The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
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 articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
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 articles
Hava Mendelle (April 22, 2024). "JK Rowling puts Wikipedia's neutrality to the test". The Spectator Australia. Retrieved April 22, 2024. Despite having a separate article solely dedicated to her politics, many editors still believe that the main biography article, which covers Rowling's life and career, should include more of her views going as far as labelling Rowling an 'anti-trans activist'.
Oppose - I disagree that they are the most notable. They are merely the most apparent now because it is very much the current live issue. This is also a problem with the approach being taken in this page, where we are following news cycles but not paying much attention to secondary sources. There are secondary sources on Rowling political views. There are sources about the politics of Harry Potter, there are sources looking at her opposition to Brexit, her views on feminism and such like, and yes there is at least one academic secondary source on her views on the transgender issues, but we are not going to fix a bias to the recent issues by creating a new article for the recent issue. Moreover we are likely to just get repetitive. Despite having this page, there is still a lot of political views stuff in her main article. If we split this off, I would wager this article will still get a load of duplicated commentary. Finally, despite the current imbalance in this article, there is no SIZERULE case for such a split. This article should be expanded in areas outside the transgender issue, and not split to allow one issue to grow and spread even more.
Size-wise, I'm not sure a split is warranted; although poorly written and poorly organized, the article is now under 4,000 words of readable prose, with a good deal of WP:PROSELINE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS that should just be cut. But if there is to be consensus for a split, I suggest the target name is wrong. This article most frequently does not deal with "Political views of" or "JKR's views on", rather ideas about her views taken completely out of context and mis-attributed to her. That is, a split might be more appropriately named "J. K. Rowling and transgender issues", since it's unlikely an anyone-can-edit Wikipedia article will stop taking her actual statements out of context. We shouldn't be implying in WikiVoice that we are writing about her actual views, when we rarely are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, kinda. There are a couple reasons to split, one due to size, the other may be content per WP:CONTENTSPLIT. I have already stated before that I don't think her views on trans issues are appropriate for this article, and they therefore can be split by reason of content. She is also the most prominent critic on trans issues, and for that reason its own article could be justified. Too much of a focus on trans issue in this article also distorts this article. Personally though I'd prefer a renaming of the article. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spinoffs of this nature are inherently problematic; there are less eyes on the article, and you end up with potential coatrack and POV issues easier. While the article currently covers her LGBT views prominently, the article is absolutely nowhere near the size where a spinout can be argued on those grounds. I agree with Sandy that there's a lot of editorial cleanup that needs to happen to, and that would shrink that section down further, whereas a split article is going to inevitably lead to a bloated, unfocused battleground article with less value. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk13:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For the other sensible reasons have already been highlighted, and because it's not our fault that trans people are all she talks about now.
Oppose Agree with SandyGeorgia that the section is in need of cleanup. The section right now (excluding the Reactions section):
In June 2020,
In September 2020,
In March 2022,
During Lesbian Visibility Week in April 2022,
In May 2022,
In December 2022,
Rowling commented in a 2023 podcast
In February 2024,
On 4 March 2024,
On 13 March 2024,
On 1 April 2024,
Once the section has the WP:PROSELINE, WP:NOTDIARY, and WP:RECENTISM issues taken care of, a split is not warranted (not that it currently needs to be split right now anyway as others have mentioned above). If a content split does occur for whatever reasons, the split article will undoubtedly face those same three issues where editors will try to document and cram every single instance of JK Rowling appearing in the news for transgender-related reasons into that split article. Also agree with David Fuchs that a split article will lead to an unfocused battleground article with POV issues and a lot less eyes watching it. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are a lot of subsections that should exist and it’s hard to muddle through this overly long section and find what you’re looking for. A separate article would be helpful in clarifying timelines and other people’s comments. This section is almost certainly going to become longer over time, so a separate article would be very helpful. Bluedoor17 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I concur with Czello in that this article is not nearly long enough to consider splitting or condensing. Making an entirely separate article for her views on one specific issue is completely unnecessary.
Oppose - In addition to making the recentism issue worse, such a split would be inappropriately implying that her opposition to trans people's rights can be separated from her political views. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can have a summary of her views on trans people’s rights in the main page, for clarity, but then also have a separate page just for her views on trans rights, just to have clearer subsections that people can jump to so it’s easier to navigate the timeline. Bluedoor17 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SIZERULE, as referenced above. Length alone doesn't justify splitting or trimming, unless the later is to remove excess detail. It could simply do with sub-sectioning, whether that be by time-frames or ideally the content re-organised in some way; for examples views on this, allegation of that, or similar; ie collating content together where relevant into sub-sections. CNC (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender activism and related issues."
What are people's thoughts on changing "activism" to "rights"? Saying "related issues" makes it sound like transgender activism is an issue i.e a problem, which feels like POV. In addition, Rowling's opinions don't specifically just relate to the "activism" of transgender people, she's made plenty of comments about transgender people who aren't engaging in activism. GraziePrego (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree. I think using the phrase "activism" is not only charged language but it's also just not very accurate, since she has talked about people who are definitely not activists--it seems to suggest then that transgender people, just by being transgender, are making some sort of political statement and engaging in activism, which editors should recognize is a heavily biased suggestion no matter their personal opinions. Geldmacherin (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BOLD cuts to transgender issues section warranting further discussion
A few hours ago, drastic edits were made to the transgender issues section of this article, presumably following the suggestions in the earlier talk topic where a split was proposed. Editors seemed divided on whether the section needed splitting or trimming, there was no clear consensus on which parts of the section were unnecessary or what should happen to them.
This is not how it works. The edits were all reasoned, and no, not all because of NOTNEWS. You need to identify the problem with the edits themselves, not just that you want to stick to the status quo. This section is a mess. It has WP:BLPPRIMARY issues, it is almost entirely written as WP:PROSELINE and material I removed was not actual political views. It is challenged material and per WP:ONUS it should be left OFF the page until consensus has been reached for its inclusion. Note that I was careful NOT to remove everything in one fell swoop. I kept the edits down to a level that could be reviewd and discussed on an individual level. Please self revert your revert and then feel free to challenge specific changes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made several edits today over several hours since I wrote the above. As you have still not identified any issues with my edits, I will now revert them back out. Per WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The reasons for the individual edits may be found in my edsums of yesterday. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree that this level of cutting seems extreme. My points would be that most material there probably had consensus for inclusion on the talk page when it was posted. Also that there should be some talk of comments and responses in this section as those are expressions of her views. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a very hotly-contested issue, but should the phrase "biological women" really be used on this page? I feel there's bias behind using this term, not only because it suggests that transgender women are not women and cannot have female bodies (the former definitely being something that should not be suggested in a wikipedia article, and the latter being obviously false because transgender women can have the same hormone levels as someone born female and get sex-reassignment surgeries) but also because the section in which it is used twice uses an opinion article called "In Defense of JK Rowling" as its source. (source 56)
Describing her views on the word "cisgender" and other phrases as being critical of "euphemistic language to refer to biological women" is also definitely biased. I know that people think saying cisgender or "people born as women" or "assigned female at birth" show bias, but if that's true, then saying "biological women" definitely is as well. So I think:
There should be a consensus on what term to use on this page. If there's already a wikipedia rule on this just show me lol and i'll shut up about this.
But also: this specific section does seem very biased and should be removed or edited in my opinion. Let me know what you think please.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
