Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling

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

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)

• 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.

DocZach (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• Oppose and perhaps consider reducing the size of the section by improving and condensing the prose. ——Serial Number 54129 13:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

Adding balance to the lede

Here's what I proposed as an addition to the second paragraph:

However, some of these other feminists are of the view that Rowling is using the language necessary to describe the issue, such as referring to male individuals who seek to access women-only spaces with male pronouns.

This is User:DanielRigal's counter-proposal:

Others say that Rowling is using "language necessary to describe the issue"[citation needed], by misgendering transgender women who use women-only spaces with male pronouns.

I have a couple of criticisms of this, first, this isn't a direct quote but paraphrasing what feminists like Julie Bindel (cited later in the article) have said about JKR's choice of language. Secondly, it's more accurate to use "male individuals" because we can't make any assumptions about how they identify. For example, JKR (and other feminists) have spoken about the problem of male prisoners in the female prison estate and there is a common view even amongst trans activists that these include opportunistic men.

Let's work towards the best wording possible that doesn't just slate JKR for her views but tries to explain them in the appropriate context. 2A00:23EE:2418:718:B81C:E698:CC3A:8BF7 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really a fan of the first proposal.

• "However, some" is a bit weasel-wordy- it's good to avoid using "however" on Wikipedia as it's a bit essay-like or persuasive writing.
• "Some" is also very vague- how many are we talking?
• "The issue" is also contentious- it's Rowling et al's opinion that there is an issue, it's not universally agreed that there is an issue.
• Rowling doesn't just use male pronouns for trans women accessing women-only spaces, she uses male pronouns for any trans women, regardless of whether they are seeking to access spaces.
• "Male individuals" is also contentious; saying "transgender women" is more specific and less contentious about who Rowling is describing. She's not talking about cisgender men, so she's not talking about all male individuals.

GraziePrego (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I see your point on "however" and I agree that was inappropriate. For "some" and "the issue", I was trying to match the style of the previous sentences which refer to "related issues" and "some feminists":

Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender activism and related issues. 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.

I understand that "male individuals" is contentious here but it is consistent with how JKR expresses her views on this topic, which I believe this article should be trying to accurately describe. For example in this recent tweet https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1786425947274527215, the framing is around male violence, not trans:

That you watch that video and see the large male using physical violence as vulnerable, and the tiny girl using words as the oppressor, you're somebody I wouldn't trust on a jury or anywhere near a child.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this. 2A00:23EE:2418:718:B81C:E698:CC3A:8BF7 (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Since I also had one revert in the recent edit history, lemme add my two cents.

I think it's relevant to note that this is a page under WP:CTOP, and that it seems to have taken reams and reams of previous discussion to arrive at the current wording. So it's not just between those two proposals, if Talk page history is any indication.

Given how controversial the topic is, and in case we can't agree on which proposal, by default I would lean towards reverting to established talk page consensus until there's a new agreement.

However I'll also argue that this is BLP, and I'm a strong proponent of avoiding weasel wording like "has frequently been referred to as" or "many people say", especially for contentious topics, even more so in BLP. Either we have some direct quotes supporting this language that we can add as inline citations, or it's unsupported weasel wording, and I could not object to anyone challenging it.

I think if we disagree about how to characterize Rowling's language, the best thing might be to but just fall back on what reliable sources report, as directly as possible. We don't need to establish whether she's "using the language necessary" or "misgendering". Let's just find good sources and report what they say as directly as possible, with regard to due weight, relevance, etc etc.

Mlkj (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If we're talking about this block of edits, it reads as editorializing based on WP:OR from primary sources. No dice.

A deeper issue here is that it's a form of editorializing to assume that there are only two equivalent sides and that the most neutral approach lies somewhere between those two sides.

Reliable sources plainly describe Rowling's comments as bigoted towards trans people. Perhaps a few years ago there was some ambiguity, but no longer. Euphemistic language is not neutral, nor does BLP obligate us to use evasive language or filler from weaker sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the revised version due the massive POV problems with the first version and to break out of the tedious edit war of reversions. I'm perfectly happy to see it fully reverted to the status-quo version, with neither version included. I feel that this is over-detailed for coverage in the lede and does not require any "balancing" here anyway. The fundamental problems, which can not be addressed by rewriting, are WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. I can't even see the unreferenced "necessary" language claim being made anywhere in the body. Let's leave it as it is now, without either version. If anybody can source the "necessary" language claim then maybe it can go in the body somewhere but I'm thinking that this is probably not the best article for covering it as (I presume) that this is not a claim or term specific to Rowling. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification

I've noted that a few citations failed verification about a week ago. I have now removed this content. Suissa and Sullivan has three sentences on Rowling, and the best possible content that can be got from it is "Rowling received insults after publication of her essay", not a detailed analysis of why. Since this anchored a couple sentences of text, it's not clear how to rescue them. If anyone disagrees, please quote exactly the text from Suissa and Sullivan that says "Rowling inspired debates on academic freedom", and "Rowling was insulted after her views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny". Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)