The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
J. K. Rowling's ethnicity/nationality has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Current consensus is that she is British, and that whether she is also English, Scottish or Welsh has no bearing on her work or her biography, and is best not discussed.
The topic of her middle name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Her full name is simply Joanne Rowling; she contracted the first name and chose the middle initial K from her grandmother's name, Kathleen, in order to remove the gender association from her own name.
Her married name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She uses her married name, Murray, for private business, but her maiden name, "Rowling", is used here, as it is the one by which she is most widely known.
The pronunciation of her name has been discussed here, here, here, here and here. She has commented that her name is pronounced like bowling and not like howling.
Allegations that she supports communism in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any such views; attempts to describe such views in her works have been rejected as original research of published material.
If you have a question relating to the spelling in this article (such as "instalment"/"installment") remember that this article is written in British English.
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Agree that we should wait to see how it develops. It was added to the article, incorrectly stating Rowling was being sued, but I removed it. As of now, a criminal complaint has been made against X, with Rowling mentioned in the narrative of the complaint. As I understand it the whole process may take sometime. Unless Rowling is actually directly charged with something, it is WP:UNDUE for now. Daff22 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, even though the BBC says it is unlikely that anything will come of this, as happens with this article, everything about JKR is news, and must go in right away ... if history serves, it will be continually added even though it's UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we can avoid covering this in some form; there's a lot of coverage out already, it's only going to increase in volume, and it can't simply be covered as an example of her views on transgender people - Khelif isn't a transwoman. But the sources used in recent edits aren't good enough, and I don't see how the lawsuit is due weight at the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we absolutely need to address this issue. She has been named in a lawsuit, which has resulted in an extended period of public silence—something unprecedented for her. The coverage has been extensive, dominating much of the Olympic coverage. Since Khelif is not transgender, it would be inappropriate to include this in the section on her anti-trans views. However, the issue is closely related to those views. The best solution would be to create a separate section immediately following the one on trans people. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait for consensus before adding content under discussion. Your conclusion that Rowling's Twitter break is in any way related to the case is pure speculation (and given one her first Tweets on return was doubling down on her previous comments, highly doubtful). A complaint has been made to the police in France. There is no lawsuit, and as of now, Rowling is not being sued, nor has she been charged, nor is she under official investigation. Daff22 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This addition was quite problematic and I agree with Daff2's revert. Amanda A. Brant, this article is BLP and an FA and subject to double contentious topic designations. And the issue was being discussed on talk when you made the unilateral insertion. Listed in this discussion are high-quality sources (BBC and The Guardian), and yet you dropped in highly speculative text, with bare URLs, sourced to lower quality sources. Please take greater care to discuss your edits on talk and gain consensus before making them, and then please edit in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA and WP:CTOP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither BBC nor The Guardian—both of which have faced strong criticism for a pattern of transphobic content—are "high quality" in this topic area. The edit was entirely normal editing and reliably sourced. Editors are not required to "gain consensus before making" edits; editing articles is part of the normal editorial process, and the vast majority of edits are not discussed beforehand. The edit was also based on the discussion favoring some coverage of this topic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a desired edit is already under discussion, it is convention to reach consensus before editing. Nowhere was it stated all edits require discussion, please don't make false implications. Deliberately adding content before reaching consensus on an ongoing discussion is not 'normal editing'. You may hold a personal opinion on the BBC and the Guardian, but this is not one reflected in Wikipedia guidance. Daff22 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion had stalled a long time ago. A few editors had suggested we should cover this, but there hadn't been much interest in discussing concrete proposals. It was not an "active discussion." Adding something about it in this situation was a constructive edit and entirely normal editing. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have viewed it that way had you a) used the higher quality sources, b) formatted the sources instead of dumping bare URLs in to an FA, and c) not furthered undue speculation from one source that didn't add to the narrative and certainly had not been discussed beforehand. Vanamonde93 mentions a cautious addition: I can see one sentence sourced to BBC in the Legal disputes section; the reverted edit was more ADVOCACY than encyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of sources has no bearing on whether the material is appropriate. Sources are often formatted after they are added with an automatic tool (refill). The tool didn't respond after I added the sources, which is why I didn't get around to formatting them. Whether you disagree with the edit is not the issue, it was completely reasonable for me to make the edit in the first place. It's important to remember that no single editor has ownership over an article (WP:OWN). We should aim to ensure that the content is well-balanced and not overly reliant on a single, potentially problematic source with a reputation for transphobia. This issue seems to merit more than just one sentence; two or three seems quite appropriate. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest updating the information on Rowling including her reference to this 2024 olymnpic gold medallist woman and Khelif's wish to sue her. TG talk12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re this reverted contribution, if there is consensus to add anything (there isn't yet), I suggest adding the following sentence to the Legal disputes section, cited to the BBC, Guardian and Variety, without the UNDUE section heading and without the speculation about deleted tweets:
There were several issues with the reverted edit in question, including the fact that it claimed that Rowling had deleted tweets about Khelif despite the cited source explaining that it is not known what tweets were deleted (only the number of tweets) and the fact that the tweets about Khelif are clearly still up on her account.
This seems like a good compromise. It doesn't need its own section (certainly not yet before any action has been taken by the french police) and can reasonably be called a legal dispute. TBicks (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add - we should probably wait to see what action is taken by the french police before deciding on this inclusion. If no further action is taken and the case is closed it seems pretty meaningless to include it. TBicks (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. I think it's fine to include now but I'm not too bothered by holding off until the French police do something meaningful with the complaint. Loki (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the overall length and lack of a dedicated section. I think—if we include this—it needs to be clearer about what Rowling tweeted. A brief mention of misgendering or calling Khelif a "male" would be enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that's why it's misleading. The context matters here; it's claiming a cis woman was trans and then cyberbullying her over it. That's a much more shocking and strange act than "mere" cyberbullying. But I should say I'm not concerned with intent, just effect. The effect is to mislead. The intent only Sandy knows. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.13:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criminal compaint that was made was for "cyberbullying". Whether misgendering is a more "shocking" act than cyberbullying may be your personal opinion, but given that "cyberbullying" is what was reported in the complaint, it's a valid statemen. There's no attempt to mislead because there's no alternative viewpoint being argued. Something not being as detailed as you like doesn't make it misleading. TBicks (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement is in the comments I'm replying to. I don't care about intent; the effect is a shameful minimisation of what she did. Had we used that text, we should be ashamed at how poorly we covered the subject. That's all. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one personalising this, Sandy. You wrote a poor summary. Everyone does it sometimes. You have suggestions on how to improve it, and me agreeing that it needs those improvements, because it's terrible as it is. Focus on the writing. A little context, and it's fine. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, your 'context' is incorrect. Rowling never claimed Khelif was Trans, but that she was XY not XX. This is a DSD issue, not a trans one, hence why it would not be as simple as to include it in that section. Secondly, it would be impossible to not interpret accusing an editor of writing "shamefully misleading" content as personalisation. Please keep Talk page discussions civil. Daff22 (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, she called Khelif male, despite Khelif being a cis-woman. Did she say she had DSD? Because, to my knowledge, I don't think Rowling's been all that clear either way. Just repeatedly called her male, and kind of implied cheating and sinisiter/abusive behaviour (something something man enjoying hitting women?) on the back of that. Anyway, the way it was phrased is misleading. It makes it sound like something other than what happened happened. Sandy's suggestion missed out the main part of the story, which is a pretty bad error in reporting. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.20:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help clarify your knowledge, she in fact retweeted multiple articles and threads referencing the opinion that the issue was specifically about DSD athletes in female competition. Such as [4], also [5], and [6] as examples . Daff22 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion 2 (threeeditconflicts while I was trying to post it, so I may have lost a piece):
An investigation was initiated by Paris authorities after Algerian boxer and 2024 Summer Olympics champion Imane Khelif filed a criminal complaint alleging that Rowling and others had cyberbullied her; (BBC, Variety) following Khelif's Olympic win, Rowling tweeted that Khelif, a cis woman, was a "male who knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head". (The Guardian)
Firefangledfeathers I'm not sure this second suggestion achieves the brevity you suggest; perhaps you can improve. I'm also unsure a) whether we have consensus yet to add, or b) whether it's a better fit under Legal disputes or at the top of the Views section. The problem with where to put it is that Khelif is not transgender, but putting it under general Views gives it UNDUE weight considering we don't even know if Paris authorities will pursue, so we seem to be left with Legal disputes if we have consensus to include it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, without more specific detail, this content appears muddled. The context as to why Rowling made these comments would need to be added - she didn't just wake up one morning and randomly pick out a female Olympian to accuse of being male. Personally, my view would be that the required detail for inclusion at this point renders the content UNDUE. There is no reason not to wait for this to progress. If the French authorities announce an official investigation, specifically into Rowling, this would justify a fuller explanation. I would also add that this should be in the legal section, rather than views. Daff22 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we need to quote the whole tweet here. The essence of it was that she described Khelif as a man. No evidence has been put forward of a DSD, and making reference to such here would be misleading. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is context as to why she chose to do that. At present, it appears that Rowling and others randomly chose to accuse Khelif of being male. That is misleading, and out of context. Rightly or wrongly, this arose from reporting on the issues with the International Boxing Association, and the allegations that Khelif failed some sort of 'gender eligibility test', as stated on her own wikipedia page. Without that context, this article is implying that Rowling randomly chose to make an accusation, with no background to that outcome. Daff22 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern remains that there is no context as to why Rowling accused Khelif of being male. The context is in Khelif's own article. If this content is to be included, which I still feel is UNDUE as of yet, it needs to avoid accusing Rowling of going after a random stranger, with no background to her actions. Daff22 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't speak to Rowling's motivations, and covering Khelif's history with the IBA is undue weight in this article. It is covered, appropriately in our article about Khelif, and we could possibly add a more specific link in a footnote. I would support this addition. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Along the lines of Loki's reasoning, I'm indifferent as to whether we add something now, or wait. If we are to add it now, maybe someone will craft the suggested footnote. If we add it now, and nothing comes of the complaint, I 'spose it can later be deleted, but that's not an optimal way of editing, particularly when the BBC indicates it will take time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the length. I remain ambivalent about overall inclusion of this. I'm tempted by Daff's point that proper explanation might require undue length. One issue, I think it won't be clear to readers without background on this that the tweet preceded the suit, since we're reversing chronology. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion 4, in Legal disputes, correcting chronology per Firefangledfeathers (no consensus yet on adding, now two sentences as avoiding SEAOFBLUE got complicated):
This version is also chronologically incorrect, as Rowling first began tweeting about Khelif on July 30th[7] before the boxing competition had even started. Guardian piece referred to appears to be the actual starting point for Rowling's tweeting. Not to labour my previous point, but this proposal still lacks any context - it reads as "after a woman won a boxing competition, Rowling randomly decided to call them a man." Any reader with no knowledge of the issue would be very confused. Daff22 (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daff22. It makes it sound as though she waited until Khelif won the medal before tweeting about her. I'd amend it to something along the lines of "During the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics, Rowling tweeted that Algerian professional boxer Imane Khelif, a cis woman competing in a womens' boxing event, was a male".
I do strongly agree that context will be needed should this be included. It makes it sound as though she just called her a man out of the blue for no reason. A quick mention of news reports about Khelif's IBA tests will likely suffice, just to give suitable context. TBicks (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after four tries to provide an alternate to the initial edit, which had zero context and poor sourcing, I give up :) But I do notice that there has been no new news on this front, so maybe it is UNDUE anyway. If a fifth draft is in order, I leave it to someone else! Thanks to both, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The lede is talking about the main Harry Potter series, which is 7 books. The article also has a section that lists other books she wrote. RudolfRed (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: The lede is talking about the main Harry Potter series, which is 7 books. The article also has a section that lists other books she wrote. RudolfRed (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)