Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling

First sentence of one of the lede paragraphs

"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)

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)

"Biological women"

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Geldmacherin (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the statements about "euphemistic language" and "safe spaces" for "biological women" as POV, given that the source was a newspaper op-ed and thus not generally reliable for factual statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The "euphemistic language" is a summary of:

Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women.

It can definitely be rewritten, but the fact of her scepticism about such language is a relevant political view - the page subject (But it does get mentioned elsewhere so can be cut as repetitive, so I had no objection to the edits). As for the newspaper op-ed - well the source has a POV but that doesn't mean we can't use it. All sources have a point of view. The question is, what does it verify? Nothing on the views of the columnist would be due here, because they are the columnist's views and not Rowling's. Moreover the source would be a primary source for such views, and there would be no indication of why they are due. But, in summarising Rowling's own views, the source becomes a secondary source for those views and is thus a good source for such information. Good, but as with all sources, to be treated with care. But, in fact, much of this section is based on primary news reporting, so the care we apply to this source is doubly due for the others. And on a final point: the source, the New York Times no less, uses "biological women". Has the question of whether this is an appropriate term been addressed by them? Do any authorities recommend avoiding it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's actually worse; if the source doesn't specifically describe phrases like "people who menstruate" as euphemistic, that label becomes WP:OR. It's not for Wikipedia users (or op-ed columnists) to decide what's relevant and WP:DUE. That's for published, reliable sources to determine. The problem isn't that the source has a POV, it's that opinion columns aren't subject to the same fact-checking and editorial oversight as regular news articles. The Yale School of Medicine is one authority that recommends "cisgender" in place of terms like "biological man/woman". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right, Yale does say that. Interestingly though it refutes Geldmacherin's objection by saying (my emphasis),

Gender identity: One’s deeply held personal, internal sense of being male, female, some of both, or neither. One’s gender identity does not always correspond to biological sex (i.e., a person assigned female at birth identifies as male or a person assigned male at birth identifies as female). Awareness of gender identity is ofen experienced in infancy, but may be discovered at later developmental stages. Gender Identity may also be fluid and change during the life course.[1]

But this does seem to be a tricky one to write. If we are explaining her view that 'She claim the term cisgender is "ideological language signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity."' and that 'she believes that the trans activist movement seeks to erode women as a political class as well as a biological one' then we are really rather playing into her argument if we start rephrasing the arguments using "cisgender women" instead. I mean, aren't we then erasing her arguments? How can we explain what she says if we won't say what she says? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s exactly what I was wondering, and yet I think this can really be solved by rewriting to make clear that it’s Rowling who believes that the word cisgender and similar language is euphemistic, since the way it was originally written sounded like that language was objectively euphemistic. I might have been wrong to say that there should be a consensus, but I also still think that if cisgender would be considered too biased a term to use then “biological woman” should be as well.

Also, my main point about the term was the connotation, not so much the exact meaning. That’s why the Yale source seems contradictory—biological sex can often refer to sex assigned at birth, but most of the time people will interpret and use that phrase to suggest that transgender women can’t have very similar biology to cisgender women, and Rowling certainly uses it in this way. Geldmacherin (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said we should rephrase Rowling's arguments. The way to explain her views is simply to summarize the most reliable secondary sources (such as peer-reviewed journals) that describe her views. Not to interpret the contents of Rowling's June 2020 essay ourselves, for instance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said we should rephrase her arguments either. What I said is we should rephrase the way we talk about them, so as not to sound objective or biased when we are talking about her opinions. Geldmacherin (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted text

I've deleted this text from the Free Speech section:

Rowling—long known to be litigious—has a long record of taking or threatening legal action against those who say things about her she dislikes, including journalists. In 2016, she threatened to sue an MP elected for the SNP for criticising her interactions with a troll known for posting misogynistic abuse of Rowling's opponents. Her opponents, such as India Willoughby, have said that Rowling's wealth and tendency to threaten suits has resulted in a situation where "no one will publish anything negative about her".

Other people's opinions of JK Rowling's opinions is irrelevant in this article, and it incorrectly attempts to imply a conflict between her stated view of free speech and her usage of litigation for libel, which has no place in an article about her opinions and is spurious anyway because the two are unrelated. Ramore (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, but, in fact, you have not deleted it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I've now done so. If nothing else this is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH as the sources don't mention free speech at all. — Czello ^(music) 17:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments on trans people in Nazi Germany

Hey @Sirfurboy, I hope you're doing well!

I just saw you removed the paragraph discussing Rowling's comments on trans people in Nazi Germany from the article, citing WP:PROSELINE, WP:NPOV, and a need to focus on Rowling's political views.

Please could you let me know how you feel this information could be included in a way that fixes these issues? Which specific parts of it do you take issue with, and why? This section was generated through discussion and consensus, without any editors previously saying they thought the inclusion of this information was unwarranted, so I'm sure we can work out these problems.

Thank you! 13tez (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks. So as you can see from the edsum, I wrote this when removing that text: Proseline run of events that tell us nothing new about her political views (the page subject). This section needs to focus on her actual views, in neutral point of view. To unpack this a little, we are writing an encyclopedic article on a specific topic. From WP:NOT, the first nutshell bullet point:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary-style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.

Summary style is often forgotten when writing articles, but it shouldn't be. Our aim is to inform and educate the reader who has come to read an article on a specific subject. The subject here is the political views of JK Rowling.

Now the text in question is an event. Rowling made comments that drew attention, but what do they tell us about her political views?

You may argue that we can learn about her political views from the reporting of this. But the problem there is that no one has properly analysed her political views based on what she said. Instead we have a run of primary sources talking about how she made a tweet, how someone called her a holocaust denier, how she made a legal threat and how they retracted and how that backfired. That may tell you something about Rowling, but it doesn't tell you anything about her political views. Even what is in the original tweet adds nothing that we do not already have from better sources. The event does not belong here. This page is not about her battles with online forces. Those are events, but they are not political views. Our curation of such, based on primary sources, is a synthesis of the primary sources, and we should not do that for reasons of neutrality. We should not be leading readers to an interpretation of Rowlings actions based on such curation. Newspapers do that, but newspapers don't have to be neutral. This is not an attack page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This is a page about her political views, written in encyclopedic summary style, and that is all. And that is why it does not belong here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

While we do have to take care not to engage in Original Research, even when certain inferences may seem painfully obvious to anybody who understands political rhetoric, we are not required to pretend that we can't read at all. Holocaust Denial or Minimisation definitely does fall within the realms of a political view. We are not required to pretend otherwise. If we have Reliable Sources for such political views then they should go in this article which is about her political views. DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If we have reliable secondary sources that describe her political views, yes indeed. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, however, this must be sourced to secondary sources. Reporting of the incident is not a secondary source. Moreover, we need to be using WP:BESTSOURCES basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Thus we are looking for balanced analytical sources that describe Rowling's views on the holocaust and holocaust denial. What will not do is a description of the reaction to a tweet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for getting back to me :)

Our aim is to inform and educate the reader who has come to read an article on a specific subject. The subject here is the political views of JK Rowling.

Sure, I agree that the content of the article should all link back to Rowling's political views, and I know that you cited concern that this wasn't the case in your edit summary. Is this concern your main issue with the paragraph as it was?

I think that her views on transgender people generally form part of her political views because the debate over trans rights is politicised and divided on political lines and, after all, there's a section in this article on the views she's expressed and actions she's taken within this debate and that are otherwise relevant to trans people.

I think these comments on trans people in particular are notable, significant, and relevant to an article discussing Rowling's political views because they were novel; they received widespread coverage and discussion, including criticism; they discussed the Holocaust and Nazi Germany and led to accusations of Holocaust denial, which are all topics that are, themselves, significant and political in nature; and Rowling herself felt it necessary to issue a statement about all this.

she made a tweet...it doesn't tell you anything about her political views.

If the comments she made on trans people in Nazi Germany are political, significant, and novel (enough to warrant inclusion), for the reasons I described, how do they not tell us something new about her political views? So, if we can reference them appropriately, why shouldn't we include them?

she made a tweet, how someone called her a holocaust denier, how she made a legal threat and how they retracted and how that backfired

If you think the subsequent developments past her comments (e.g. legal threats) are bloat, or shouldn't be included for any other reason, we can definitely discuss cutting them down or removing them. I'd advocate including the responses of some calling her a Holocaust denier, and her subsequent reply denying that charge, because that is also inherently political and significant in nature.

Per WP:BLPBALANCE, however, this must be sourced to secondary sources.

What BLPBALANCE tells us regarding primary/secondary sources is that: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." This means that criticism and praise, not just any coverage generally, of a living person or their actions, should be restricted to secondary sources. Therefore, we can reference events and Rowling's quotes from primary sources, just not criticism or praise, which we need to reference from secondary sources.

Please let me know what your thoughts are when you have time. Thanks! 13tez (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TalyaNe, @Snowman304, @I am K-203, @LokiTheLiar, @Grayfell, @Amanda A. Brant, @Czello, @HadesTTW, @Umdlye, @GraziePrego, I hope you're all doing well!

As editors who have previously edited or discussed this article's content on Rowling's comments on trans people in Nazi Germany, I think it's important to gather your views on this discussion. Therefore, please could you provide your thoughts on the points raised in this thread when you're able to do so? Thank you! 13tez (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I am basically with DanielRigal here that Holocaust denial or broader denial of Nazi genocides is very much a political view. Loki (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I will second this… I am also of the opinion that Rowling's views of trans people has become a big enough topic to get its own page. I am K-203 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to be impressed by voting from a targeted ping list. When calling in the cavalry, an appropriate note requires that you do so impartially, but it is very clear that there are a number of names missing from this list of editors. People who have contributed to this article and talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought this was a cynical attempt to "call in the cavalry". I pinged everyone who I could find who had discussed or edited this particular content before. This would make them likely to be interested in this discussion and to have an opinion on it. I didn't discriminate by opinion. For example, I included Czello in my pings. They were against the inclusion of this content and removed it previously. Therefore, it's demonstrable that my pings weren't done "to outvote you", nor done in a way designed to do so. Please remember to WP:AGF. If you'd like to ping other editors who have contributed to this article, and you think would be interested in this discussion, please feel free to do so. Thanks! 13tez (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

But you did not include others such as SandyGeorgia, Geldmacherin or Ramore who posted just yesterday. But I am not pinging them, because pings are fraught with difficulties. Instead I left a note on the Talk:J. K. Rowling page, which also sees these discussions repeatedly, but has more active watchers than this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This selective pinging did not escape my attention. And while I'm here, I noticed that several of the pinged editors have never received a contentious topics notification, so someone should take on the task of keeping up with that ... I try to keep up with my watchlist, but don't have much time for editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Therefore, we can reference events and Rowling's quotes from primary sources. Absolutely not. Read up one paragraph in the BLP guideline (emphasis mine):

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. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

And when you have read that, take note of stuff I didn't bold too. We must not give undue weight to recent events. We are trying to write an article that discusses Rowling's political views. We need to remove all the WP:PROSELINE, including the bit you added yesterday [2]. You are right that Rowling's views on transgender issues are certainly notable political ideology, but the point is that what is notable is a treatment of her political views, and not a list of events generated by her tweets. The article must be written from secondary sources, describing her views using the source synthesis created by the writers of the best sources, and not our own. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, written in summary style, and not a newspaper. This is not optional. All BLPs must be written this way. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply!

Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects

Yeah, I take that point. Given that they're counted as WP:PRIMARY sources, we can't use WP:RSBREAKING news articles as references in BLP articles.

The only thing WP:PRIMARY tells us about news sources is that: "breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources". Therefore, it's implied that non-breaking news articles could potentially be secondary sources, notwithstanding other issues.

WP:SECONDARY doesn't tell us anything about news sources. It does tell us that secondary sources are at least one step removed from the event they describe, amalgamating and analysing information about that event. Therefore, as long as a news article isn't just an account of events unfolding, is written with hindsight, and combines and interprets multiple different pieces of information about its subject, then, notwithstanding other issues, I think such news articles are secondary sources.

The only thing WP:RSBREAKING tells us about the amount of time that identifies a news article as being breaking is that: "It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors." Therefore, the only specific time constraint I see that defines a breaking news story is it being published within 24/48 hours of an event happening, or, perhaps, that amount of time not yet having passed since the event, which would allow any necessary corrections to be made.

Therefore, I believe news articles can be used as references in BLP articles if they:

• are from a WP:RELIABLE source
• fuse and examine multiple different sources of information about their subject, making them WP:SECONDARY
• were published or have been published at least 24/48 hours after the event they describe, so aren't WP:RSBREAKING, which would make them WP:PRIMARY

Please could you tell whether you agree with me here?

We need to remove all the WP:PROSELINE

The preference that this content would be included as WP:PROSE is also true for much of the other content in this article, and is not unique to the paragraph in question. I suppose it's natural it will happen in an article that details her political views, given that it should date them to show if and how they changed over time. How do you think we could reformat the paragraph into prose style?

what is notable is a treatment of her political views, and not a list of events generated by her tweets

If you think that some of the subsequent developments past political comments (e.g. legal threats) are bloat, or shouldn't be included for any other reason, we can definitely discuss cutting them down or removing them. I'd advocate including the responses of some calling her a Holocaust denier, and her subsequent reply denying that claim, because both are also inherently political and significant in nature. Which parts of the paragraph do you not see as informing us of Rowling's political views (i.e. as irrelevant events)?

Thanks again! 13tez (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Please could you tell whether you agree with me here? - I do not. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Also check out note d in WP:PRIMARY that has quite a bit more detail.
• How do you think we could reformat the paragraph into prose style? Have a look at the Harry Potter section which I wrote, having read the Politics of Harry Potter just so I could update that section and the related Politics of Harry Potter page. It may have its faults - I would hope that section could get more attention too - but the point is that it begins with secondary sourcing, summarises it, and as a result we have prose that tells a reader succinctly what the politics of the books are. No need to give all her announcements and comments about meanings etc. For instance, she spoke at length about her writing of Umbridge sections, but we do not need to refer to any of that. We have the information in summary style, from the source.
• I'd advocate including the responses of some calling her a Holocaust denier What secondary sources discuss holocaust denial? And do we really think that Rowling thinks the holocaust was fabricated? Seriously? I'm not picking a side on the rights or wrongs of what she actually said, but if you are going to have to start explaining how holocaust denial does not just mean the antisemitic conspiracy theory that denies the holocaust happened, then we have clearly run afoul of Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me again!

See WP:PRIMARYNEWS

Thanks for making me aware of it, I hadn't seen it or the wider WP:PRIMARYUSE essay before. It explicitly tells us: "While most news stories are considered primary sources, some can be secondary sources". This concurs with my view that news articles can be both primary and secondary sources and means news sources aren't WP:PRIMARY just because they're news sources.

It tells us: "Wikipedia fairly often writes about current events. As a result, an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later"

This is essentially just rephrasing WP:RSBREAKING, which I discussed above, and doesn't prevent later news sources (past 24/48 hours after an event) that are also WP:SECONDARY in nature being considered secondary sources.

It then tells us "Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material" and gives a few similar quotes regarding identifying if a news source is a primary or secondary source from various other academic research guidelines. It gives examples of primary sources, that are, accordingly, first-hand information, e.g. eyewitness news, interviews, and direct reports of events the reporter attended, as well as breaking news.

This all concurs with some quick Googling on university/college websites I checked before my last reply, such as UoN, UFV, and Albany, and what I said in my last reply, which essentially is that news articles can be primary or secondary and that it depends on distance from the subject and if they are combining and analysing multiple primary sources.

check out note d in WP:PRIMARY that has quite a bit more detail.

The examples listed that are news reports (e.g. investigative reports, editorials, and op-eds) are not the same as news articles that combine and interpret multiple different primary sources about their subject at a later date. The definitions provided, again, say a primary source is a first-hand account or piece of information about an event.

I haven't seen anything that changed my view that news articles can be used as references in BLP articles if they:

• are from a WP:RELIABLE source
• fuse and examine multiple different sources of information about their subject, making them WP:SECONDARY
• were published or have been published at least 24/48 hours after the event they describe, so aren't WP:RSBREAKING, which would make them WP:PRIMARY

Please could you let me know what your thoughts are on this now?

Have a look at the Harry Potter section which I wrote

Yeah, I think it'd work fine to summarise down to her most notable comments and actions on trans people, e.g. saying "Rowling has, on multiple occasions, misgendered trans people, such as x and y", without having to go into detail about each comment, and subsequent developments after it, and organising everything thematically rather than as a chronological, dated list.

What secondary sources discuss holocaust denial?

The ones that were already used as references in the paragraph, plus The Forward, The Telegraph, etc, discuss Rowling's comments and the subsequent criticism of them and descriptions of her comments as Holocaust denial.

And do we really think that Rowling thinks the holocaust was fabricated? Seriously?...how holocaust denial does not just mean the antisemitic conspiracy theory that denies the holocaust happened

Denying the Holocaust to any extent, in whole or in part, falls within the definition of Holocaust denial. The USHMM webpage Explaining Holocaust Denial calls partial Holocaust denial "softcore denial". You can read about how transgender people were persecuted during the Holocaust at Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany#Transgender_life_under_Nazi_rule and Transgender Life and Persecution under the Nazi State. Note that it wasn't only Jewish people who were the victims of the Holocaust.

It's a strawman to attempt to refute the criticism of Rowling's comments while saying it was claiming that she "thinks the holocaust was fabricated". The criticism of her comments did not claim that she thinks or said the Holocaust never happened in its entirety. It said she denied persecution trans people suffered within it, i.e. claimed she carried out partial Holocaust denial (towards trans people).

Regardless, it's objectively true that lots of people did describe her comments as being Holocaust denial, even if you don't personally think the term is warranted, and that it received significant coverage too.

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• A general law of Wikipedia discussions: the number of contributors to a discussion is inversely proportional to the number and length of messages in the discussion. 753 words takes an average reader nearly 6 minutes to read.
• A great benefit of editing Wikipedia is that editors learn to categorise sources - the guidelines show principles that one must consider. We don't do it this way just because Wikipedia says so. News reports and other primary sources are the bread a butter of the historian (for whom primary sources are required for the synthesis that they will construct). Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.. You will note that I said that it's the reporting of the incident that is primary. The question of primary or secondary information may be nuanced by the question asked of the source, but there is no doubt that such reporting is primary, and if you do not know that, you have some reading to do.
• Rowling has, on multiple occasions, misgendered trans people... That is your analysis and source synthesis. I expect a WP:BESTSOURCE does deal with something like that though. When you find the source, we can discuss how to summarise it. For now we have no secondary sources.
• ...falls within the definition of... I think you didn't carefully read what I said, but thank you for taking the time to explain that; you clearly felt it necessary. What you have missed is that we are not explaining to each other, we are writing for the reader. Your 244 words of explanation, therefore, demonstrate we have run aground on Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hey, thanks for getting back to me again!

  Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings,...newspaper articles

  This quote doesn't contradict what I (and the other quotes from academic institutions I and WP:PRIMARYNEWS have provided) said before: news articles can be primary or secondary, and that it depends on the distance they have from their subject. It doesn't say "all news articles are primary sources". It says that people's first-hand accounts of events are primary sources and gives a list of types of sources that might provide such accounts that includes newspaper articles.

  we have run aground on "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision."

  The text did not label Rowling with a contentious label: it did not call Rowling a Holocaust denier. It said others had done so. It said: "Some...accused Rowling of Holocaust denial...Rivkah Brown...said Rowling was 'now a Holocaust denier'...This caused 'J.K. Rowling is a Holocaust denier' to trend".

  The full sentence you're quoting is: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." There are numerous reliable sources that substantiate the fact that Rowling was widely called a Holocaust denier after she made her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany. Some of them were in use in the paragraph.

  Thanks! 13tez (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  There are numerous reliable sources... No. You are quoting from WP:BLP and it is specifically talking about secondary sources. I quoted the whole paragraph above. Scroll up. If you will not go looking for secondary sources, we are done here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for getting back to me again.

  You are quoting from WP:BLP and it is specifically talking about secondary sources.

  WP:BLPSTYLE says: "BLPs should be...Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects...Summarize how actions...Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources."

  The paragraph did not label Rowling a Holocaust denier, and I'm not arguing that we should. Do we agree there? Strictly, the last sentence says that you can't label with someone with a contentious label etc unless they're commonly described that way in reliable sources, not reliable and secondary sources. However, I take the point that it's probably helpful to interpret it as the latter whenever possible and by default.

  If you will not go looking for secondary sources, we are done here

  I don't think that anything you have said or provided contradicts what I said before: that news articles can be primary or secondary sources, and that a news article is a secondary source if it: isn't breaking news; isn't just a first-hand account of an event unfolding; is written with hindsight; and combines and interprets multiple different primary sources of information about its subject. Please can you let me know what you think about this now?

  Thanks! 13tez (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about this edit. [3] and the line "the Jewish newspaper The Forward, accused Rowling of Holocaust denial." This is simply not supported, and should not be added back in without a source that supports it. To interpret that article as "The Forward accusing her" is not correct; they've been very careful to edge around it, but never explicitly making the connection. The closest they get is "She didn’t need to distort the Holocaust. But now we have to add that to her list of sins". JeffUK 00:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed this seems to be misrepresentation of the source. Moreover the actual description states, that many commenting people (on social media) felt that it amounted to a holocaust denial (the denial of transliterature being burned/targetted). Aside from the imho obvious idiocy of equating those two things (but idiocies are common on social media), this almost a Trump style argument of "people on the internet say". There is no place for such nonsense in Wikipedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"The British author posted that Nazis did not persecute trans people. That’s false."

"But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling."

The source is 1 step off of being completely explicit in saying she practised Holocaust denial. How do you both deny it that what she was accused of is not supporter by the writer of the article? Pink Pyra (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Politics of Harry Potter

@Sirfurboy: re the Harry Potter section, do you have a source that shows how the politics of Harry Potter directly correspond to her political views? The intro to Baratt is a bit ambiguous on that, and I'm not sure why you'd consider The Circular, a student blog, a RS. I think a section on the series would be appropriate, but I'm not sure how much should be included in comparison to the main article. Additionally, can you point to pages in Baratt 2012 that support your bullet points (i.e. fascism, which I'm sure fits well with Voldy, but is only mentioned in the book in relation to the Inquisitorial Squad, at least according to what ctrl+f shows me)? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Barratt is particularly ambiguous on that point. On page 5 we have Rowling has, in fact, characterized the books as “a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry . . . and I think it’s a very healthy message to pass on to younger people that you should question authority and you should not assume that the establishment or the press tells you all of the truth” and it is clear the author agrees. It is true that earlier we had I don’t assume in most cases that she’s intentionally making an argument for a particular party or policy. That is fair enough. The books have political themes. There is a polemic. Is there any reason we would not believe that the polemic of the book was not in line with the views of the author? Can it be a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry without some understanding that the author, in making the plea, holds the view that bigotry should be ended? It seems to me that this is very much what Barratt is saying throughout. In unpacking the polemic of the work, Barratt unpacks the polemic of the author, and that is a political view.

On the circular, you are right. That can go, and perhaps be replaced with something like the above quote. I found that source on Politics of Harry Potter, a page that has a lot wrong with it. I deleted a lot of material and added in information based on Barratt, but I kept that source as I believe the quote is genuine, and it seemed appropriate. I still believe it is genuine, but I am sure we can find better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh I missed replying on fascism. use ctrl-f with the keyword Nazi as well and it will pop them all up. Chapter 4 is the primary chapter on the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)