The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
J. K. Rowling's ethnicity/nationality has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Current consensus is that she is British, and that whether she is also English, Scottish or Welsh has no bearing on her work or her biography, and is best not discussed.
The topic of her middle name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Her full name is simply Joanne Rowling; she contracted the first name and chose the middle initial K from her grandmother's name, Kathleen, in order to remove the gender association from her own name.
Her married name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She uses her married name, Murray, for private business, but her maiden name, "Rowling", is used here, as it is the one by which she is most widely known.
The pronunciation of her name has been discussed here, here, here, here and here. She has commented that her name is pronounced like bowling and not like howling.
Allegations that she supports communism in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any such views; attempts to describe such views in her works have been rejected as original research of published material.
If you have a question relating to the spelling in this article (such as "instalment"/"installment") remember that this article is written in British English.
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Currently, in the Views --> Transgender People section, the final paragraph contains the sentence "In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left transgender people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault."
The phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed" feels very out of place in this paragraph, in which her views, and the basis for them, are explained. Personally I find the phrase a little problematic (e.g. nonspecific; which trans people?), but if it is to be included, I think it would fit better in the 2nd or 4th paragraphs, which list the reactions to her statements/views.
The current phrasing doesn't allow for her opinion to be presented neutrally. It should be split up as you stated. A quick way to solve this could be to move the reaction to the end of the paragraph, or right before the assertion of Whited? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it actually fits quite well with the final sentence regarding Whited. I'd support moving it to the end of the paragraph. TBicks (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be made a bit more specific though. I can't access the source unfortunately, but the current wording could mean every trans person in the world or a small group of them. If the source says something like 'transgender fans of her books', that would be a better wording I think. TBicks (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. To present neutrally, we should first share one opinion and then include other perspectives or criticism. This applies to any topic. I see you have a strong opinion about this, but it might help to take a step back for a moment. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're considering moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have no idea what you're talking about.
For what its worth, and not that it has anything to do with paragraph organization, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:WIAE), not a place to challenge views you don't like (see WP:ADVOCACY). If you're so prejudiced in this area that you don't think wikipedia should maintain a neutral POV, it might not be the right WP topic for you? TBicks (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, i'm suggesting moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph to better faciliate a neutral presentation of her views. I haven't even mentioned transphobia, let alone stated an opinion on its validity. TBicks (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it's not really a neutral presentation of her views to treat them as non-controversial, then bring in criticism afterwards. It seems like a lot of newspapers have taken to including a discussion of her views in pretty much any reporting on her. Just searching J.K. Rowling news:
It feels like discussing her transphobia is becoming more and more the mainstream view of her, while this article is minimising it more and more. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.10:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Nobody is treating her views as non-controversial. The paragraph in question is preceded by several paragraphs which explain the mixed reactions to her views.
We're talking about moving a 6 word phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have already elucidated the reasons I feel that is neccesary, none of which have to do with the content of her speech/views. It has nothing to do with "minimizing" anything - i'm not even suggesting we remove the phrase, simply move it to a more suitable position.
If you're seriously unable to WP:AGF when it comes to simple paragraph organization, I think you should consider avoiding this topic in the future. TBicks (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it feels like it'd be awkward to realise the point later, and that it may mischaracterise the essay if it's not done very carefully. The section is a disorganised mess, but at least it doesn't first cover the whole situation from Rowling's perspective then again from the outside perspective, like a sequential WP:POVFORK. I don't like the suggested change outside of a full rework, as I think it'll make the section worse. It's also a basic rule of journalism that the higher up on the page material is introduced, the more weight is being given to it, which I suppose you may be unaware of. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.10:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence already describes the reaction to the essay and her speech on the issue, making the end of the paragraph a more natural place to put the phrase. We wouldn't be creating a POV order change, merely adding to a preexisting one.
The way it's currently written interjects other people's POV into a sentence about her POV, which is bad practice for neutral presentation. TBicks (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly -- my husband has been hospitalized for a week; I'm aware I still have to answer #Citation consistency above. (Done, 13:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC) ) I think the suggestion to combine the questioned clause somewhere around the Whited sentence would work. I also agree the section became somewhat haphazard when a few months back there was some rapid-fire nonconsensual editing; slow and steady wins the race. I'd also like to remind Adam Cuerden to aim for a collaborative approach to work on this talk page, lower the POV statements on a BLP talk page, and that sources like the Daily Mail aren't relevant here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
