![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
J.K. Rowling married Jorge Arantes in 1992, and divorced him in 1993. Please change this. I am a person who cringes when information is incorrect and nobody bothers to change it. 173.54.205.146 ( talk) 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC) 173.54.205.146 ( talk) 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
a Church of Scotland congregation while writing Harry Potter.
CHANGE TO
a Scottish Episcopalian congregation while writing Harry Potter. AmySandridge ( talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
AmySandridge ( talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I attended the Scottish Episcopalian congregation with J K Rowling while she was writing Harry Potter. How do I cite this? I have the Church weekly magazine, Movement. What else is needed? AmySandridge ( talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Marriage, divorce, and single parenthood" includes this: "She wrote in many cafés, especially Nicolson's Café (owned by her brother-in-law, Roger Moore)..."
I haven't found any indication that she is related by marriage to the notable late [Roger Moore], his widow Kristina Tholstrup, or any of the other Roger Moores fortunate enough to have their own WP articles. Unless it's someone notable it is superfluous and a little confusing.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but "her brother in law" or "sister's husband" (or whatever he is) is sufficient and his name should be removed.
2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:64B3:6653:FE1F:D4C4 (
talk)
20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/writers/writerdetails.asp?z=y&cid=855300{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.sky.com/home/madeleine/article/1265397When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the 'K.' in her initials stand for anything? Why did she choose a male name as her pseudonym? Seems so wrong. Because she's female, of course.-- 193.163.223.192 ( talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes you are right Febin shibu ( talk) 16:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what this means: and read for a B.A. in French and Classics at the University of Exeter. Do you mean she studied a bachelor of arts in French and Classics at the university of exeter? Then why not just say that instead of saying 'she read for'. What does that even mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.136.77 ( talk) 05:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
"Reading" is a posh way of saying "studying" Vince Calegon ( talk) 21:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. I changed it to "earned a B.A. in French and Classics". Other sources confirm that she earned the degree, not just "read for" it. RexxiA —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it English and you don't have to be rude about it Lonewolf2019 ( talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it English and you don't have to be rude about it Lonewolf2019 ( talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Joanne Rowling" to Joanne Kathleen Rowling Death Spectre31 ( talk) 14:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Are the Harry Potter books something that you would call children's books? I don't know, if this was discussed before, but isn't Young adult fiction the correct description? ZeR0101MiNt ( talk) 16:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gjh bfjsm m ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
she just had here birthday can i change it from 52 on 53
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph of the article, it states that she has sold over 400 million copies worldwide. This is an outdated figure from 2008; she has recently surpassed 500 million total sales for the Harry Potter series, and the article should reflect this. Here is the most reliable source I could find: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/harry-potter-books-sales-reach-500-million-worldwide-723556. That source says they received their figure from the publishing house. I could not find the figure stated directly from the publishing house themselves.
Thank you. Nomadben ( talk) 00:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Weirdoperso ( talk) 04:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
she's dead
Her occupation should include "philanthropist." I'm sure it was just an oversight given that her Lumos foundation is referenced in the article. Here is another famous living person who happens to be a male whose occupation also includes "philanthropist".
/info/en/?search=Warren_Buffett
This is my first time submitting a talk topic so I hope I did it correctly. Thank you, Aus512 2018-08-13 (UTC) ````
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Rowling had gained some creative control on the films, reviewing all the scripts[103] as well as acting as a producer on the final two-part instalment, Deathly Hallows.[104]"
"instalment" is spelled incorrectly. 74.85.95.74 ( talk) 19:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Rowling visited Sarah Brown in hospital when her son John, not Fraser, was born in 2003. See /info/en/?search=Sarah_Jane_Brown#Marriage_to_Gordon_Brown and the footnote with this statement (which is about the baptism of John). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.172.41 ( talk) 22:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would it be possible to update the image of J.K. Rowling on her wiki page? This photograph is about 20 years old. I have a recent photo that we have permission to use specifically for this page. Tbp2018 ( talk) 15:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I checked the scope of this Wikiproject and found that this Wikiproject discourages put the banner into writers' talk page. I would ask if it should be moved. Mariogoods ( talk) 09:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is this a "horrible photo"? How is it inferior to this photo, where she is facing away and squinting? Surtsicna ( talk) 13:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the Childhood part, can you change it from 23 months to 1 year and 11 months 185.39.202.226 ( talk) 08:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Charlton Athletic fan. 213.106.89.77 ( talk) 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you change the key image to this image? I have permission to use the attached image, the credit should be: Photography Debra Hurford Brown © J.K. Rowling 2018
Tbp2018 ( talk) 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The data for an article mentioned in the section on Rowling's education is wrong. It says the year of Rowling's article "What was the Name of that Nymph Again?" from Pegasus, the journal of the University of Exeter's Classics department is 1988. However, I found a PDF of that article which clearly dates it as 1998. Not to mention that Rowling mentions Professor Binns in the article; the Potterverse wasn't even a gleam in her eye in 1988.
I think whoever wrote the citation got the date from WorldCat. 1988 is written in the Publisher field, but I don't know that necessarily means the article should be dated 1988.
A Princeton library has the correct date for it online. I suppose I could just change the citation to the Princeton library instead of WorldCat, but I find that untidy.
Should I try to change the WorldCat data? It seems like you have to be affiliated with some library in order to request changes. Quickfoot ( talk) 01:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The Education section notes J.K. Rowling's "What was the Name of that Nymph Again? or Greek and Roman Studies Recalled" as being published in 1988, but it appears to have been published in 1998 as found within the Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics And Ancient History on a University website at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf
AndrewHeagle ( talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Andrew Heagle
This is clearly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF and also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Reasoning has been explained several times with no change to the OP's attitude. This will clearly go nowhere. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it because wikipedia editors are now toxics SJWs . I mean, brie larson gets a free pass with her man hating views on wikipedia but Jk Rowling is accused without proof . People cant add man hating to brie Larson article because wikipedia isnt a gossip rag but TERF can be added to Jk Rowling ? With one tweet and biased sources ? Talk about hypocrisy. This should apply to brie as well- if you add Terf to JKR you should be able to add Man hating to Brie . Gossip rag argument is moot point if your willing to vilify one person on the bases of poor gossip sources but not the other. People can't make edits to articles of other celebs like brie Larson because of poor sources and wikipedia not being a gossip rag YET here we are with gossip sources for Jk Rowling. Even if people change the maya situation, it will be reverted by some SJW editor . Don't get me started on Johnny Depp being abused by amber heard and online tapes being released - someone on wiki said these tapes were doctored. Anything to believe woman as if woman cant do harm. Their are woman criminals. Hypocrisy 101 is showing and it must end . Social justice doesn't equal to equality but reverse revenge . Hpdh4 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
A specific BLP article is not the place to discuss general claims about "fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles".
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
11:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
|
I vote yes; it is a much talked about piece, and seems to have been written more as a true essay, rather than simply as a blog post. Inspector Semenych ( talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the uk times a reliable enough source to label mermaids as controversial? From my understanding it's up there with the daily mail in terms of manufacturing fake controversies. EDIT: see also the wikipedia page about mermaids itself which does not refer to them as such.-- Licks-rocks ( talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Britmax: pinging you since you reverted my edit on this -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Support of Rowling's stance on Transgender issues should be included as much as critique is included. Excluding support for her comments is indicative of an obvious bias in support of the gender narrative and isn't conducive to wikipedias main purpose. Some would debate adding any information is controversial and that adding support that doesn't come from Potter cast isn't proper. Support is support no matter who it comes from as in the case of Transgender pop singer Dana International who spoke in support of Rowling. I will add the supporters to counteract the detractors who are motivated by publicity reasons . Hpdh4 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Dana's opinions matter more then Radcliffe,Glaad,Mermaids, Watson,Lynch,Redmayne,Wright . Dana is actually transgender. Opinions of the person from the actual group matters more then that of controversial organizations like mermaids or PR driven actors . Plus it's a situation of Us vs Them . Having only Rowlings detractors is bias as it assumes Rowling is entirely wrong when people like Dana agrees with her to an extent. Support as much as critique should be included . Even a neutral sentence should be included like : Rowling's claims have garnered some support and then have the Reuters/dana article used as a citation. Hpdh4 19:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
No I am starting to understand one thing from this: theirs a bias against Rowlings comments. I still stand by my original position; Both CRITIQUE and SUPPORT should be included to avoid being seen as giving creditability to one side only. It isn't neutral if theirs only critique from PR driven actors and a controversial transRIGHTS organization. Neutral is this : Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues have generated controversy and have garnered both criticism and support from an assortment of celebrities and organizations. Hpdh4 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You prove my point Batsun. This site is supposed to be neutral and report things as is. Agendas are left at the table . Fairness demands both criticism and support exist in the same article section. Dont play the new card when your blatantly against Rowling. I'm neither against her and nor am I with her. I just want both criticism and and support to be included. Information should not be excluded on the basis of whose relavent or not and definitely not be excluded on the basis of a editors personal agenda. Somebody else will include Dana's support and I can't wait for the blow up . Hpdh4 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean, in theory I have no problem with the inclusion of Dana International's opinions, it's just that there are quite a few trans people's opinions that disagree with her, and there's no reason to give her more weight over them. So if Dana's opinion gets included, it is only fitting that we include quite a lot more of trans opinions, making this chapter the longest in the article. Also, there is no need to defend Rowling more than her own defence if several professional organisations (the Trevor Project, GLAAD, Mermaids) condemn her entire behaviour in this controversy. YuvalNehemia ( talk) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph about the Sun publishing, and being reprimanded for publishing, her husband saying her slapped her ... is currently in the "Views"→"Transgender issues" section, but does not ever mention or relate itself to transgender issues. So, it seems like it should be moved. Perhaps the sentence which says "Biographers have suggested that Rowling suffered domestic abuse during her marriage," which was recently expanded with "which was later confirmed by Rowling herself", should be further expanded with "...and by her first husband" + whatever additional details are actually DUE here (and we might want to discuss whether someone who is not the article subject reprimandng a paper for publishing something by someone else who is not the article subject is DUE here as opposed to in the article on e.g. the newspaper which was reprimanded). -sche ( talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I recently edited this article to remove the line Similar controversies have arisen with regards to her liking tweets which some considered to be transphobic
. This line was initially supported by a PinkNews source, which I removed per
WP:RSP, and by articles from Vox and LGBTQ Nation, both of which can be considered reliable sources. However, neither article would appear to effectively support that sentence. The Vox source was in fact previously used to support this sentence Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident, with some describing her as
transphobic
which I removed in this edit
[1] as it appeared to be a generalisation, not supported as per
WP:3REFS. Retrospectively, this source does not adequately support the remaining sentence, as it principally covers the Forstater case, with the rest of the article being social media speculation, making it
WP:UNDUE as a source for the sentence. The LGBTQ Nation source relies entirely on speculation regarding social media. I do not believe that there is enough reliable coverage to support the sentence, per
WP:3REFS and that to include it based on the sources given would be
WP:UNDUE for a
WP:BLP. I would therefore propose to revert to the edit here
[2].
AutumnKing (
talk)
19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Twitter is far from reliable unless it comes from proven sources making use of Twitter like for example a journalist. When your information comes from multiple tweeters its incorrect. Hate to see wikipedia fall to tabloid standards over unproven allegations and virtue signaling. Hpdh4 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 ( talk • contribs)
Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, especially WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and keeping in mind the reasoning at WP:RECENTISM, we should not include every single flash-in-the-pan piece of commentary. As of right now, regarding her June tweets, we have what the tweets were about, their criticism, and, for WP:NPOV, the WP:BLP subject's response, all covered by WP:Secondary sources. This is more than enough coverage of this extremely recent incident. Crossroads -talk- 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, and looking at the coverage now, if editors want to mention commentary from Radcliffe via The Trevor Project, then I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think the June 2020 material that is critical of Rowling should be kept short enough to be a single paragraph that is not unusually long, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. I also don't think we necessarily need to mention Eddie Redmayne and Evanna Lynch's responses, as they are individuals who say basically the same things as GLAAD and The Trevor Project. But my main issue is watching out for excessive length or detail. Rab V, your version of it was summarized well. But let's see what others say on including the mention of the Lynch and Redmayne comments. Crossroads -talk- 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
some of which [criticism] had been in the form of abusive language and threats of violenceshould be mentioned. Reuters, as a news service, is a superior source to various entertainment magazines, and they saw fit to mention this. It gives context to what she goes on to say about having suffered violence, and is part of the background complexity of the situation.
She expressed concern that some young women were being persuaded to escape womanhood via gender transition, noting her own struggles as a teenager.was
confusing and not in source. I don't feel too strongly about including this sentence, even though Reuters emphasizes this point, but I need to address the claim it was not in the source. Here is the supporting text:
Rowling, 54, explained in detail her research and beliefs on trans issues, and the concerns she has about how women’s rights and some young people’s lives were being impacted by some forms of trans activism....“I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition,” she wrote. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.” She said that as a teenager she had struggled with severe Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and that she now believes that had she found community and sympathy online, she could have been persuaded to turn herself into the boy her father said he would have preferred.I'm not sure where the confusion lay, but adjustments can be made of course.
that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces [was] dangerous. Note the Reuters source carefully:
she did not want girls and women to be less safe, and she gave some examples of where she thought demands by trans people were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”(Emphasis added.) She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons who are not trans women and do not actually identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held.
She stated that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning, comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women., the
comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.portion was cut off. I think this should stay because so much of the recent commentary revolves around the "people who menstruate" phrase, which we already quote, we should mention why specifically she objected to it beyond vaguely calling it "demeaning". Crossroads -talk- 07:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) correcting Crossroads -talk- 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
X-posted from Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling and directed at Crossroads: "Let's see what develops" apparently means just cutting out the material. This article is specifically about Rowling's politics, but you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. 1.6 million ghits right now. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Abbyjjjj96: the reasoning behind giving weight to Radcliffe's response is overlayed here. YuvalNehemia ( talk) 06:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Activism organizations and publication may be reliable sources for certain things, but they are absolutely not for their activistic messages and labeling; that is pure
primar-source material, by definition. That Variety published everything I just summarized, yet still put "transphobic" in their headline, unqualified, as if this were a world-wide consensus instead of a minority and extreme and self-defeatist opinion, simply means that the magazine needs a better editor. Entertainment magazines (which is most of the sources for this stuff) are not reliable sources for socio-political matters, anyway; they're reliable for things like whether so-and-so celebrity got divorced from thus-and-such other celebrity, and for what whatshername was seen wearing at her movie premiere last week, and how unhappy whatshisname says he is with his album being a flop because the pandemic killed his promo tour. As for the spousal-abuse thing, there has been a little bit of press about this, but it's more using her as an example, not making an example of her, as it were. The incident is not central to Rowling as a public figure, as an encyclopedia subject; rather, people are using her celebrity to draw attention to the overall social problem of domestic violence. It's not our job to dwell on the old private-life matters of bio subjects (especially living ones), even if some other publishers are doing so. If we mention this at all, it should be in-context, in the material about her marriage and divorce; not in some "controversies" section that is getting more and more like a drama-mongering trivia section.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If this controversy is important enough to include alternate views, then it probably needs an article of its own. Serendi pod ous 09:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the J.K Rowling and Politics of J. K. Rowling articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, here. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The section Transgender issues reads like this:
This is such a poor summary of Rowling's essay that it's almost a caricature of that essay. For some reason, the summary focuses on single-sex spaces access of transwomen although that is only a minor part of that essay (and as somebody else pointed it's not even clear if Rowling has a problem with access of transwomen as such, rather than with broad regulations which would allow any man to enter such spaces). There are so many other issues she addresses in that essay, including medical concerns re MS (she is involved in MS activism), concerns regarding huge increases in teenage girls transitioning in recent years, inability of women to define themselves as a class; Rowling sees these, as well as many other issues, as problems. If we choose to summarize Rowling's essay we should do it properly, without misrepresenting what she says; if we can't do that, than we shouldn't comment at all on the essay, instead we should simply say that she wrote an essay in response which sought to clarify her positions on trans issues, with a link to the essay so that readers see for themselves what the essay contains and make their own minds. 2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB ( talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Bias against Rowling is showing This site is full of SJW editors. Pity , wikipedia is regressive not progressive. Both points of view should be included. Arguments of the things Rowling is right about Arguments of the things Rowling is wrong about But you editors won't allow that just to fit the gender narrative. Wonder if she could sue - I would if I could . Indeed this site is misrepresenting Rowlings ideas by not including some support for her or the points shes right about and their are people who support her . Hpdh4 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to point out though that it seems only people that disagreed with Rowling are mentioned under her views, not the tons of ppl that agreed with her. That is a sign of bias if anything. Why are even these peoples views listed under JK Rowlings views? Chronicler87 ( talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I see there has been a lot of controversy regarding whose reactions on Rowling's views on transgender issues should be included here, but the question is should any reactions be included at all in this article? There's a section Views with four subsections: Politics, Religion, Press, Transgender issues. For some reason, the first three subsections just explain Rowling's views on those issues without giving any reactions or response from other people or organizations, although many of those issues are highly controversial; whereas the Transgender issues is almost half about response/reactions from others. We already have the Politics of J. K. Rowling page where we can (and should) detail how her views were received.
On the other hand, if we do include reactions from others, we should only include those people/organizations who had commented explicitly on Rowling. Some of the actors cited as "criticizing her views" didn't actually say anything on Rowling. They have only posted support for trans rights in general, without any mention of Rowling. Of course, given the timing of such postings, it can be inferred that they were indirectly criticizing Rowling, but we are not allowed to engage in WP:OR here. 2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB ( talk) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
But why should only people and organizations that disagreed with Rowling be listed? Tons of individuals are listed, why not list some individuals that defended Rowling? There are even some high profile lgbt people (including trans) that defended her right to have a view, or part of that view (like transgender athletes). Chronicler87 ( talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, is there a single mention of a person or organization that agreed with Rowling? If you just want examples, one could be that I watched the news where India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson made comments, they both defended Rowling, or at least things Rowling claimed, such as being against self-identification, against transgender athletes etc. There is also no mention of psychologists or other ppl that agreed with Rowling. Also, let's remember that it's a small clique of people that disagree with Rowling, if you look at newspapers and likes and dislikes, it's clear the support for Rowling is overwhelming. Most people think the entire dispute is just silly. And should we really take serious ppl that just tweeted "Transgender women are women", like that is a serious input in the discussion, while we completely disregard people that made long statements? Chronicler87 ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Well Bodney. There is another way to look at things, like for example when Sopranos started running, all the Italian-American organizations opposed it, but basically all the Italian-Americans loved it. It seems similar with the JK Rowling situation. Lots of transgender women think the whole transgender athlete thing is silly btw. These are just organizations, they say nothing about the people on the ground. Tons of transwomen have come out in favour of Rowling, those I mentioned like Nicole and India, but then many others. It has mostly been the "gay transmen" that she specicially mentioned (young women with autism) that have been reacting badly. I disagree with most news media being negative btw. Chronicler87 ( talk) 12:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey dave (I'm sorry I don't know how to "reply" like you do). And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a reference (which also Rowling stated) about the increase in young women seeking transition, there being studies showing for example 90% of gay transmen having autism, and there being a theory that it's the body dysmorphia of young women with autism and bpd that makes them go for transition, if you need the studies I can try to find them, but basically the point of many psychologists is that the same girls that used to self-harm and have eating disorders are now transitioning, here in Sweden the entire staff of a certain department of health care (dealing with trans) quit their jobs because they didn't think these girls should get that kind of treatment (and they couldn't refuse it), due to the high chance of later (sex-change) regret and it not dealing with their underlying issues. But yeah, I didn't mean to be offensive to anyone. It's crazy how many detransition videos there are on youtube right now from young women that regret changing into gay men and talking about their other issues. But yeah it's a big issue right now overall, and why so many are involving themself in this debate. But yeah, I didn't mean to offend sorry. I don't think I suggested that Rowlings critics were autists, but maybe I phrased my sentence badly. For that I'm sorry. Chronicler87 ( talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
So are we then saying India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson are not notable? What transgender people are the most notable? Laverne Cox? I mean India is media person. Most the HP actors just tweeted in support of transwomen (Transwomen are women). Is Dana International notable? I mean if we are talking transpersons specifically, is this not as notable as it gets? And man, it might depend on what you read, and how you experience those articles, I've seen tons of articles and columnists supporting Rowling, and finding the misrepresentation of her views as silly. Chronicler87 ( talk) 13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Bodney, here for example is a news discussion including both India and Nicole Gibson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXKSVWnyOSM&t=152s Now if I remember right for example Nicole Gibson states she agrees with Rowling on transgender athletes and some other things, and India says that she agrees on self-identification and other things, but if I remember right she states she considers JK Rowling transphobic (despite agreeing with her major points). I also read some newspaper articles in which she talks about the self-identification thing. My point was that they seem to agree with some or most of Rowlings views, maybe not just everything (but then there is generally no person that 100% agrees with another person overall, especially not when Rowling covered so much in her essay). Chronicler87 ( talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, let me please just restate my point. My point was that her page was completely biased in favour of her critics, with no nuance or stating that there was extensive agreement with Rowling on a lot of issues. Chronicler87 ( talk) 17:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, obviously, the source isn't youtube, it's Good Morning Britain, but I got no access to their website/that channel (location), so I linked from good morning britains youtube channel, of a panel which India is on, it's the same clip that was in their news episode. But obviously someone British or that has no location lock could find it on their website. Chronicler87 ( talk) 17:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I inserted the following:
It was immediately reverted by Crossroads, stating "Removing excessive material per WP:NOTNEWS. The RfC at BLPN is addressing the length of this section and most such comments favir brevity. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to add material".
I contend that two of the biggest HP fansites jointly taking this action is notable and is certainly worthy of coverage; that the now moribund RFC was not called to discuss length; and that the excision of anything from this and related articles that could in any be viewed as critical of TERF positions, with a cry of " WP:ONUS!" is now bordering on tendentious editing - Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! Yet, here we are. Line up, usual sides... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of...events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia.And yes, the RfC has 6 editors besides myself saying the section should be brief, with some of those even favoring removal (which I do not). It is being addressed there (and it is not "moribund"; it will be officially closed like all RfCs). Excessive length on this matter on Rowling's biography is WP:Undue and WP:Recentism. The section is not going to be a POV repository of each and every condemnatory opinion that got mentioned somewhere in the gossip press. And no, the opinion of some Harry Potter fans on the internet is in no way significant. Crossroads -talk- 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters criticised her views or spoke in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leungto add
[...Leung], as did the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. -sche ( talk) 06:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion. I would prefer a distinct sentence (single - it doesn't need a paragraph), but including it as part of the other reactions is fine. Of equal import, though, is the seeming marker bring drawn by Crossroads, which seems to be saying nothing gets included without them removing it and forcing a discussion, per WP:ONUS (which is a subsection, let us remember, of the Verifiability policy, not the notability policy!). To my mind, that is gaming the system; and equally, the reference above to the RfC, which apparently is now also about the length of this section, even though that's not addressed in any resolution in that RfC. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change Transgender issues to Transgender people" JKISEVIL ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"=== Transgender people ===" to "=== Transgender issues ===", using 'Transgender people" makes no sense in the article. As these are her views, and the only reason why the said change was made was because of the transgender community taking offence to Ms. Rowling's views. Brakesahib ( talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add (Redacted) on the External links section. It is the most complete source of all J.K. Rowling's writing, forewords, articles, and publications. 101008a ( talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
J.K. Rowling married Jorge Arantes in 1992, and divorced him in 1993. Please change this. I am a person who cringes when information is incorrect and nobody bothers to change it. 173.54.205.146 ( talk) 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC) 173.54.205.146 ( talk) 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
a Church of Scotland congregation while writing Harry Potter.
CHANGE TO
a Scottish Episcopalian congregation while writing Harry Potter. AmySandridge ( talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
AmySandridge ( talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I attended the Scottish Episcopalian congregation with J K Rowling while she was writing Harry Potter. How do I cite this? I have the Church weekly magazine, Movement. What else is needed? AmySandridge ( talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Marriage, divorce, and single parenthood" includes this: "She wrote in many cafés, especially Nicolson's Café (owned by her brother-in-law, Roger Moore)..."
I haven't found any indication that she is related by marriage to the notable late [Roger Moore], his widow Kristina Tholstrup, or any of the other Roger Moores fortunate enough to have their own WP articles. Unless it's someone notable it is superfluous and a little confusing.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but "her brother in law" or "sister's husband" (or whatever he is) is sufficient and his name should be removed.
2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:64B3:6653:FE1F:D4C4 (
talk)
20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/writers/writerdetails.asp?z=y&cid=855300{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://news.sky.com/home/madeleine/article/1265397When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the 'K.' in her initials stand for anything? Why did she choose a male name as her pseudonym? Seems so wrong. Because she's female, of course.-- 193.163.223.192 ( talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes you are right Febin shibu ( talk) 16:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what this means: and read for a B.A. in French and Classics at the University of Exeter. Do you mean she studied a bachelor of arts in French and Classics at the university of exeter? Then why not just say that instead of saying 'she read for'. What does that even mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.136.77 ( talk) 05:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
"Reading" is a posh way of saying "studying" Vince Calegon ( talk) 21:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. I changed it to "earned a B.A. in French and Classics". Other sources confirm that she earned the degree, not just "read for" it. RexxiA —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it English and you don't have to be rude about it Lonewolf2019 ( talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it English and you don't have to be rude about it Lonewolf2019 ( talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Joanne Rowling" to Joanne Kathleen Rowling Death Spectre31 ( talk) 14:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Are the Harry Potter books something that you would call children's books? I don't know, if this was discussed before, but isn't Young adult fiction the correct description? ZeR0101MiNt ( talk) 16:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gjh bfjsm m ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
she just had here birthday can i change it from 52 on 53
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph of the article, it states that she has sold over 400 million copies worldwide. This is an outdated figure from 2008; she has recently surpassed 500 million total sales for the Harry Potter series, and the article should reflect this. Here is the most reliable source I could find: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/harry-potter-books-sales-reach-500-million-worldwide-723556. That source says they received their figure from the publishing house. I could not find the figure stated directly from the publishing house themselves.
Thank you. Nomadben ( talk) 00:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Weirdoperso ( talk) 04:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
she's dead
Her occupation should include "philanthropist." I'm sure it was just an oversight given that her Lumos foundation is referenced in the article. Here is another famous living person who happens to be a male whose occupation also includes "philanthropist".
/info/en/?search=Warren_Buffett
This is my first time submitting a talk topic so I hope I did it correctly. Thank you, Aus512 2018-08-13 (UTC) ````
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Rowling had gained some creative control on the films, reviewing all the scripts[103] as well as acting as a producer on the final two-part instalment, Deathly Hallows.[104]"
"instalment" is spelled incorrectly. 74.85.95.74 ( talk) 19:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Rowling visited Sarah Brown in hospital when her son John, not Fraser, was born in 2003. See /info/en/?search=Sarah_Jane_Brown#Marriage_to_Gordon_Brown and the footnote with this statement (which is about the baptism of John). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.172.41 ( talk) 22:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would it be possible to update the image of J.K. Rowling on her wiki page? This photograph is about 20 years old. I have a recent photo that we have permission to use specifically for this page. Tbp2018 ( talk) 15:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I checked the scope of this Wikiproject and found that this Wikiproject discourages put the banner into writers' talk page. I would ask if it should be moved. Mariogoods ( talk) 09:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Why is this a "horrible photo"? How is it inferior to this photo, where she is facing away and squinting? Surtsicna ( talk) 13:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the Childhood part, can you change it from 23 months to 1 year and 11 months 185.39.202.226 ( talk) 08:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Charlton Athletic fan. 213.106.89.77 ( talk) 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you change the key image to this image? I have permission to use the attached image, the credit should be: Photography Debra Hurford Brown © J.K. Rowling 2018
Tbp2018 ( talk) 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The data for an article mentioned in the section on Rowling's education is wrong. It says the year of Rowling's article "What was the Name of that Nymph Again?" from Pegasus, the journal of the University of Exeter's Classics department is 1988. However, I found a PDF of that article which clearly dates it as 1998. Not to mention that Rowling mentions Professor Binns in the article; the Potterverse wasn't even a gleam in her eye in 1988.
I think whoever wrote the citation got the date from WorldCat. 1988 is written in the Publisher field, but I don't know that necessarily means the article should be dated 1988.
A Princeton library has the correct date for it online. I suppose I could just change the citation to the Princeton library instead of WorldCat, but I find that untidy.
Should I try to change the WorldCat data? It seems like you have to be affiliated with some library in order to request changes. Quickfoot ( talk) 01:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The Education section notes J.K. Rowling's "What was the Name of that Nymph Again? or Greek and Roman Studies Recalled" as being published in 1988, but it appears to have been published in 1998 as found within the Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics And Ancient History on a University website at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf
AndrewHeagle ( talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Andrew Heagle
This is clearly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF and also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Reasoning has been explained several times with no change to the OP's attitude. This will clearly go nowhere. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it because wikipedia editors are now toxics SJWs . I mean, brie larson gets a free pass with her man hating views on wikipedia but Jk Rowling is accused without proof . People cant add man hating to brie Larson article because wikipedia isnt a gossip rag but TERF can be added to Jk Rowling ? With one tweet and biased sources ? Talk about hypocrisy. This should apply to brie as well- if you add Terf to JKR you should be able to add Man hating to Brie . Gossip rag argument is moot point if your willing to vilify one person on the bases of poor gossip sources but not the other. People can't make edits to articles of other celebs like brie Larson because of poor sources and wikipedia not being a gossip rag YET here we are with gossip sources for Jk Rowling. Even if people change the maya situation, it will be reverted by some SJW editor . Don't get me started on Johnny Depp being abused by amber heard and online tapes being released - someone on wiki said these tapes were doctored. Anything to believe woman as if woman cant do harm. Their are woman criminals. Hypocrisy 101 is showing and it must end . Social justice doesn't equal to equality but reverse revenge . Hpdh4 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
A specific BLP article is not the place to discuss general claims about "fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles".
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
11:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
|
I vote yes; it is a much talked about piece, and seems to have been written more as a true essay, rather than simply as a blog post. Inspector Semenych ( talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the uk times a reliable enough source to label mermaids as controversial? From my understanding it's up there with the daily mail in terms of manufacturing fake controversies. EDIT: see also the wikipedia page about mermaids itself which does not refer to them as such.-- Licks-rocks ( talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Britmax: pinging you since you reverted my edit on this -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Support of Rowling's stance on Transgender issues should be included as much as critique is included. Excluding support for her comments is indicative of an obvious bias in support of the gender narrative and isn't conducive to wikipedias main purpose. Some would debate adding any information is controversial and that adding support that doesn't come from Potter cast isn't proper. Support is support no matter who it comes from as in the case of Transgender pop singer Dana International who spoke in support of Rowling. I will add the supporters to counteract the detractors who are motivated by publicity reasons . Hpdh4 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Dana's opinions matter more then Radcliffe,Glaad,Mermaids, Watson,Lynch,Redmayne,Wright . Dana is actually transgender. Opinions of the person from the actual group matters more then that of controversial organizations like mermaids or PR driven actors . Plus it's a situation of Us vs Them . Having only Rowlings detractors is bias as it assumes Rowling is entirely wrong when people like Dana agrees with her to an extent. Support as much as critique should be included . Even a neutral sentence should be included like : Rowling's claims have garnered some support and then have the Reuters/dana article used as a citation. Hpdh4 19:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
No I am starting to understand one thing from this: theirs a bias against Rowlings comments. I still stand by my original position; Both CRITIQUE and SUPPORT should be included to avoid being seen as giving creditability to one side only. It isn't neutral if theirs only critique from PR driven actors and a controversial transRIGHTS organization. Neutral is this : Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues have generated controversy and have garnered both criticism and support from an assortment of celebrities and organizations. Hpdh4 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You prove my point Batsun. This site is supposed to be neutral and report things as is. Agendas are left at the table . Fairness demands both criticism and support exist in the same article section. Dont play the new card when your blatantly against Rowling. I'm neither against her and nor am I with her. I just want both criticism and and support to be included. Information should not be excluded on the basis of whose relavent or not and definitely not be excluded on the basis of a editors personal agenda. Somebody else will include Dana's support and I can't wait for the blow up . Hpdh4 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean, in theory I have no problem with the inclusion of Dana International's opinions, it's just that there are quite a few trans people's opinions that disagree with her, and there's no reason to give her more weight over them. So if Dana's opinion gets included, it is only fitting that we include quite a lot more of trans opinions, making this chapter the longest in the article. Also, there is no need to defend Rowling more than her own defence if several professional organisations (the Trevor Project, GLAAD, Mermaids) condemn her entire behaviour in this controversy. YuvalNehemia ( talk) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph about the Sun publishing, and being reprimanded for publishing, her husband saying her slapped her ... is currently in the "Views"→"Transgender issues" section, but does not ever mention or relate itself to transgender issues. So, it seems like it should be moved. Perhaps the sentence which says "Biographers have suggested that Rowling suffered domestic abuse during her marriage," which was recently expanded with "which was later confirmed by Rowling herself", should be further expanded with "...and by her first husband" + whatever additional details are actually DUE here (and we might want to discuss whether someone who is not the article subject reprimandng a paper for publishing something by someone else who is not the article subject is DUE here as opposed to in the article on e.g. the newspaper which was reprimanded). -sche ( talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I recently edited this article to remove the line Similar controversies have arisen with regards to her liking tweets which some considered to be transphobic
. This line was initially supported by a PinkNews source, which I removed per
WP:RSP, and by articles from Vox and LGBTQ Nation, both of which can be considered reliable sources. However, neither article would appear to effectively support that sentence. The Vox source was in fact previously used to support this sentence Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident, with some describing her as
transphobic
which I removed in this edit
[1] as it appeared to be a generalisation, not supported as per
WP:3REFS. Retrospectively, this source does not adequately support the remaining sentence, as it principally covers the Forstater case, with the rest of the article being social media speculation, making it
WP:UNDUE as a source for the sentence. The LGBTQ Nation source relies entirely on speculation regarding social media. I do not believe that there is enough reliable coverage to support the sentence, per
WP:3REFS and that to include it based on the sources given would be
WP:UNDUE for a
WP:BLP. I would therefore propose to revert to the edit here
[2].
AutumnKing (
talk)
19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Twitter is far from reliable unless it comes from proven sources making use of Twitter like for example a journalist. When your information comes from multiple tweeters its incorrect. Hate to see wikipedia fall to tabloid standards over unproven allegations and virtue signaling. Hpdh4 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 ( talk • contribs)
Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, especially WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and keeping in mind the reasoning at WP:RECENTISM, we should not include every single flash-in-the-pan piece of commentary. As of right now, regarding her June tweets, we have what the tweets were about, their criticism, and, for WP:NPOV, the WP:BLP subject's response, all covered by WP:Secondary sources. This is more than enough coverage of this extremely recent incident. Crossroads -talk- 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, and looking at the coverage now, if editors want to mention commentary from Radcliffe via The Trevor Project, then I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think the June 2020 material that is critical of Rowling should be kept short enough to be a single paragraph that is not unusually long, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. I also don't think we necessarily need to mention Eddie Redmayne and Evanna Lynch's responses, as they are individuals who say basically the same things as GLAAD and The Trevor Project. But my main issue is watching out for excessive length or detail. Rab V, your version of it was summarized well. But let's see what others say on including the mention of the Lynch and Redmayne comments. Crossroads -talk- 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
some of which [criticism] had been in the form of abusive language and threats of violenceshould be mentioned. Reuters, as a news service, is a superior source to various entertainment magazines, and they saw fit to mention this. It gives context to what she goes on to say about having suffered violence, and is part of the background complexity of the situation.
She expressed concern that some young women were being persuaded to escape womanhood via gender transition, noting her own struggles as a teenager.was
confusing and not in source. I don't feel too strongly about including this sentence, even though Reuters emphasizes this point, but I need to address the claim it was not in the source. Here is the supporting text:
Rowling, 54, explained in detail her research and beliefs on trans issues, and the concerns she has about how women’s rights and some young people’s lives were being impacted by some forms of trans activism....“I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition,” she wrote. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.” She said that as a teenager she had struggled with severe Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and that she now believes that had she found community and sympathy online, she could have been persuaded to turn herself into the boy her father said he would have preferred.I'm not sure where the confusion lay, but adjustments can be made of course.
that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces [was] dangerous. Note the Reuters source carefully:
she did not want girls and women to be less safe, and she gave some examples of where she thought demands by trans people were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”(Emphasis added.) She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons who are not trans women and do not actually identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held.
She stated that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning, comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women., the
comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.portion was cut off. I think this should stay because so much of the recent commentary revolves around the "people who menstruate" phrase, which we already quote, we should mention why specifically she objected to it beyond vaguely calling it "demeaning". Crossroads -talk- 07:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) correcting Crossroads -talk- 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
X-posted from Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling and directed at Crossroads: "Let's see what develops" apparently means just cutting out the material. This article is specifically about Rowling's politics, but you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. 1.6 million ghits right now. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Abbyjjjj96: the reasoning behind giving weight to Radcliffe's response is overlayed here. YuvalNehemia ( talk) 06:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Activism organizations and publication may be reliable sources for certain things, but they are absolutely not for their activistic messages and labeling; that is pure
primar-source material, by definition. That Variety published everything I just summarized, yet still put "transphobic" in their headline, unqualified, as if this were a world-wide consensus instead of a minority and extreme and self-defeatist opinion, simply means that the magazine needs a better editor. Entertainment magazines (which is most of the sources for this stuff) are not reliable sources for socio-political matters, anyway; they're reliable for things like whether so-and-so celebrity got divorced from thus-and-such other celebrity, and for what whatshername was seen wearing at her movie premiere last week, and how unhappy whatshisname says he is with his album being a flop because the pandemic killed his promo tour. As for the spousal-abuse thing, there has been a little bit of press about this, but it's more using her as an example, not making an example of her, as it were. The incident is not central to Rowling as a public figure, as an encyclopedia subject; rather, people are using her celebrity to draw attention to the overall social problem of domestic violence. It's not our job to dwell on the old private-life matters of bio subjects (especially living ones), even if some other publishers are doing so. If we mention this at all, it should be in-context, in the material about her marriage and divorce; not in some "controversies" section that is getting more and more like a drama-mongering trivia section.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If this controversy is important enough to include alternate views, then it probably needs an article of its own. Serendi pod ous 09:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the J.K Rowling and Politics of J. K. Rowling articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, here. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The section Transgender issues reads like this:
This is such a poor summary of Rowling's essay that it's almost a caricature of that essay. For some reason, the summary focuses on single-sex spaces access of transwomen although that is only a minor part of that essay (and as somebody else pointed it's not even clear if Rowling has a problem with access of transwomen as such, rather than with broad regulations which would allow any man to enter such spaces). There are so many other issues she addresses in that essay, including medical concerns re MS (she is involved in MS activism), concerns regarding huge increases in teenage girls transitioning in recent years, inability of women to define themselves as a class; Rowling sees these, as well as many other issues, as problems. If we choose to summarize Rowling's essay we should do it properly, without misrepresenting what she says; if we can't do that, than we shouldn't comment at all on the essay, instead we should simply say that she wrote an essay in response which sought to clarify her positions on trans issues, with a link to the essay so that readers see for themselves what the essay contains and make their own minds. 2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB ( talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Bias against Rowling is showing This site is full of SJW editors. Pity , wikipedia is regressive not progressive. Both points of view should be included. Arguments of the things Rowling is right about Arguments of the things Rowling is wrong about But you editors won't allow that just to fit the gender narrative. Wonder if she could sue - I would if I could . Indeed this site is misrepresenting Rowlings ideas by not including some support for her or the points shes right about and their are people who support her . Hpdh4 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to point out though that it seems only people that disagreed with Rowling are mentioned under her views, not the tons of ppl that agreed with her. That is a sign of bias if anything. Why are even these peoples views listed under JK Rowlings views? Chronicler87 ( talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I see there has been a lot of controversy regarding whose reactions on Rowling's views on transgender issues should be included here, but the question is should any reactions be included at all in this article? There's a section Views with four subsections: Politics, Religion, Press, Transgender issues. For some reason, the first three subsections just explain Rowling's views on those issues without giving any reactions or response from other people or organizations, although many of those issues are highly controversial; whereas the Transgender issues is almost half about response/reactions from others. We already have the Politics of J. K. Rowling page where we can (and should) detail how her views were received.
On the other hand, if we do include reactions from others, we should only include those people/organizations who had commented explicitly on Rowling. Some of the actors cited as "criticizing her views" didn't actually say anything on Rowling. They have only posted support for trans rights in general, without any mention of Rowling. Of course, given the timing of such postings, it can be inferred that they were indirectly criticizing Rowling, but we are not allowed to engage in WP:OR here. 2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB ( talk) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
But why should only people and organizations that disagreed with Rowling be listed? Tons of individuals are listed, why not list some individuals that defended Rowling? There are even some high profile lgbt people (including trans) that defended her right to have a view, or part of that view (like transgender athletes). Chronicler87 ( talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, is there a single mention of a person or organization that agreed with Rowling? If you just want examples, one could be that I watched the news where India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson made comments, they both defended Rowling, or at least things Rowling claimed, such as being against self-identification, against transgender athletes etc. There is also no mention of psychologists or other ppl that agreed with Rowling. Also, let's remember that it's a small clique of people that disagree with Rowling, if you look at newspapers and likes and dislikes, it's clear the support for Rowling is overwhelming. Most people think the entire dispute is just silly. And should we really take serious ppl that just tweeted "Transgender women are women", like that is a serious input in the discussion, while we completely disregard people that made long statements? Chronicler87 ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Well Bodney. There is another way to look at things, like for example when Sopranos started running, all the Italian-American organizations opposed it, but basically all the Italian-Americans loved it. It seems similar with the JK Rowling situation. Lots of transgender women think the whole transgender athlete thing is silly btw. These are just organizations, they say nothing about the people on the ground. Tons of transwomen have come out in favour of Rowling, those I mentioned like Nicole and India, but then many others. It has mostly been the "gay transmen" that she specicially mentioned (young women with autism) that have been reacting badly. I disagree with most news media being negative btw. Chronicler87 ( talk) 12:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey dave (I'm sorry I don't know how to "reply" like you do). And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a reference (which also Rowling stated) about the increase in young women seeking transition, there being studies showing for example 90% of gay transmen having autism, and there being a theory that it's the body dysmorphia of young women with autism and bpd that makes them go for transition, if you need the studies I can try to find them, but basically the point of many psychologists is that the same girls that used to self-harm and have eating disorders are now transitioning, here in Sweden the entire staff of a certain department of health care (dealing with trans) quit their jobs because they didn't think these girls should get that kind of treatment (and they couldn't refuse it), due to the high chance of later (sex-change) regret and it not dealing with their underlying issues. But yeah, I didn't mean to be offensive to anyone. It's crazy how many detransition videos there are on youtube right now from young women that regret changing into gay men and talking about their other issues. But yeah it's a big issue right now overall, and why so many are involving themself in this debate. But yeah, I didn't mean to offend sorry. I don't think I suggested that Rowlings critics were autists, but maybe I phrased my sentence badly. For that I'm sorry. Chronicler87 ( talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
So are we then saying India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson are not notable? What transgender people are the most notable? Laverne Cox? I mean India is media person. Most the HP actors just tweeted in support of transwomen (Transwomen are women). Is Dana International notable? I mean if we are talking transpersons specifically, is this not as notable as it gets? And man, it might depend on what you read, and how you experience those articles, I've seen tons of articles and columnists supporting Rowling, and finding the misrepresentation of her views as silly. Chronicler87 ( talk) 13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Bodney, here for example is a news discussion including both India and Nicole Gibson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXKSVWnyOSM&t=152s Now if I remember right for example Nicole Gibson states she agrees with Rowling on transgender athletes and some other things, and India says that she agrees on self-identification and other things, but if I remember right she states she considers JK Rowling transphobic (despite agreeing with her major points). I also read some newspaper articles in which she talks about the self-identification thing. My point was that they seem to agree with some or most of Rowlings views, maybe not just everything (but then there is generally no person that 100% agrees with another person overall, especially not when Rowling covered so much in her essay). Chronicler87 ( talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, let me please just restate my point. My point was that her page was completely biased in favour of her critics, with no nuance or stating that there was extensive agreement with Rowling on a lot of issues. Chronicler87 ( talk) 17:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, obviously, the source isn't youtube, it's Good Morning Britain, but I got no access to their website/that channel (location), so I linked from good morning britains youtube channel, of a panel which India is on, it's the same clip that was in their news episode. But obviously someone British or that has no location lock could find it on their website. Chronicler87 ( talk) 17:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I inserted the following:
It was immediately reverted by Crossroads, stating "Removing excessive material per WP:NOTNEWS. The RfC at BLPN is addressing the length of this section and most such comments favir brevity. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to add material".
I contend that two of the biggest HP fansites jointly taking this action is notable and is certainly worthy of coverage; that the now moribund RFC was not called to discuss length; and that the excision of anything from this and related articles that could in any be viewed as critical of TERF positions, with a cry of " WP:ONUS!" is now bordering on tendentious editing - Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! Yet, here we are. Line up, usual sides... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of...events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia.And yes, the RfC has 6 editors besides myself saying the section should be brief, with some of those even favoring removal (which I do not). It is being addressed there (and it is not "moribund"; it will be officially closed like all RfCs). Excessive length on this matter on Rowling's biography is WP:Undue and WP:Recentism. The section is not going to be a POV repository of each and every condemnatory opinion that got mentioned somewhere in the gossip press. And no, the opinion of some Harry Potter fans on the internet is in no way significant. Crossroads -talk- 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters criticised her views or spoke in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leungto add
[...Leung], as did the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. -sche ( talk) 06:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion. I would prefer a distinct sentence (single - it doesn't need a paragraph), but including it as part of the other reactions is fine. Of equal import, though, is the seeming marker bring drawn by Crossroads, which seems to be saying nothing gets included without them removing it and forcing a discussion, per WP:ONUS (which is a subsection, let us remember, of the Verifiability policy, not the notability policy!). To my mind, that is gaming the system; and equally, the reference above to the RfC, which apparently is now also about the length of this section, even though that's not addressed in any resolution in that RfC. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"change Transgender issues to Transgender people" JKISEVIL ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"=== Transgender people ===" to "=== Transgender issues ===", using 'Transgender people" makes no sense in the article. As these are her views, and the only reason why the said change was made was because of the transgender community taking offence to Ms. Rowling's views. Brakesahib ( talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add (Redacted) on the External links section. It is the most complete source of all J.K. Rowling's writing, forewords, articles, and publications. 101008a ( talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)