Talk:J. K. Rowling

Transgender views

I propose that the second paragraph in the transgender views section to be worded like this with these citations since it is currently worded in a biased way:

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she made statements deemed "anti-trans", who is the subject of Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe. Thedayandthetime (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources
References

Please explain why it is worded in a biased way. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC).

Actually, I can see an issue with the current wording. It states that Forstater made "anti-trans" statement. That fails NPOV and probably BLP, as Forstater went on to win her tribunal, and her conduct was not found to be discriminatory. It should probably be "allegedly anti-trans" or "statements considered to be anti-trans". I am sure someone can come up with better wording, but it really should be changed. Daff22 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have just read through the case article, and Forstater's own article, neither of which label her views as "anti-trans". There is definitely a BLP issue here. It should probably read made "gender-critical statements", with an added caveat "which some considered anti-trans", of editors prefer. Sources wise, the NY Times article doesn't refer to Forstater as "anti-trans" (only in the headline, which obviously doesn't count), but I don't have access to the Whited source to know how that describes her. However, given the outcome of the case, it really would seem like a BLP violation. Daff22 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, @Daff22. Thank you.

@Xxanthippe, that's the explanation. Thedayandthetime (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Not an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? This is in the BBC source: Ms Forstater believes trans women holding certificates that recognise their transgender identity cannot describe themselves as women. That seems clearly to be saying Forstater's views are anti-trans to me. Loki (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The BBC source does not call her views "anti-trans", that's your personal interpretation. WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Thedayandthetime (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

We have to stick to the facts of the source, not the words of the source. Loki (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Except this is not 'sticking to the facts" it is assigning a non-neutral POV label to a BLP. Labelling Forster "anti-trans" in the context of her court case implies that her behaviour was discriminatory. The courts did not find this to be the case, in fact they found the opposite, with her being the one discriminated against. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Your "clearly" is a POV interpretation, and not how Wikipedia articles should be written. Daff22 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Her behavior was transphobic. The original court case found that and we have plenty of reliable sources backing that up, such as CBS, PinkNews, and the NYT.

Like, this is a pretty straightforward interpretation of what she said. It really shouldn't surprise you that I was able to easily find sources saying so in those words. Loki (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Her behavior was considered transphobic by some. Her statements were not considered transphobic by several sources including BBC, The Guardian, The Times, Sky News. Also notice how most sources calling her statements "anti-trans" or "transphobic" are from the US. Thedayandthetime (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

All three of those articles are following the origin hearing, which the subsequent appeal and merits hearing found to have mischaracterised Forstater's views. And the NYT article does not label her as anti trans or transphobic beyond the headline, which again is discounted when considering use as a source on Wikipedia. This isn't about interpretation, it is about factual representation, and BLP. I agree with the recent change made to the article, per my previous suggestion.Daff22 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

She won the tribunal case on appeal, as mentioned by Daff22. The CBS and NYT articles were written before the appeal was lodged, and PinkNews isn't exactly a reliable source on this issue. TBicks (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Bear in mind that not even Forstater's own WP page mentions her being transphobic or anti-trans. TBicks (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be an oversight. We definitely should say that much more clearly than we do over there. Loki (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

If/when it gains common usage in reliable sources, perhaps. Not at present, though. TBicks (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there are many reliable sources already that call her transphobic or anti-trans, including the NYT.

That the British press specifically is squeamish about this shouldn't affect our coverage. Loki (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You linked to two articles written before her (successful) appeal was lodged, and one article by a biased publication on this particular topic. Not exactly gold standard source material. TBicks (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinknews is green at WP:RSP and the dates of these articles don't matter. A court saying her opinion is protected doesn't make it not transphobic. Loki (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSP green doesn't mean it should be used with impunity. The nature of the publication means that it has obvious bias here, which should be given due weight. WP:RSP itself states that caution should be used for PinkNews.

If they were basing their usage of that label on the finding of the tribunal, the dates absolutely do matter. There's an easy litmus test for that: look at the language used in RS before and after the successful appeal. I'm yet to see you provide an example of her being called these labels after the appeal in RSs. TBicks (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Pink News has its own workplace-abuse problems. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/dec/10/claims-against-pinknews-bosses-of-sexual-misconduct-very-concerning-says-no-10 It's not quite correct that Forstater won her case on appeal. The preliminary hearing under James Tayler found that gender-critical views failed the Grainger V test and were 'unworthy of respect in a democratic society', denying Forstater a full merits hearing. This was obviously partisan and was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The case then proceeded to a full merits hearing, not an appeal hearing, at the Employment Tribunal proper, where Forstater again won. The employer chose not to appeal this substantive ruling and damages were duly awarded. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Ridded with useless opinions

This looks more like someone's opinion rather than a Wikipedia page. Eww. V 2samg (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific if you want changes to be made. Give some examples. TBicks (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the {cn} tag was added by another bemused editor. I am guessing that the V 2samg means the entire article. But who knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

No. The whole article is true. 2600:4040:5378:F500:6CBC:2B23:B8F0:CB24 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)