Deathly Shallows: Wikipedia's coverage of JK Rowling

[TheSpacebook]

I've noticed that articles about the British author JK Rowling are written as a shallow hit piece against her. None more so than the Political views of J. K. Rowling (T-H-L) article. Even the title seems to be an attempt to over-police a woman about her views. Women are often over-policed for expressing their views; stereotypically, aren’t "supposed" to be as political as men. Therefore, the label "political" is more impactful when it's applied to women than men. However, the article also discusses her views on non-political topics such as eating disorders. I compare this to the Views of Kanye West article, which covers roughly the same-ish topics (such as views on non-political health-related topics), but isn't labelled "political".

Rowling’s article consistently misrepresents her views and takes her quotes out of context, to fit a different political view. I disagree with some of her more recent views, especially her, in my opinion, backsliding from criticising the role of gender in society, into clear transphobia. But I can be unbiased if I were to write an encyclopedia article about the views. Here’s just one example, in the Eating disorders section, it says:

In 2006, Rowling criticised skinny models, describing that their "only function in the world appears to be supporting the trade in overpriced handbags and rat-sized dogs". She condemned societal beauty standards in "this skinny-obsessed world" and magazine covers that feature people who are "either seriously ill or suffering from an eating disorder"

If you read the source that’s cited, she doesn’t criticise skinny models, she criticises simply models that “trade in overpriced handbags and rat-sized dogs”. This is a clear misrepresentation. Her view criticises the empty-headed stereotype that is placed on women. At no point does she criticise skinny people, rather she would like for her daughters to grow up in a world where their weight is the last thing on the list as later in the source says:

I'd rather they were independent, interesting, idealistic, kind, opinionated, original, funny a thousand things, before 'thin'

I’m currently drafting a full rewrite of the article with the title "Views of J. K. Rowling" (which I'll initiate a requested move discussion for) which I plan to first publish on its talk page or draft space etc when I’m done, and I'll make sure to also notify Trans-related wiki-projects of this too.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Ahhh, the ol "full rewrite of a contentious article" maneuver. Sure, it's never worked in the past, but maybe this will be the time.

[TheSpacebook]

Ahhh, the ol "full rewrite of a contentious article" maneuver. Sure, it's never worked in the past, but maybe this will be the time.

I want to be extremely sensitive about it and get a wide range of opinions. I especially would like input from people who edit trans-related articles and see if anything on it could cause harm to trans people. Likewise, I want to hear views from the people who have concerns with the role gender has in society, but not those who come from a place of bigotry for trans people. I understand fully how contentious this topic is. But I would also like to hear from those who are completely uninvolved with the views Rowling expresses.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Ahhh, the ol "full rewrite of a contentious article" maneuver. Sure, it's never worked in the past, but maybe this will be the time.

I want to be extremely sensitive about it and get a wide range of opinions. I especially would like input from people who edit trans-related articles and see if anything on it could cause harm to trans people. Likewise, I want to hear views from the people who have concerns with the role gender has in society, but not those who come from a place of bigotry for trans people. I understand fully how contentious this topic is. But I would also like to hear from those who are completely uninvolved with the views Rowling expresses.

This seems like a sensible idea with no possibly of causing drama.

[rnu]

Ahhh, the ol "full rewrite of a contentious article" maneuver. Sure, it's never worked in the past, but maybe this will be the time.

I want to be extremely sensitive about it and get a wide range of opinions. I especially would like input from people who edit trans-related articles and see if anything on it could cause harm to trans people. Likewise, I want to hear views from the people who have concerns with the role gender has in society, but not those who come from a place of bigotry for trans people. I understand fully how contentious this topic is. But I would also like to hear from those who are completely uninvolved with the views Rowling expresses.

This seems like a sensible idea with no possibly of causing drama.

Yep, next stop: peace in the middle east.

[TheSpacebook]

Ahhh, the ol "full rewrite of a contentious article" maneuver. Sure, it's never worked in the past, but maybe this will be the time.

I want to be extremely sensitive about it and get a wide range of opinions. I especially would like input from people who edit trans-related articles and see if anything on it could cause harm to trans people. Likewise, I want to hear views from the people who have concerns with the role gender has in society, but not those who come from a place of bigotry for trans people. I understand fully how contentious this topic is. But I would also like to hear from those who are completely uninvolved with the views Rowling expresses.

This seems like a sensible idea with no possibly of causing drama.

Yep, next stop: peace in the middle east.

Mmmm, maybe I am being a bit too ambitious with my thinking then. Maybe I'll just drop it in the talk page and then leave. Thank you for preventing me from starting a TERF war.

[TheSpacebook]

Just checking, is it in the MOS to give labels to businesses such as "transphobic"? The word "transphobic" seems subjective, I would personally prefer "anti-trans", as I feel it is more objective.

In September 2020, Rowling promoted an online store selling transphobic merchandise on Twitter.

Would anyone be able to point me to the MOS/Policy that covers this?

[The Blue Newt]

Mmmm, maybe I am being a bit too ambitious with my thinking then. Maybe I'll just drop it in the talk page and then leave. Thank you for preventing me from starting a TERF war.

Nahh, you just have to bring in bonded labor.

(What, you never heard of serf ‘n TERF?)

[rnu]

Just checking, is it in the MOS to give labels to businesses such as "transphobic"? The word "transphobic" seems subjective, I would personally prefer "anti-trans", as I feel it is more objective.

In September 2020, Rowling promoted an online store selling transphobic merchandise on Twitter.

Would anyone be able to point me to the MOS/Policy that covers this?

The only mention of "transphobic" in MOS seems to be in MOS:LABEL (T-H-L). But that is only about whether to label people as transphobic.
I agree that "anti-trans" is better.

"I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You're not scared. You are an asshole."
(Commonly misattributed to Morgan Freeman)

But people will fight you tooth and nail against using the most appropriate term and insist that only what is "commonly used in RS" will be used.

[TheSpacebook]

At the very start, it says:

These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists.

what does it even mean? It’s so vague. Which LGBT organisations? Which feminists? It's relevant to mention that the feminists who support her are generally the ones who exclude trans people. And a few of the LGBT organisations that oppose her only cover Trans people.

Rowling—long known to be litigious—has a long record of taking or threatening legal action

The em dash break is editorialising and sensationalising, and isn’t neutral for an encyclopedia article. Not only that, it’s just rude and unnecessary.

I'm a bit confused about LGBT, which is why I haven't gone anywhere near the article, as I certainly will make mistakes. But I have a few questions:

Is an organisation that advocates/is a charity for just trans people considered LGBT?

The charity called "Mermaids" only covers transgender rights, but is categorised in LGBT charities, but is not a charity for lesbians, gay people or bisexuals. Likewise, the charity called "LGB Alliance" only covers lesbians, gay people or bisexuals, but is not categorised in LGBT charities. Is this because they oppose transgender rights? If so, "Mermaids" does nothing to help LGB rights, so how can it be an LGBT charity?

But if you flip "Mermaids" on its head, and a charity was set up that just advocated for LGB rights, but was radio silent on trans rights, would that be considered an LGBT charity?

I'll just add that I go to great lengths to always do my best to familiarise myself with any sort of civil rights, but the only part I can never seem to wrap my head around is LGB being linked with Trans.

[Paragon Deku]

I'm sure this will be a productive thread and not full of "just asking questions" style dogwhistles.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I'm a bit confused about LGBT, which is why I haven't gone anywhere near the article, as I certainly will make mistakes.

I don't think you should see this as a drawback. Being confused by LGBT issues and terminology just shows that you are neutral about the subject. Don't muddy up your unbiased ignorance by asking questions here, just jump in. I think you'll find that people are very willing to accept your mistakes so long as they know you are only trying to be fair to Rowling.

[yasslay]

I'll just add that I go to great lengths to always do my best to familiarise myself with any sort of civil rights, but the only part I can never seem to wrap my head around is LGB being linked with Trans.

Because being gay or trans was long considered to be deviant - even a mental illness - until recently. Even today, some people are anti-LGBT and are very vocal in their opposition. It doesn’t make sense to split the two - it seems so hypocritical for a group who’s long been marginalised to try and marginalise another group that’s a part of their wider community. It makes no sense to me to try and split the two up. What would you even achieve, anyway?

———

I agree that the article requires rewording and comes off as a hit piece, however, Rowling’s anti-trans views cannot be understated - it’s very clear that she holds a grudge against the community and this shouldn’t be downplayed. This became apparent with the recent comments on the Holocaust, which were completely and utterly shameful.

[Randy from Boise]

A Spacebook dead pool might be fun.

I've got May 26.

t

[Paragon Deku]

To retort the notion that this undue attention is because she's a woman, I'd like to point out the massive anti-trans section of fellow traveler Graham Linehan (T-H-L)'s article.
As for why he doesn't also have a page specifically dedicated to his views, all I can say is that he isn't one of the greatest selling authors of all time.

[TheSpacebook]

The server has been slow, sorry for the delay in my response.

I'm sure this will be a productive thread and not full of "just asking questions" style dogwhistles.

I apologise to everyone if anything I have said came across as a dogwhistle. It's the very thing I was trying to avoid, by being ultra-sensitive. I welcome anyone to call me out on anything I say which is offensive, as I am aware I don't get to dictate what is and isn't offensive.

I'm a bit confused about LGBT, which is why I haven't gone anywhere near the article, as I certainly will make mistakes.

I don't think you should see this as a drawback. Being confused by LGBT issues and terminology just shows that you are neutral about the subject. Don't muddy up your unbiased ignorance by asking questions here, just jump in. I think you'll find that people are very willing to accept your mistakes so long as they know you are only trying to be fair to Rowling.

I don't think it's my place to just jump into these topics on Wikipedia though, but I am happy to give an outside opinion if I'm invited into them. But thank you for noting that my ignorance was unbiased.

Because being gay or trans was long considered to be deviant - even a mental illness - until recently. Even today, some people are anti-LGBT and are very vocal in their opposition. It doesn’t make sense to split the two - it seems so hypocritical for a group who’s long been marginalised to try and marginalise another group that’s a part of their wider community. It makes no sense to me to try and split the two up. What would you even achieve, anyway?

But being gay is not something that requires lifesaving medical treatment; being trans does and there is an extremely powerful force which takes advantage of this fact and attempts to strip away healthcare from Trans people. I think that Trans people seem to be marginalised within the LGBT community and most targeted externally. So my basis is that better attention and more specific focus is to be put onto Trans topics. I've noticed in the 2020s that a lot of "anti-LGBT" laws have exclusively been to block access to trans health care, so believe more focus should be given to them. The specific focus on Trans (which I welcome) is already happening on Wikipedia LGBT rights in the United States (T-H-L) and Transgender rights in the United States (T-H-L) both exist, so I don't see why the LGBT article includes the Trans parts. It is clear that LGB rights have, generally, progressed, but Trans rights are currently regressing.

I agree that the article requires rewording and comes off as a hit piece,

This is the neutrality issue I was trying to raise, attempting to be sensitive around the specific issues relating to her views.

however, Rowling’s anti-trans views cannot be understated - it’s very clear that she holds a grudge against the community and this shouldn’t be downplayed. This became apparent with the recent comments on the Holocaust, which were completely and utterly shameful.

Agreed. I said this in my original post, how it is clear that she is transphobic. and the Holocaust comments were a disgrace. In her podcast “The Witch Trials of JK Rowling”, she completely dismissed all the criticism that has been raised and deflected the whole way through. I have noticed that on Twitter, she covertly gets her followers to attack trans people, on her behalf- and aligns herself with groups that actively cause harm.

[estecaso]

One way of explaining the connection between LGB and T that might be a bit more intuitive is just as a matter of the evolution of labels over time and shared community history. Some stuff to read up on with regards to this includes the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (T-H-L) and their relationship with the Gay Liberation Front (T-H-L), for example.

Like though we understand transgender people can have any sexual orientation today, imagine you're attracted to men and often wish you'd been born with female secondary sexual characteristics in the 50s and 60s. If you read up about stuff, you might hear a little about Christine Jorgensen (T-H-L) if you're lucky, but medical treatment is probably inaccessible and predominantly the only source of community immediately accessible to you is going to be gay groups who understand what it's like to be beat down for being effeminate and loving people society says you shouldn't. So Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera both identify as gay drag queens and transvestites at the time, although they also recognizably act in ways that suggest transness to us now—Marsha mentions wanting to get vaginoplasty in Sweden (I believe this is mentioned in the Stonewall Reader), Rivera goes on to identify as trans and later life and takes hormones, etc.

My point isn't really whether it makes sense to consider Johnson a trans woman anachronistically based on this, although some people do—the point I'm making is only that you can certainly imagine from this how historically trans people and groups would've ended up with lots of community ties to cis gay people, and that the boundary between those would've actually been pretty unclear historically. Miss_Major_Griffin-Gracy (T-H-L) is another Stonewall vet and trans woman who cut her teeth as a drag queen. (This connection similarly exists even for a smaller number of trans women who IDed as lesbian who became aware of some lesbian feminist groups, like Beth Elliott (T-H-L) just at a much tinier scale since communities were smaller and not always as accepting.) I've glossed over trans men a bit in this because this history is less documented and analogous enough this'd be a bit repetitive but Butch/FTM Border Wars and the Masculine Continuum by Halberstram will give you some of the complex history between lesbians and straight trans guys there, and similarly reading up on Lou Sullivan (T-H-L) and the GLBT Historical Society for understanding gay trans guys' work with the broader LGBT community.

[TheSpacebook]

So Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera both identify as gay drag queens and transvestites at the time, although they also recognizably act in ways that suggest transness to us now—Marsha mentions wanting to get vaginoplasty in Sweden (I believe this is mentioned in the Stonewall Reader), Rivera goes on to identify as trans and later life and takes hormones, etc.

I know about Marsha P Johnson and the Stonewall riots, but it's clear I need to enter another wiki-rabbit-hole.

I’ll just add to my above post, that I also think Trans topics being automatically linked to LGB by default on Wikipedia almost “suppresses” the true nature of the sharp regression of transgender rights in the 2020s and it gets lost in the lengthy articles. And when I have been in a wiki-rabbit hole, I just find myself lost. Take the LGBT rights in the United States (T-H-L) article for example, it says

During the 2020s, gender identity issues became prominent topics in American politics, particularly regarding athletics and transgender-related healthcare for minors. In 2023, 510 anti-LGBT bills were introduced in state legislatures. A large number of these are “forced outing” bills requiring teachers to alert the parents of a student when they begin going by a different name or pronouns, along with curriculum censorship banning discussion on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Public opinion is largely supportive of same-sex marriage while mixed on transgender issues. A 2023 Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage, while 28% oppose it.

When it says "510 anti-LGBT bills", it seems to me to deflect the fact that the majority of these laws are anti-Trans, so the "anti-LGBT" label seems dubious. Even in the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States (T-H-L) article, it lists a table, and they are all anti-Trans laws.

[estecaso]

When it says "510 anti-LGBT bills", it seems to me to deflect the fact that the majority of these laws are anti-Trans, so the "anti-LGBT" label seems dubious. Even in the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States (T-H-L) article, it lists a table, and they are all anti-Trans laws.

It's definitely true that trans people are the central bête noire of conservatives of late, but I do think again this speaks to fuzzy boundaries in who bigotry effects—like anti-drag has also been a big component, and that can but doesn't necessarily involve trans people. Particularly the book ban and "groomer"-focused end of the movement as you see in Moms for Liberty efforts has extended way beyond just trans people. (To be fair that also often includes anti-racist books, but sources will probably connect that more to the panic over critical race theory whereas the LGBT focused sources connect the other incidents more to evangelical backlash. There's many ways to slice the onion.) Books like The Perks of Being a Wallflower and Flamer by Mike Curato are really only about gay people, but that doesn't really exempt them from being prime targets for ire in these groups. So the editors writing about this stuff are left with "Hmmm....what do we call the 2020s conservative movement that most centrally attacks the trans rights movement but also sometimes gay people?"

To be clear I don't necessarily wholly disagree the article might be conveying these nuances imperfectly, but it is worth understanding where it comes from. (I also think general vocabulary inertia, an understandable philosophical tendency in the community towards "an attack on one is an attack on all" for coalitional reasons, and the influence of publication style guide rules might all be factors in why many sources WIkipedia is drawing from tend to use "anti-LGBT" even for stuff which only affect parts of that community, and thus Wikipedia would tend to inherit that tendency, but the relative weight of those things I couldn't say.)

[TheSpacebook]

To be clear I don't necessarily wholly disagree the article might be conveying these nuances imperfectly, but it is worth understanding where it comes from. (I also think general vocabulary inertia, an understandable philosophical tendency in the community towards "an attack on one is an attack on all" for coalitional reasons, and the influence of publication style guide rules might all be factors in why many sources WIkipedia is drawing from tend to use "anti-LGBT" even for stuff which only affect parts of that community, and thus Wikipedia would tend to inherit that tendency, but the relative weight of those things I couldn't say.)

Yes, my point didn't have any harmful intent. Quite the opposite, it was to try to give proper focus to the part that is currently being most heavily harmed. I understand that a lot of organisations such as Gays Against Groomers and people like Dave Rubin would agree with me, but for the very opposite reason. But it's clear that gay people are the next target for this backsliding.

But I'll never assert into these topics, as these things generally work themselves out on the project talk pages. I have noticed the growing trend for the editorial standard on Wikipedia for gay men is moving away from saying "He is gay", towards styling it in the way straight people are written about, take the Ted Allen (T-H-L) article for example. Although whilst not all gay people partake in drag, it can’t be ignored that it is a gay/trans art (possibly the intersection of the two), and I have the opinion that anti-drag laws are to target gay people, with the veil of "but not all gay people do drag so it's not anti-gay". Also, my opinion is that non-commercial surrogacy is ethical and gay couples rely on women volunteering their wombs to allow them to start families. But even JK Rowling herself has begun to target surrogacy. Her first-ever tweet to mention the word "surrogate" was last week.

However, even as Rowling backslides further, I still think the article about her views must be written neutrally, regardless of her views. The article is written in a biased way, and this must be expunged from a neutral encyclopedia.

[estecaso]

Yes, my point didn't have any harmful intent. Quite the opposite, it was to try to give proper focus to the part that is currently being most heavily harmed. I understand that a lot of organisations such as Gays Against Groomers and people like Dave Rubin would agree with me, but for the very opposite reason. But it's clear that gay people are the next target for this backsliding.

Sure, no worries, I wasn't taking you to be of harmful intent but stumbled on this thread and thought there was chance some background information could be helpful context towards your questions. Certainly this topic can be a rabbit hole at the best of times and I'm glad you seem to be keen to try to understand stuff. In regards to the Rowling article I don't have as specific thoughts but of course I'd agree on neutrality; the devil's definitely in the details there though, and I can't envy the editors who'll have to try to wrangle the talk page discussions about that. Cheers!

[TheSpacebook]

The article just makes so much stuff up, for no apparent reason too.

As a resident of Edinburgh, Rowling was eligible to vote in the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, and intended to vote "No".[5][failed verification]

But the source cited cited makes no such claim and only alludes to how she’ll vote. It confuses me as I don't understand the motivations to add such a random claim. Secondly, when the other editor checked the source, to add the [failed verification] tag, why didn't they just remove the claim?

Also in my draft, I've moved the Holocaust part into a subsection of Transgender rights and expanded it. I didn't like how claims such as this were buried in with all the internet spats. and to the current:

On 13 March 2024, Rowling dismissed the fact that the Nazis burned books on early transgender healthcare during their raids on the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft as "a fever dream" on Twitter. Rowling went on to quote tweet another user's tweet which falsely stated that trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Her comments received widespread criticism, including from Alejandra Caraballo. Some, such as The Mary Sue, accused Rowling of Holocaust denial.

doesn't go into that much detail for such an extreme claim to make. But, I'm worried this would be undue weight.

I'm also worried that my draft contains so many unintentional dog whistles, that my neutrality may overlook sensitivities I’m unaware of, and unintentionally attacks her (the thing I set out to avoid), so it’s probably best I don’t involved with the article. I’ll probably just post the draft here, and anyone is welcome to do what they want to it!

[Giraffe Stapler]

I’ll probably just post the draft here, and anyone is welcome to do what they want to it!

Don't post the draft here. It will just lead to uncertainties about copyright. If you want to rewrite a Wikipedia article, do it on Wikipedia.

[rnu]

I’ll probably just post the draft here, and anyone is welcome to do what they want to it!

Don't post the draft here. It will just lead to uncertainties about copyright. If you want to rewrite a Wikipedia article, do it on Wikipedia.

And then there is the issue of the totally not dishonest, totally not bad-faith allegations of MEAT that will come if anyone tries to use any part of it on Wikipedia if it is posted here first.

[Konveyor Belt]

Spacebook, be careful if you live in the UK and want to add anything that might be considered negative in your rewrite, otherwise she might send you a legal threat.

[eppur si muove]

There's the unfortunate thing where "the Holocaust" sometimes means just the Jews who were murdered and sometimes all those others murdered for "race purity" reasons. I would prefer if the Shoah were used for the narrower context and that would allow the term "Holocaust" to apply to the wider context. That would make it hard for Rowling to weasel out of the accusation. It's appalling that a near-billionaire attempts to silence her critics who lack such deep pockets with legal threats.

[TheSpacebook]

Spacebook, be careful if you live in the UK and want to add anything that might be considered negative in your rewrite, otherwise she might send you a legal threat.

I'm quite surprised she has already sued, due to how much the article misrepresents her views (like the eating disorder one my original post). My draft was very neutral and attributed her claims correctly. If I take a long time offline, I'm doing work to verify each claim. I may also do a re-write of the Candace Owens (T-H-L) article, and fact-check each claim. For example, it says

In July 2018, Owens claimed that global warming is not real,

But the source says that Candace says something along the lines of "the climate has always changed, but I don't think humans are responsible for that". This is not saying global warming isn't real, rather she's claiming she doesn't know what the cause is, and it shouldn't be assumed automatically that humans are to blame. (To clarify, this is scientifically incorrect, but her views need to be attributed accurately).

Whilst I am left-wing, I do not welcome a left-wing bias on Wikipedia. I think work needs to be done to balance this out into neutrality.

[Kraken]

The article just makes so much stuff up, for no apparent reason too.

As a resident of Edinburgh, Rowling was eligible to vote in the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, and intended to vote "No".[5][failed verification]

But the source cited cited makes no such claim and only alludes to how she’ll vote. It confuses me as I don't understand the motivations to add such a random claim.

It's about stirring up hatred.

Where you stand on Scottish independence has become a proxy for whether you are an evil person or not. Supposedly an independent Scotland would be the most progressive, welcoming, tolerant, inclusive, peace loving caring sharing country that ever existed. Being chained to the UK against their will is a crime against democracy.

The referendum is relitigated on Twitter every day. It's quite ironic given their recent hate speech bill, that some of the most vicious, violent, virulently hateful content you will ever see on the open internet, comes from Scottish nationalists who want Scotland to be independent NOW. If you made the mistake of thinking Twitter was real life, you might suspect an armed rebellion was afoot.

It's absolutely mental.

Beyond delusional.

In the real world, the nationalist administration in Scotland is coming to the end of its road. They've been found out. They played politics with Covid. They've not met any of their domestic health or educational targets. They can't even build a ferry without resembling a wasteful and corrupt socialist satellite republic. It's a great time to be young or old up there, as you get so much free shit. Unsurprisingly, their economic forecasts were fantasy and now they're in a massive budgetary black hole.

One of the last epic fails was gender related (self certification). The right wing tabloids have had a field day. An example of the danger of wokery in office, on our doorstep. Using our tax dollars.

They prosecuted their former leader on false charges of rape off the back of #MeToo. His protégé, who took over his job, has pursued a series of doomed and frankly batshit efforts to have a second independence referendum. It evidently comes as a compete shock to these law makers, how the law actually works. She unexpectedly resigned and is now under police investigation for embezzlement of party funds.

Like her predecessor, she used powerful rhetoric and the cult of personality to pursue her goals. Unlike her predecessor, she concentrated power among a closed circle, isolated even her own ministers as well as her base, and payed no heed to succession planning. Her exit was like a dagger to the heart of her party. Previously thought popular and successful, the end of school reports have not been kind. Her replacement is weak and inconsistent, albeit partly due to the fact prior decisions have cut his legs off completely.

The next United Kingdom general election (T-H-L) will see the nationalists swept away as a political force, out of power for ten years at least. There's going to be one heck of a lot of crying and foot stamping from generation Twatter. They'll probably go even harder against people like Rowling in revenge, even though as we can all see, she isn't a politician and her views really don't matter a jot.

Some are no doubt hoping they will start something, so the Polis can really start cracking some skulls. Knock some sense into these radgie bastards.

[Kraken]

To retort the notion that this undue attention is because she's a woman, I'd like to point out the massive anti-trans section of fellow traveler Graham Linehan (T-H-L)'s article.
As for why he doesn't also have a page specifically dedicated to his views, all I can say is that he isn't one of the greatest selling authors of all time.

Curiously they both made their fortunes writing fiction about oddballs struggling to find a place in the world. Harry Potter has a more overt evil for the plucky weirdos to battle, perhaps because it's a kids book, whereas the evil in Black Books, Father Ted and The I.T. Crowd is just the world itself. Or rather, so called normal people who are socially well adjusted and living up to the expectations of the world. People good at their jobs, whether in the corporate, small business or religious worlds. Perhaps because those were sitcoms for adults. Cult hits. Translation: nerd porn.

All very strange.

Less strange is the fact Rowling gets a spin off article because she has more Twattter followers than Linehan. Neither is a political figure, their political views matter as much as any random celebrity. In theory, Wikipedia is meant to recognize that, seeing the difference between news froth and encyclopedic substance.

I mean, I don't follow this closely, but I'm confident neither has ever been invited to a government meeting or testified in a relevant inquiry. Their views don't carry much weight. Their platform is Twatter. Their audience, is Twatter.

[TheSpacebook]

They'll probably go even harder against people like Rowling

I think it's because she isn't in the vast sea of politicians and political commentators. She exists outside of it, so the general public tends to give a special type of attention to those who aren't in the political sphere and treat them differently. In my opinion, she's been the person that has divided feminists in the 2020s. She's distanced herself from Harry Potter (and the Wizarding World has exiled her), so her laser focus on one single issue is her only notability in the 2020s, hence the shallow hit-piece article about her views.

[TheSpacebook]

It all sparked with Rowling tweeting this in June 2020.

But if you look at the article before the tweet, you can see how balanced it is. It opens with calling her a "philanthropist" and an "advocate against the use of cage beds".

The pre-tweet article did say that she had views on skinny role models, but it is noted in the next paragraph that her criticism of skinny people was "Rowling's attack on weight standards". But now the text reads as though she is attacking skinny models, reading "Rowling was criticised both for her comments on underweight people".

This shows the left-wing bias on Wikipedia. When a person is considered "for the left", their article is written in a positive manner, but when a person becomes "against the left", their article gets slanted to show them in a negative light. Rowling's views alone can show herself in a negative light, Leftipedia doesn't need to do anything extra.

[TheSpacebook]

A similar issue to the one I raised in this thread has been sparked up on the Cass Review (T-H-L) article, and Talk:Cass Review (T-H-L) for the past week. Sources from "British Psychological Society" and "Equality and Human Rights Commission", are being tagged with [better source needed]. It even made it to the admin noticeboard.

I'm not informed enough on this report to comment, but it's from the NHS and it concerns me that medical sources are being tagged with [better source needed]. I'm aware that primary sources are frowned upon, but didn't realise this extended to medical sources.

The report can be found here: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home ... al-report/, so I'd obviously recommend reading the whole thing if anyone comments.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I'm not informed enough on this report to comment...

And yet, you did comment.

[TheSpacebook]

I'm not informed enough on this report to comment...

And yet, you did comment.

I'm going to read the report now, but my comment was about medical sources being tagged with [better source needed].
I’m also concerned that newspapers are being cited in the article. Newspapers are well known to have an anti-Trans bias, so it seems inappropriate to cite them in any place other than the "Reactions" section.

[rnu]

I'm not informed enough on this report to comment...

And yet, you did comment.

I'm going to read the report now, but my comment was about medical sources being tagged with [better source needed].
I’m also concerned that newspapers are being cited in the article. Newspapers are well known to have an anti-Trans bias, so it seems inappropriate to cite them in any place other than the "Reactions" section.

Not all medical sources are the same. From WP:MEDRS (T-H-L):

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later clinical trials.

And newspapers should absolutely not be used for medical claims.

[Midsize Jake]

Newspapers are well known to have an anti-Trans bias...

I know there was the big story about the New York Times having an anti-trans bias, but is it fair to generalize about this by saying it's "newspapers" and not just the NYT (and, presumably, other even more right-wing-friendly outlets)?

I don't recall seeing any stories about similar problems at other newspapers, though TBH I don't monitor that stuff very closely.

[Konveyor Belt]

Newspapers are well known to have an anti-Trans bias...

I know there was the big story about the New York Times having an anti-trans bias, but is it fair to generalize about this by saying it's "newspapers" and not just the NYT (and, presumably, other even more right-wing-friendly outlets)?

I don't recall seeing any stories about similar problems at other newspapers, though TBH I don't monitor that stuff very closely.

I think that statement is true as far as UK newspapers are concerned. Even The Guardian (T-H-L) has not been friendly to trans rights, to the point that their own US affiliate had to distance themselves from it. Since just about every other newspaper in the UK is to the right of them, you can extrapolate from there. US newspapers other than the NYT do not have this problem as far as I know.

The other factor is that UK newspapers publish a lot more articles on trans issues than US ones. So you have a situation where most newspaper articles about trans people are from the UK, and given their biases most of those stories are not positive. So I think it's fair to say that the newspaper articles about trans people that get cited in trans-related articles have an anti-trans bias.

[Kraken]

Worth noting that the left wing tabloid The Mirror is currently printing stories such as this.....

* Dad of trans boy, 4, says adults still insist on calling his son a 'girl'

Pretty batshit stuff by UK cultural norms, as well as the law. Dead names for 2 year olds? Gender neutral spaces for first graders? Gender recognition certificates for nursey children? Wowsers. Shots fired.

What baffles me is why they're doing it. They're not going to shift the political consensus, neither before or after the next United Kingdom general election (T-H-L). Nor will it attract a single extra reader to their already very ailing business. I guess it could be clickbait (allegedly the means by which they're trying to reverse thier financial troubles). Sad if it is. Desperate.

[rnu]

There is now a proposal to split "J. K. Rowling views on transgender issues" into a stand-alone article.
(ongoing / permanent)