Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling

Lede wording

The paragraph currently reading:

"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists."

could use expansion and clarification. With instances such as [1] the comments towards trans newsreader India Willoughby reported yesterday, it's clear that what is criticised is now significantly beyond "her opinions" and very much into "language used about and towards trans people, including specific people in the public eye". For comparison Lee Anderson's comments about Sadiq Khan [2] aren't descried as "comments about Muslim people", and the fact that she's very clearly and specifically critiqued for transphobic statements and insults, for use of language deliberately designed to attack and belittle trans people, is probably worth mentioning.

Specifically, it's inaccurate to say it is just about her views. The points about trans people go to specifically critiquing her language towards and alleged prejudice displayed to trans people.

At present the page explicitly instructs not to change without consensus.

I would also question the "some" before "LGBT rights", and suggest changing that working to "by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists". (The organisations which have been at all non-critical of her explicitly do not call themselves LGBT rights groups.)

How is something like the following?

"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights, and used language towards trans people (individually and separately) frequently referred to as "transphobic". These views and have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists."

Understand if that is too strong, but do think the point that increasingly not only what she is saying that is criticised, but also how she is saying it. (There has been also very limited support for her language.)

WorthPoke2 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"frequently referred to as "transphobic"" seems redundant to me. I also think it would be worthwhile to cite some examples of criticism and support of her views & language.

What about something like the following:

"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. Both her views and the language she uses towards transgender people has been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists [citations], but have received support from other feminists [citations]."

Heatedfrost (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd phrasing

The section on free speech is phrased unusually.

"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"

The "who say things about her she dislikes" doesn't seem very encyclopedic; it sticks out like a sore thumb and reads like it was written by someone with a bias. It's reductionist and makes assertions about her motivations and internal emotional state. The citations listed on that sentence make reference to contentions about whether claims about her were defamatory. 146.200.114.136 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:34C1:EDFF:FEF2:1DA0 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Comments on transgender People in Nazi Germany

I just summarised the information on Rowling's comments about transgender people in Nazi Germany, made on 13 March 2024. There were issues with the references used beforehand.

The Daily Beast had been used, as was a Yahoo News copy of the Daily Beast article (used as a separate reference), as well as sites like insidethemagic.net. The Daily Beast, per WP:DAILYBEAST, should probably be avoided. You can't use a news aggregator copy of the same source twice. The website insidethemagic.net is not rated in terms of reliability at WP:RSPSS, and Ground News/Media Bias/Fact Check rates its factuality as mixed.

I retained The Forward as a source because Ground News rates it as having high factuality and a discussion in the RSN concurred. I retained The Mary Sue as a source because it is listed at WP:RSPSS, where it is described as being "generally reliable".

I am aware that Rowling did also amplify a thread by Malcolm Clark of the LGB Alliance. I know that his statements in that thread and her approval of it are relevant to the subject of her prior comments. However, this hasn't yet been discussed in any reliable sources. Therefore, at present, this fact cannot be included, per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.

To this point, there has been some back-and-forth editing on this topic in the article. I think, therefore, that further edits on this topic should be discussed here before being made to avoid an edit war. If a new article is written by a reliable source that supports further details, then it should be reasonable to add those further details (within reason and the bounds of WP:WEIGHT).

Please let me know if you have any thoughts. 13tez (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Vox's timeline of Rowling's comments on transphobia now includes her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany. Per WP:RSPVOX, Vox is a reliable source. Would anyone be opposed to me adding it as a reference like this? 13tez (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the following edit should add this additional reliable source and remove the MOS:WEASEL issue. Please let me know what your thoughts are. If nobody has any objections, I'll apply the change later.

On 13 March 2024, Rowling dismissed the fact that the Nazis burned books on transgender healthcare during their raids on the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft as "a fever dream". Her comments received harsh criticism, including from Alejandra Caraballo. Rowling went on to quote a tweet that claimed trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Some, including The Mary Sue, accused Rowling of Holocaust denial. 13tez (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@13tez I agree in general that Twitter isn't the most trustworthy source, but I think an archived copy of the tweet in question is warranted. With the rather mercurial nature of Twitter and its leadership, I think it's useful to avoid future claims of her words being taken out of context or something. Snowman304|talk 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for talking it out @Snowman304.

I agree in general that Twitter isn't the most trustworthy source

I'm glad we agree on that point. In general, the sources covering her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany aren't great, but the ones currently in use are the best I could find. They're reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES so good enough.

I think an archived copy of the tweet in question is warranted.

Both the articles in use as references contain copies of the text of the tweet. The tweet itself is archived here and here. There are several permanent records of it now. 13tez (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TalyaNe, hope you're doing well.

I saw you added text saying the forward was among those who accused Rowling of holocaust denial. Please could you tell me why you thought it was important to do so? We only really needed one example to adhere to MOS:WEASEL.

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The Forward is more notable than the Mary Sue (of the two it is the only one that has a Wikipedia page, as well as being significantly more established), and as a Jewish organization, perhaps has more authority to talk about matters concerning the Holocaust than a website "highlighting women in the geek world, and providing a prominent place for the voices of geek women".

Personally, I'd remove the Mary Sue from that sentence altogether and just keep it in the refs. As a matter of fact, that's what I did when I added the incident to Rowling's HeWiki page. I just didn't want to step on the toes of whomever added Mary Sue. //Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 12:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. For the reasons I outlined before, we only really need one example. Since the Forward is more notable and established, as you said, I agree it should be the single example we use, which is what you put forward too. I'll make that change now. Thanks again! 13tez (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a list of the books about transgender healthcare in Hirschfeld's library that were burned by the Nazis? --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You might find this article helpful if you are trying to find or create such a list. I think it's out of scope for this article, however, and may be better placed in Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. 13tez (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The Free Speech Section is misinformative

The statement that UK has less freedom of expression than the US not sourced or sourced with unrelated material. It is also contradicted by multiple major international sources: https://www.indexoncensorship.org/campaigns/indexindex/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index Multiple reverts have been made to my edit which neutrally state facts with sources attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8428:1067:9301:34C1:EDFF:FEF2:1DA0 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit definitely did more than "neutrally state facts", and it is up to you to gain consensus when your edits are reverted. See WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYNTH, for starters. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok about the wording, but the sources I cite are relevant, authoritative and major. How do you suggest I should include them? 2A02:8428:1067:9301:34C1:EDFF:FEF2:1DA0 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, per WP:CIRC. Based on that linked page, which says "The Index Index is a pilot project that uses innovative machine learning techniques to map the free expression landscape across..." I don't think that is the Index on Censorship's "Index Index" is a reliable source either. More importantly, neither source mentions Rowling at all. So, based on your proposed additions, I would suggest that you don't include them. Figure out what reliable sources say about the political views of J. K. Rowling and propose a way to summarize those sources neutrally and without editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The section in question was a trashfire. Calling this "misinformative" excessive, to put it mildly, but regardless, this needs to summarize sources about Rowling. A possible exception would be to address WP:FRINGE issues, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed this section in my first edit but keep getting reverted. Now I'll go around and remove all the wikipedia links in this article. You are welcome to watch. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:A5EA:DDB7:22F1:7455 (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears you removed information which was sourced and which was relevant and also tried to add even more sources which do not mention Rowling at all. That isn't helpful.

Removing "all the Wikipedia links" would be disruptive behavior, and also completely misses the point. Wikilinks are not the same as citations. Do not cite Wikipedia as a source. Information needs to be verifiable, and also relevant to the topic. Grayfell (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about all the bad links. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:A5EA:DDB7:22F1:7455 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW, good to see that UNESCO is a source. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:A5EA:DDB7:22F1:7455 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about adding this version of the removed text to the section, with some added context as to why UK libel laws are relevant to Rowling?

Freedom of speech rights in the UK are significantly more limited than in the USA. Libel laws in the UK have been criticised for allowing the very rich to silence criticism. Rowling has threatened to sue those who have called her transphobic several times. 13tez (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my concerns, how many of those sources specifically mention Rowling? Why, exactly, is the UK being compared to the USA? Why not compare it to, I dunno, France, or New Zealand, or Japan? If sources make this comparison specifically as it regards Rowling's political views, we can summarize those sources and provide that context, otherwise this seems like WP:OR or at least a subtle bit of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd support Grayfell's points here. It doesn't seem appropriate for an article about JKR's views. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, removing the UK vs USA comparison seems reasonable. I suppose it's there because a significant number of people reading English Wikipedia who aren't from the UK need that context to know that she can (as she reportedly threatens to) sue people for defamation for calling her transphobic more easily than would be possible in the USA. If we removed the first sentence (so only including "Libel laws in the UK..." onwards) or even removed the first and second sentences (so only including "Rowling has threatened..." onwards), would you feel that what's left would be relevant enough to warrant inclusion? 13tez (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If the page subject is Rowling's political views is it even on topic, in an encyclopaedic summary of those views, to mention recourse to libel laws? We should be following secondary sources about her views, per WP:BLPSTYLE, and not recounting primary news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Her use of lawsuits does reflect something relevant about her views. Specifically, it reflects how she presents her political views to others, which is obviously relevant to this topic. However, figuring out how to summarizes these examples neutrally is difficult, to put it mildly. Instead of citing them and then presenting them as examples in ref tags, we should summarize sources which explain this habit for us, to prevent WP:SYNTH issues. If sources don't do the work for us, this should not be included in this article.

So I would sincerely like to see sources which contextualize Rowling's use of SLAPP, but we do need sources to do this, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Cass Report

Grounds of removal is malignant. The sources cites JKRowling. The section is also encyclopedic as it documents an important piece of JK Rowling's political view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8428:1067:9301:a5ea:ddb7:22f1:7455 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

She has so, so many opinions. Why is this example any more or less "important" than anything else she's tweeted about? Our goal isn't to just regugitate her various tweets (if we did that, the article would be even more bloated than it already is). Our goal is to provide context via reliable, independent sources. It's not enough to repeat her opinions, we need to explain why they are encyclopedically significant.

Any source about the Cass Review which doesn't mention Rowling is not usable for this. A pseudo-intellectual political gossip site like The Spectator is also poor for this. Opinion content, such as the Yorkshire Post one, would need to be attributed as an opinion, but this, also requires a specific reason.

Further, this is both a medical issue and a WP:FRINGE issue. Rowling is not qualified to speak on medicine at all. Since she is not a reliable source for medicine, we cannot use flimsy sources as an excuse to repeat her dubious medical claims as though they had any legitimacy or weight. Grayfell (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Time to restructure the lead?

The lead currently starts with her previous commentary on politics (the Labour Party and Brexit, amongst other issues) before moving onto trans issues in the second paragraph. This would have been written chronologically as she made her views known.

I would say that her views on trans issues are far more prominent and well known now than the subjects in the first paragraph. Consequently I suggest we rearrange the lead while keeping the content unchanged. I suggest the following:

Lead restructure suggestion

British author J. K. Rowling, writer of Harry Potter and other Wizarding World works, has garnered attention for her some of her political views. Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. Rowling has used language and expressed her views towards transgender people in a manner which has frequently been referred to as transphobic by LGBT rights organizations and some feminists, even as she has received support from other feminists. She has also expressed her support of the Labour Party under Gordon Brown and her criticism of the party under Jeremy Corbyn, as well as her opposition to the Republican Party under Donald Trump. She opposed Scottish independence in a 2014 referendum and Brexit during the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union.

Again, this doesn't change the much-debated and carefully agreed-upon wording, it just switches the paragraphs around. Thoughts? — Czello ^(music) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess I would support this.

I get that this is much-debated, and I get that "even as she has received support from other feminists" has consensus. It appears to me that most of the support is attributed to other performers and public personalities who are not constantly defined as feminists. It also ignores the significant support she has accrued among anti-feminists, some of whom are even mentioned. Much of that support seems pretty tepid. To imply that this support from "other feminists" is proportionate seems like a false balance issue, especially considering how scant discussion of this support is in the body of the article. Moving this to the very first paragraph exacerbates this problem.

But anyway...

Her transphobia now dominates how reliable sources discuss her political views, so the lead should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the lead is already structurally unsound, and that restructuring would lend credence to this being an article about her trans views with everything else bolted on. The whole page is just a list of views, and doesn't discuss, for instance, the development of her ideas, or the influences that led her into various causes. There is a distinct air of editor curation about the content on this page. In what way are we being led by the secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment There is a fundamental problem with describing her views on the trans issue as political views. While opinions on sex and gender can have an impact in the political realm (e.g. her view on the recent Scottish law), by themselves they are not political views, unless you are of the opinion that everything is political in nature. It does look like this article takes the "everything is political" approach (comment on underweight people is a political view?) but I don't think that is how most people understand it. As it is, there is already an excessive concentration on her trans views in the lead, the proposed wording will make it worse. Either change the title of the article or split off her opinions on trans and other social issues. Hzh (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether intentionally or not, Rowling herself has made her views on trans people into a political issues. For one thing, trans rights are human rights, and human rights are obviously a political issues. For another, she has been outspoken in her support of anti-trans organizations (such as For Women Scotland etc.) and discrimination-related legal issues, such as Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe. She certainly did not have to publicly call Nazi book burning, as it relates to trans health issues, a "fever dream", but here we are, and it's hard to imagine a more political issue than Nazi book burning. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me it's more about your own political view, not JK Rowling's. Hzh (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with @Grayfell- her views very much can be described as political, as she is politically active against transgender people. For instance, she publicly advocated against Nicola Sturgeon on the basis of their policies relating to trans people. Rowling has also criticised legal rulings in South Australia, and supported a schism in the Victorian Liberal Party by supporting Moira Deeming. She’s very explicitly a political figure with political views. GraziePrego (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

How ironic, but your personal opinion remains irrelevant. Sources do not bother to "apolitically" discuss her opinions on the validity of other people's identity, nor is it self evident that this would even be possible. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with Grayfell above that it is fundamentally political as she often talks about it in a politican context. Regardless, even if it wasn't, there would then be a case to be made that this article could simply be called "Views of J. K. Rowling", though I don't think we're at that stage yet. I also don't agree that there's an "excessive" concentration on her views of transgenderism in the lead – it's become the most significant issue she talks about, by far. Switching round the two paragraphs (again, without changing the wording) reflects that. — Czello ^(music) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just repeat again that views on sex and gender are not inherently political. You can have views on anything (say, smoking, AI, gardening, whatever) and criticise a government approach to those issues, but the issue themselves are not political in nature Here it's the government that decided to wade into the issue, and she responded because she thinks the issue is important. (Let's say if a government decided to ban geranium from gardens, and you love geranium, so you criticise the government over it, but your liking for geranium is still not by itself a political view.) Since a government can legislate on anything, therefore some will argue that "everything is political", it is still not how most people understand political views. Hzh (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, though, if she is commenting on it through a political lens (which she often is), then it's political. She doesn't just talk about it in isolation – she actively comments on legislation. So yes, in your geranium example I'd expect that to go under a "political views" section if I'm speaking about the legislation. Regardless, as I say, even if were in isolation there'd be a case to be made to rename this article to "Views of J. K. Rowling"; I don't see a split as productive. However I do think this line of discussion is a bit of a distraction; the article is what it is right now, and unless a separate discussion is created around the article's purpose, then the topic at hand is the order things are mentioned in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 08:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent news addition affecting both "free speech" and "transgender rights" sections

The Forward is now reporting that Rivkah Brown (whose recent apology is mentioned in this wiki article) was forced to apologize under legal threat:

"Brown said in an email that Rowling’s legal team demanded not only that she delete the tweet, but apologize. Brown said that she lacks “the financial resources to engage in a legal battle with Rowling,” so she issued the apology."

https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/

The same article also goes into more detail about SLAPP suits. I'm not sure how much a single source can be used in an article so I'm leaving this here for the folks who recently worked on both the free speech and transgender rights sections. @Grayfell @13tez Umdlye (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty much what I was asking for.

As far as I know, The Forward is a well-established and reputable news outlet which broadly meets WP:RS, and this content is reporting, not opinion. Mira Fox's other writing for The Forward has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well.

The easiest approach would be to attribute this explanation to The Forward by name. "According to a 2024 report in The Forward..." While I did mention SLAPP above, I think the source mentions it as more of an aside here, which makes sense in context, so I don't think this point needs to be emphasized. A link to Streisand effect seems like a more efficient way to get the point across anyway.

Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Split proposed

Out of all political views of J. K. Rowling, it's pretty clear that her views on transgender issues are the most notable. Considering the size and content of the section, it seems appropriate that an article about J. K. Rowling views on transgender issues should exist independently. Skyshiftertalk 15:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose. This article is just under 4,000 words in length. According to WP:ARTICLESIZE, that's less than half the size before we need to consider splitting or trimming. Even if the trans section is the largest, it doesn't strike me as anywhere near such a size it needs to be split. — Czello ^(music) 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 Fuchs ^talk 13:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

13tez (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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)