017, July 31, 2021, July 31, 2022, and July 31, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Suggested updates - April 2025

As of April 2025, there are a few potential updates that could be made to this page:

1) J. K. Rowling's net worth is now estimated at $1.2B, therefore comments stating that she is not a billionaire due to philanthropy are out of date. Source: https://www.finance-monthly.com/2025/03/j-k-rowlings-net-worth-in-2025-legendary-author-with-a-spell-binding-fortune/

2) In addition to her history of transphobic commentary, J. K. Rowling has now also criticised asexual people on International Asexuality Day: https://qnews.com.au/j-k-rowling-adds-asexuals-to-her-lgbtqia-hit-list/. Luciellaes (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source cited is utter junk. No comment on the second. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched for a high quality source re her net worth, and haven't come across one. The Asexuality content would be WP:UNDUE in this article; see WP:NOT (news) and try Politics of J. K. Rowling (where it may also be UNDUE). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely having a go at yet another branch of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella (not counting the obvious anti-trans stuff, she's also made more than one attack on bisexual people) classifies as enough of a pattern to include, even if it's just a single sentence? Enough places have talked about it and made the connection themselves, it's not as though it's us making stuff up. --81.106.251.63 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you're 'not making it up', doesn't make it WP:DUE. There is discussion of her comments/stance on transgender rights because there is sustained coverage in secondary sources about that topic and it has become a fairly central part of coverage relating to her. As far as I can tell, she's only ever made one comment on asexuality, and it was largely ignored by RSs. TBicks (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is a pervasive concern that the central JK Rowling page down-plays the extent of her anti-queer activism, in general. I think there is a pretty broad sentiment that the main JK Rowling page should make the extent of her anti-queer activism more apparent. And I'm worried that the GA status of the article has been used as a bit of a lampshade for preserving an increasingly tenuous status quo here. I guess the question becomes how much of a WP:NPOV violation can an article become while maintaining GA status. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some people don't like the amount of coverage a certain issue has in an article doesn't make this any less WP:UNDUE. We are restricted by coverage in reliable sources. There is a paucity of sources, let alone reliable ones, claiming that she is engaging in activism against asexual or gay people. TBicks (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one mention of her losing billionaire status due to philanthropy: "By 2012, Forbes concluded she was no longer a billionaire due to her charitable donations and high UK taxes."
I wouldn't call it out of date, since it's not making a claim about her current financial status. TBicks (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's likely that she probably is a billionaire now, but we need a high-quality source that supports that. I haven't had time of late for a deep dive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can tell, she is on neither the 2024 nor the 2025 Forbes billionaire lists. I do find some marginal sources parroting the old information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocking to add pertinent information

Can this article please be unlocked so responsible editors are able to add the controversies about the author? Including her funding UK anti-trans groups?

It appears Wikipedia is not allowing negative but accurate information, which is not only not in the purview of an encyclopedia but also against Wikipedia’s own guidelines.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.23 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

yeah, i was very surprised to learn that there is no Controversy heading. i recognize that some editors may consider this WP:UNDUE but the very first sentence in that heading is "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints" and i struggle to come up with how such a culturally significant author going full mask-off about her transphobia is not significant RachelF42 (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CRITS. Also, this is an encyclopaedic article written in summary style, not a news report. What adjustments to the prose on the page are you suggesting? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with the IP and Rachel that this article should mention her anti-trans activism much more significantly (and have for a long time). (Unprotecting the article of a politically controversial BLP seems obviously dumb to me, though. Sorry.) Loki (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, more WP:PROSELINE. In a featured article, no less. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're covering this, I'd prefer to start with the 2024 donation, describe the court decision a bit more carefully, and end with her celebration of the result. Since the "VE Day" stuff is Rowling quoting her husband, I think it's not worth the words. I'm not sure about the best way to describe FWS, but "anti-trans activist group" seems too much of an NPOV stretch based off a brief glance at some sources. Though I'd prefer something shorter, and preferably more grammatically and thematically connected to the status quo ante, my first attempt version would look something like

Rowling donated £70,000 to the gender-critical group For Women Scotland and then celebrated its 2025 legal victory in a UK Supreme Court ruling that the Equality Act 2010 does not consider trans women to be women.

I think the current version is problematic enough that it'd be better to have nothing while we workshop, but I don't care to edit war over it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is better for removing the PROSELINE, and being more neutrally worded (although as we link to an article on For Women Scotland, we don't need to describe them at all). But the first question is whether this bit of news reporting is even due in the article (which you seem to question too). People want it in because it is current, but that is not the way encyclopaedic articles work. If it were due, I would attach it to: She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. Perhaps: She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis, and donated to the legal challenge brought by For Women Scotland against the Scottish Ministers in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in 2025 that the Equality Act 2010 does not consider trans women to be women for purposes of the Act. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Firefangledfeathers and others that the content inserted "is problematic enough that it'd be better to have nothing", and have removed it. The content is UNDUE NEWSY PROSELINE and *if* something is to be included, should have better sourcing with wording developed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources:
  1. The Guardian
  2. The Independent
  3. The Times
  4. Reuters
These sources present the issue in a way that is more aligned with the proposed text from Sirfurboy, and without the sensationalized and UNDUE focus on "TERF V-E day". Sifurboy's text provides a better starting point for developing content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a tip. Why don't you all take a chill-pill for a few months. Edits undertaken in hot haste are rarely constructive, and are likely to be reverted, so you're simply wasting your time as your life drips away, when you could be using it for something lasting and more enjoyable. 2001:8003:548A:A100:717F:A22D:D642:5756 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tendency on this article is that every time JKR makes news (and she makes it a habit to make news often), a slew of editors want to add UNDUE, NEWSY, poorly-sourced PROSELINE, ignoring WP:WIAFA, high-quality sourcing and other policy considerations, and ignoring that there is a sub-article for such additions (Political views of J. K. Rowling). We should probably have a standard answer to these situations in the FAQ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Why is this being added (it's the second time). Is there some concern that she is confused with another JKR? Or some policy reason to add her birth year to the short description? @Segagustin:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SDDATES encourages birth year for articles like this wherever doing so aligns with the other parts of the guideline. Since the date takes the short description over the suggested 40 character limit, I would suggest leaving it out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-transgender activist

Given reports from RS like here here and here about Rowling's support and funding for For Women Scotland who got the UK Supreme Court to define only biological females as women, isn't it time add this category? I've looked at past conversations about this and people argued that no RS outright calls her an "anti-trans activist" which seems like a ridiculous standard. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-trans activist" seems to me ambiguous: it could mean "an activist against transgender people", which JKR says she isn't, or "someone who opposes trans activism", which probably does fairly describe her view. I suggest the phrase "anti-trans activist" is best avoided. -- Alarics (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What so you call getting woman to be defined only by biology? We have Matt Walsh and Candace Owens under that category why not her? LittleJerry (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh and Owens are both far-right extremists across the board - anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-vaccine, etc. etc. You can't put JKR in that category. -- Alarics (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's your answer to my first question? LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "What so you call getting woman to be defined only by biology". Perhaps you could rephrase the question. -- Alarics (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean, how does actively supporting having woman legally being defined to exclude trans women not being an anti-trans activist? LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because anti-trans activists argue trans women don't exist and thus they're not *against* anything because anyone who is trans is, in their view, lying. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous game of semantics. Someone who does not believe in the valid existence of transgender women and engages in activism against their desired rights as transgender individuals is very obviously acting against transgender individuals and their interests. You cannot magically whisk away the fact they're advocating against their desired rights by trying to loophole the idea they can't be against something they don't think exists. The fact she thinks that her opinion is evident truth and not discrimination has absolutely no bearing on the fact that she definitionally opposes the movement for transgender rights. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, for what it's worth, I agree with you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is her views on anything else relevant for whether or not she's classifiable as an anti-transgender activist? That category is obviously predicated upon whether or not the person is outspoken against transgender rights, not whether they approve of jews or vaccines or immigrants or anything else. It's an especially ridiculous standard when transphobia is well known to have one of its most vocal bases not in the far right but within TERF circles that approaches the topic from a (theoretically) feminist point of view. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 issues which are yet to be suitably addressed.
1) Activist is a difficult word to assign on wikipedia when the person does not self-describe that way. Particularly in this case, where she insists she's not "anti-trans". Anti-trans is also extremely unspecific; as a category, it seemingly contains people who are more moderate and simply have concerns about where trans rights and womens' rights clash, but also the people who just hate trans people, without any distinction. This makes it somewhat of a WP:CONTENTIOUS label. It just lumps the person in with a group of people whose views on the same issue may abhor them. That is why this sort of label is best approached within the article itself, where appropriate context can be given.
2) Speech/commentary on an issue doesn't make you an activist. The fact she donated to a group doesn't necessarily make her an activist either. Under that logic, i'm an anti-cancer activist because I regularly donate to Cancer Research (before certain bad faith people start, i'm obviously not analogizing trans people to cancer - just happens that CR is the only charity I regularly make donations to). Its not like she was a party in the case or attended court, which would conceivably provide stronger evidence that this was her engaging in activism. It was just a donation. TBicks (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Speech/commentary on an issue doesn't make you an activist" Of course it can, especially if you are promoting a group or making calls to action. You can advocate a policy via words and writing. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it can't, I said it doesn't. Particularly in this case, where she just posts snarky comments on twitter (or X or whatever silly name we're supposed to call it now). TBicks (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't just post snarky tweets. She talks about it constantly and funded an anti-trans group. LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Twitter. Snarkily.
See above for why I don't think a donation is sufficient for activism. TBicks (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just funding. Its Both her words AND funding. If a person constantly talked about cancer research AND funded it, they should be called an anti-cancer activist. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with him, does seem like your(Tbicks) desperately trying to avoid the fact your wrong, just put them under the category and stop bringing petty reasonings to the mix, plus you've doubled down quite a lot recently, and that says alot about your character. 75.248.212.252 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Holy mother of WP:AGF violations. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. TBicks (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the funding part, but that's fine.
Are there RSs which describe her as an anti-trans activist? I'm reluctant to add anyone to a category with as little explanation as this one, but would at least find it easier if there is sourcing that suggests it is warranted. TBicks (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-trans is also extremely unspecific; as a category, it seemingly contains people who are more moderate and simply have concerns about where trans rights and womens' rights clash, but also the people who just hate trans people, without any distinction." You can't reduce things to just "I hate X people". I think trying to define woman as just biological females crosses a certain line regardless of "hate". LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reducing things to just "I hate X people". I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm pointing out that there are people who genuinely hate trans people and deny their existence etc, and then there are people who just have concerns about the clash between trans rights and womens' sex based rights. Lumping them together into one "anti-trans" category when they clearly have 2 different ideologies is silly. TBicks (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and then there are people who just have concerns about the clash between trans rights and womens' sex based rights". You really think JK is just doing that? Again, funding a group that pushed the supreme court to define woman as only biologically female. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure plenty of people will also try to claim Graham Linehan isn't an anti-trans activist too. As I was saying above there is a tendency to try to void the category. Rowling is obviously an anti-trans activist. It's a mockery of WP:NPOV that this page says otherwise. And as long as this article makes a mockery of WP:NPOV its GA status should be revoked. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment on Graham Linehan as i'm not familiar with him (though I doubt its relavant to Rowling), but the category itself even has the warning "This category may inappropriately label persons" with , so we should be very careful before adding anyone to it. Contentious labels should be "widely used in reliable sources" if we are to add them, regardless of your personal opinions on the subject. TBicks (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say JK was doing that - I didn't mention her at all when it came to my criticism of the category. This is the second time you've claimed i've said something that I haven't, so i'll ask you to kindly stop putting words in my mouth and engage with what i'm actually saying. TBicks (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"there are people who genuinely hate trans people and deny their existence, etc., and then there are people who just have concerns about the clash between trans rights and women's sex-based rights. Lumping them together into one "anti-trans" category when they clearly have 2 different ideologies is silly." -- Quite so. This is exactly the point I was trying to make near the start of this thread. -- Alarics (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should get rid of categories like "Anti-communists" such they broadly include supporters of liberal capitalism and Nazis. Sorry this is a bad argument. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
literally the best reply you could've cooked up 75.248.212.252 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Indeed, we should get rid of all kinds of categories. Perhaps all of the categories. Categories attempt to create taxonomies of articles, but the Wikipedia taxonomy is one anyone can curate, and so they are systematically skewed, incomplete, and over large. Many an edit war has been fought over what they include, and whole libraries of words have been spilled. That they can be useful is offset by the fact that they are, (apologies Douglas Adams) mostly harmful. Not everyone reading this will agree on that - and therein lies the problem. There will be arguments and counter arguments about placing articles in categories that no one uses and no one cares about. Is it really about allowing someone to work their way through a list of antidisestablishmanetarianists by country and hair colour? Or is it more about getting a label added to a page (albeit a part of a page that no one reads)? However you answer that question, and whatever you think, one thing is very evident to me: no group of editors should be forced to add a category to a page, just because a completely different editor thought making the category was a good idea. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of my main concerns is that there has never been consensus to describe her as an anti-transgender activist within the article, owing to lack of suitable sourcing within RSs. This category feels like an easy way to bypass the need for RSs. TBicks (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Firefangledfeathers answers that below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-communist links to an entire article about anti-communism, explaining the finer details and different viewpoints and reasonings. The anti-trans activists just links to the trans rights and trans movements page without attempting to differentiate what different viewpoints disagree with. TBicks (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The category exists. The complaints above about not putting people in the category are nonsensical. It exists and has people right now. If you have a problem with that, then nominate the category for deletion. Otherwise, put forward an actual argument about Rowling and the category. One that's actually based on the category itself. Looking at those currently included in the category and considering Rowling's recent involvement in massively funding the anti-transgender court case, I agree that she belongs in the category. Her actions are no longer limited just to statements, but to actual monetary and legal action. SilverserenC 22:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good job reiterating Jerry's point(not sarcastic) 75.248.212.252 (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very clear path to adding the category in a way that complies with policy and guideline:

  1. Collect a strong body of sources that call Rowling an anti-trans activist, or something synonymous. Some such sources have been collected in archived discussions.
  2. Add at least one sentence to the article calling her an anti-trans activist in wikivoice.
  3. Then add the category.

Of course, each of those steps needs to be supported by consensus. It doesn't make sense to have extended conversation about #3 before we do 1 and 2. If we do all three, the headline will be that we did #2, with the category being an afterthought; very few readers are viewing or using the categories. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender views in the lead, 20250506

I cannot bring myself to care about the category dispute above: our categories labelling people by views are a hot mess, and given the source material this one seems ambiguous. With the benefit of some space from this article, I wanted to return to suggestions that John made somewhere in the archives. The body of the article, as it stands, does IMHO a very creditable job of summarizing what sources have to say about JKR's gender-related activism (allowing for a year or two's lag for sources to catch up to her activity). But I'm not sure the lead does the best job of summarizing the body. Three aspects stand out to me as perhaps easy fixes. 1) In the body we explicitly state that Rowling holds "gender critical views", with our link to that article: we don't do this in the lead. 2) The body says JKR's views are often described [as anti-trans], but the lead says critics and LGBT rights organisations. To me the lead is qualifying more heavily, and perhaps unnecessarily. 3) This is possibly the trickiest to fix, but the body summarizes what her expressions on twitter have been: the lead does not. The sources are understandably hesitant to label JKR, but the sources do support what she has said, include opposing protections for trans people and opposing gender self-recognition. I think we could afford to summarize these points: a sentence of inflation in the last lead paragraph doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 aspects sound perfectly reasonable to me.
With the third aspect, I think we'd need to be careful with the wording. For example, we quote her in the main body as saying "transgender people need and deserve protection", so to add something about her "opposing protections for trans people" wouldn't necessarily be the best phrasing. TBicks (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this approach. I would say the body probably needs updating too. The thing that would help the most is for someone to pull together the latest crop (say mid-2024 to present) of top quality sources: new journal articles, broad-scope international news sources, etc. It would be good to know how such sources are summarizing her history regarding trans people, as opposed to how the news is covering individual actions/comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried to do this months ago but was reverted and going to the talk page didn't help.
But that does mean I do have a suggested wording to start with: Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views. Her comments have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic or anti-trans, though she disputes this. Loki (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her Trans-exclusionary views. Her comments have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic or anti-trans, though she disputes this. I will note that this goes to the same page and is, in my opinion, much more clear than "gender critical". Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with that but:
a) That doesn't fit the exact wording of the sources quite as well.
b) IMO "trans-exclusionary" is a little redundant with "anti-trans" afterwards. Loki (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we put trans-exclusionary on the hyperlink I would be amenable to shortening the second sentence to Her comments have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic, though she disputes this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. The article has some strange turns of phrase, many of which seem to hurt readability or which are obtuse in ways that seem to be a bit prone to minimisation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 19:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to settle the debate between the "gender critical" and "trans-exclusionary" labels. Right now, we have source material that we use to support "gender critical" in the body, and I am proposing to insert that into the lead. If we want to use "trans-exclusionary" in this instance, we need to have a discussion about changing the source material used, as FFF notes above. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but that is a separate discussion: this proposal, again, is about summarizing in the lead what we already have in the body. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated here and in the section below, attempting to wordsmith before examining high-quality sources is ineffective. Opinions are interesting if the goal is to fill up the talk page and make it unreadable; sources are what we base content on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the sources would be the ones already present in the body, which were sufficient for a lead change months ago when we updated the body. Loki (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newer sources

Since nobody agitating for changes to the lead has chosen to provide recent high-quality sources, I will kick off such a discussion, with the caveat that my time for further research and wordsmithing is limited. I did a sweep for sources in scholarly-seeming publications that don't appear to have been discussed and/or incorporated before. I ignored some obviously unreliable ones, but I haven't evaluated these in detail, and am not explicitly endorsing their use: I'm saying we ought to discuss them. Opinions on their reliability and on how best to synthesize them are welcome. Miller 2024, Tudisco 2023, Hendricks 2024, McRobbie 2025, Dajches et et 2025. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: (who has good journal access). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also Judith Butler's 2024 book has a chapter with significant Rowling coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly reviewing those sources:
  • Dajches is a single study so not a great source
  • Miller is an "forum"/"commenatary" piece so also not strong
  • Tudisco, a case study of another academic but which has a paragraph or so on Rowling
  • Hendricks is an analysis of just one of her books
  • McRobbie is reviewing Judith Butler's latest book which looks at GC feminism, better to use Butler directly
Other sources we could use
  • Judith Butler's Who’s Afraid of Gender? has a chapter on GC feminism in the UK covering Rowling extensively - this would be a great source
  • Washington Post[1] references Katelyn Burn's article[2] on JK's transphobia, noting Burns’s piece flagged another liked tweet from Rowling’s account and a passage from one of her mystery novels that characterized a trans woman as “unstable and aggressive” and included a rape joke directed at the trans character.
    • Amazed that neither this article nor the other has the fact that JKR's books have a crossdressing serial killer and protagonist who mocks trans women and threatens one with prison rape in an interrogation[3]
    • Or that she wrote a book about a character accused of transphobia[4]
    • Generally, these articles should also have a section on "how does JKR treat trans people in her works"
  • Moazami is a good academic source on the anti-gender movement / lawfare[5]. Contextualized JKR's activism in the broader movement
  • Can't get access atm, but Lamble also covers JKR[6]
  • The Week released A timeline of JK Rowling's transphobic shift ~2 weeks ago[7]
Just the results of a quick review and sweep for more sources, probably won't have time to do much with it myself. All apart from Lamble are on the Wikipedia Library IIRC. Also, AFAICT most academic sources, including those there, just describe her as anti-trans / transphobic. It's a particularity of the UK press and libel laws that they mostly never do so themselves. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few quick thoughts. McRobbie is offering independent commentary as well as review - Butler is a giant of her field but we should diversify voices where possible. Dajches/Hendricks offer background that is usable, even where the results are too specific. And a question: what are you referring to when you say "Lamble"? The author of the linked source is listed as Thurlow, and the journal is Sexualities. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Butler goes by they/them pronouns btw. Let's try to avoid misgendering critics of Rowling please. Simonm223 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The correction is appreciated: that wasn't the case when I read/read of Butler, but I will remember that going forward. That said, is that all you have to say about this discussion, Simon? You've been complaining about NPOV violations at length, and started an FAR over your complaints, but when there's a good faith effort to address the issues you don't want to discuss the substance? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't get access atm, but Lamble also covers JKR[8] - the doi is to Thurlow (2022). It only mentions Rowling once, briefly and as an example, on page 965. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong name sorry, Lamble is here: Confronting complex alliances: Situating Britain’s gender critical politics within the wider transnational anti-gender movement - which very briefly mentions rowling but not enough to be useful
Got my tabs mixed up when copy-pasting. Meant to say Thurlow instead of Lamble above, but per Sirfurboy Thurlow isn't usable anyways. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RE YFNS 22:16, JKR's individual works have their own articles; as much as some would like this article to cover every single issue/item/mention of JKR wrt anything gender-related, we adhere to highest-quality sources for weight and use summary style. We don't need to cover each book in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miller is WP:USEDBYOTHERS such as by Cram, E. 2024 Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another peer reviewed source which I don't think has been raised yet is Awcock & Rosenberg 2023 Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Morales 2023. Just a question, exactly how many peer reviewed articles referring to Rowling as a Transphobe will be sufficient to make the discussed lede changes? Because there is rather a lot of these. Because academia has become pretty consistent that Rowling is a transphobe. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
McNamarah 2023 Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rogers 2024 Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access this one but Gwenffrewi 2022 is widely cited including by most of the above. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarke 2024 (This one is a little weaker because, unlike most of the above it doesn't explicitly call Rowling a transphobe or a TERF but it does position her within the LGB movement which it interrogates for recentering whiteness. Also cites Gwenffrewi 2022.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gwenffrewi is autoethnographic. Cautions will apply. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gwenffrewi is highly cited on the topic of Rowling and transphobia regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But as it is autoethnographic, we should probably use those who cite Gwenffrewi and not the source itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling
Marcações: