Talk:J. K. Rowling

"In opposition..." redux

This archived talk section refers Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_27#Lede: "...in opposition to the notion that gender identity differs from birth sex". That was archived without action, but Tewdar had a point. So I have made a bold change to the lead that is supported by the article, and also with her stated views in her own essay. I am sure someone will want to tweak it, but be aware that reversion will be to a formulation that is wrong, and removal will take away any summary of where the philosophical source of her opposition lay. With that in mind, improvements are welcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither version is strong, but I think the status quo ante better captures Rowling's broader opposition to accepting gender identity, as it's described in the body of the article and the subarticle. She's far past focus on an argument about gender self-id as a legal concept, and she insists that trans women are in fact men. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, trans women are in fact men by definition. They are men who identify as women. Anything else is circular definition nonsence. ~2026-25953-12 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether trans women are women or men is irrelevant to J.K. Rowling's Wikipedia article. TBicks (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Your amendment ― opposing attempts to replace the legal definition ― makes it read as if JKR was acting in isolation. Tweaking to supporting opposition to attempts..., or joining opposition to attempts..., or similar, might make your intended meaning clearer. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with that tweak, but noting FFF's comments, perhaps something else is better. Suggestions welcome. I note, however, that although she has indeed moved deeper into this, that was certainly the presenting reason at the time, which is what the sentence says. Perhaps it needs another clause. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Both texts seem unclear to me - "...in opposition to the notion that gender identity differs from birth sex" is only true of trans people and clearly (as a fact), their gender identity is different from their birth sex. Anyone can refuse to recognise that as valid, legally or socially or whatever, but no one can't oppose the fact that they identify as other than their birth sex.

"opposing attempts to replace the legal definition of birth sex" is also unclear. The definition of a person's birth sex is unchangable, it is the sex recorded when that person was born. Even if a person's legal sex is wholly and completely changed and all records amended, their birth sex remains what it always was, how it was recorded at the time of their birth!

My understanding of what she most strongly opposes is the notion that one's legal sex can be altered based solely on self-identification of one's gender. I don't know how to clearly and succinctly record that in a way that is clear to a 'lay' readership though.Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

And therein lies our problem. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Something like: From 2019, Rowling began making public remarks about transgender people, opposing the view that gender identity should replace birth sex as the basis for law and data collection. Maybe??  Tewdar  19:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that that has a big assumption in it that A. she's not trying to undo things that already existed - not true: the Gender Recognition Act passed in 2004. And, B. that this is the extent of things she's said and done - also untrue. It's very misleading, whatever the intent.

I've said, and still say, that Variety's statement in 2024 that she "made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona", properly attributed, is the fairest and most accurate way to describe the myriad of small incidents. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

How can you campaign against trans identity? You can campaign against such identity being recognised as valid legally or whatever, but you can't campaign against a person's subjective feelings. A problem I think is that those actively involved on either side of the various arguments speak a 'shorthand', which is borderline gobbledegook to the lay person. Pincrete (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

ps the 2004 Gender Recognition Act is not based solely on self-recognition of one's gender identity, it is based on a (fairly long, cumbersome and bureaucratic I believe) process of assessing whether the person has "satisfied the criteria for legal recognition in the acquired gender." Even after recognition, the person can be excluded from some single-sex services etc. AFAIK Rowling has never opposed or suggested repealing this act, though she is in favour of retaining the exclusion element.Pincrete (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Adam here: it's hard to narrow down to a single thing she opposes. She is a general-purpose anti-trans activist and takes anti-trans positions on many otherwise related issues. Loki (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

So your suggested text would be From 2019, Rowling has been a general-purpose anti-trans activist who takes anti-trans positions on many otherwise related issues. then?

Everyone's so coy around here...  Tewdar  19:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

No, something along the lines of From 2019, Rowling began making public remarks about transgender people in opposition to trans rights. Loki (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That would qualify under "blatantly wrong". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This is unacceptable for a legitimate entry: "Rowling has attracted criticism for trans-exclusionary positions she has taken from 2019 onwards, including opposition to gender self-identification, opposition to allowing trans women into women's toilets and changing rooms, and support for gender-critical activists." She in fact has attracted criticism AND SUPPORT to begin with. Probably more support than criticism as large majorities reject transgenderism as grounded in anything other than psychology. Terms like "trans women" are loaded and ideological. There are at "trans-identifying" men and women, but we know that no human or mammal has ever transitioned from one gender to another. ~2026-36167-10 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion as an interim measure is that we go with "From 2019, Rowling began making public remarks about transgender people, opposing attempts to replace the legal definition of birth sex with gender self identity. She has which have been condemned as transphobic by LGBTQ rights groups, some Harry Potter fans, and various other critics, including academics." The big downside is that we don't elaborate on what her remarks contain, but the upside is that we don't artificially limit the remarks to ones about legal matters. I don't see this as a great long-term solution, but I prefer it over the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks good (enough for the time being)! How about we replace the first bit with "Since 2019, Rowling has made public remarks..."?  Tewdar  19:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Better, or even "Since 2019, Rowling's public remarks about transgender people have been ....". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Great, I'll get the drinks in. I think they only serve moonshine straight out of the submarine still in this place, though.  Tewdar  19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Simply deleting that clause is an option (at least for now), but it loses information. Adam Cuerden is wrong to suggest she was trying to undo things that already existed - at least at the time of her essay (I think it is evident her position hardened with the backlash) - she was opposing the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill that would amend the 2004 law by allowing self recognition. As Pincrete points out, the 2004 made people go through a long and cumbersome process and persuade doctors to gain gender recognition. So the wording "gender self identity" is key (perhaps it should be wikilinked to the gender recognition reform page or similar). That is what you lose if you remove it, and the text would suggest she just started making remarks for no clear reason. I don't think it is better, I think it's worse, but as long as we don't say anything that is blatantly wrong, I'll not oppose it.

As an aside, Judith Butler uses the term "anti-gender" as her main descriptor for the ideology of gender-critical feminists. I think that is superior to ani-trans and transphobic when talking about gender-critical views, as it accurately describes the philosophical position whilst clearly not being self description, the usual complaint about "gender-critical". Worth keeping in mind. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Butler is probably referring to the anti-gender movement, a broader current of opposition to trans issues (among others) that gender-critical feminism is a subset of. Loki (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

For example, "One of the main contentions of feminist anti-gender activists is that the facts of “sex” are being denied by gender theorists." - From Who's Afraid of Gender?, chapter 6. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

As a stopgap this seems fine to me. Loki (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Slight concern. From 2019, Rowling began making public remarks about transgender people, opposing attempts to replace the legal definition of birth sex with gender self identity is how the article is currently worded, but that's not strictly accurate. Nobody is trying to 'replace the legal definition of birth sex'. I feel like this could be worded significantly better. TBicks (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, suggestions welcome. The law already allows the birth certificate in the UK to be changed with a Gender Recognition Certificate. The proposed Scottish law would have allowed self identity to be accepted to obtain the GRC and thus change the birth sex on a birth certificate. Those opposing that law were opposing the ability to change the birth certificate, which is a legal document that defines (or recognises), among other things, a person's sex, based on self recognition of their gender identity - i.e. without the complicated existing process that requires medical recognition. The wording is sub optimal, but can we capture that with something better? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It isn't the definition of birth sex that is changed, even a new birth certificate cannot retrospectively do that. It is a fact that a child of whatever sex/weight etc was born at x o'clock on y date and hospital records will presumably still record that fact, whatever a new birth certificate says. It is the person's actual legal sex that would have been changed to that of their gender self-identity. The birth certificate is a detail and referring to 'birth sex' is misleading IMO. The main objections raised by GC feminists is the full and unqualified access to positions/places/services/rights that have traditionally been reserved for natal women that legal recognition of gender self-identification affords. They would also argue that it would be too easy for those acting with malicious intent to 'fake' their gender self-identification (rapists gaining access to women's prison for example) and that gender self-identification is irrelevant to those in need or receipt of protective services (e.g. rape crisis centres). Pincrete (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

NPOV et cetera

@LokiTheLiar Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&curid=16027&diff=1347633810&oldid=1347633118 I am not sure what you meant by "some sources go further"? The first example given her is that JK Rowling is opposed to gender self identification, no sources describe that as trans inclusionary. While I am not saying that she does not have trans exclusionary views, this view is not trans exclusionary. Thoughts?

Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&curid=16027&diff=1347633118&oldid=1347622257 I completely agreed with the other editors choice to remove the word negative, it is not NPOV, we can all agree that these views have affected her public image, but many would view it as positive since there are many who agree with her (and there are sources to confirm this). Do you have secondary sources which claim that her overall public image has been hurt, and what is meant by that exactly, in the context of declining book sales or what? Chattenoir (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Point 1: The intent was to say that her overall views were trans-exclusionary. But also, we do have sources that say opposition to gender self-identification or opposition to reforming the GRA (read: to allow gender self-identification) are trans-exclusionary positions:

Take, for example, the recent political vicissitudes of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) in Britain. After the British Parliament held an inquiry in 2015 into transgender equality—which led to their recommendation to reform GRA to democratize trans people's ability to access medical transition—the gender-critical trans-exclusionary feminist movement organized against the proposed changes to the act, causing the reform process to stall

The UK is currently witnessing a drastic shift in gender politics. This research paper will be exploring the ‘Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ (TERF) discourse in light of the recent debates surrounding transgender rights. While trans rights advocates push for less restrictions on accessing healthcare and legal recognition of their gender identity, TERFs have taken to the internet and the media to ring the alarm bells against proposed changes to existing legislation. One of the most prominent voices of the TERF movement has been J.K. Rowling.

I suspect this one might too but I can't access it at the moment.

These are also not the only sources that say something to this effect. One of the sources below, Pape 2022, describes:

Particularly in the context of the proposed GRA reforms, trans-exclusive feminist individuals and organizations have sought to frame cisgender women as the victims of censorship by over-reaching gender ideological extremists, as well as overlooked as key stakeholders by decision-making bodies, thereby pitting trans rights against the freedoms and speech rights of cis women.

----

Point 2: The sources already say, and we already say, that the way her public image has been affected is largely negative. This is our current paragraph on the subject:

Rowling denies that her views are transphobic. Rowling's public expression of her views has prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, music, theme park, and video gaming sectors as well as fuelling debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture. She has been the target of widespread condemnation for her comments, with negative reactions including insults and death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.

That "widespread condemnation" has three sources: Duggan 2021, Pape 2022, and Whited 2024. Duggan has a long section on this but some quotes include Rowling’s commentary has justifiably been received with horror by many Harry Potter fans and describes The ongoing conflict between Rowling and many of her fans. Pape seems to be more about the Harry Potter cast than the fandom. Whited says that The tempest resulting from Rowling’s dogged defense of Maya Forstater and the author’s subsequent public writing about gender identity has run a gamut from civil disagreement with Rowling to threats of violence directed at her. and describes Rowling’s fall from near-universal approval.

This is all saying that the reaction has been negative. That there exist people who support her is largely irrelevant because, as several sources point out, before she started saying these things everyone supported her. Loki (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I will respond to each point you raised

Point 1:

Ref 1, I have not read in completion but I cannot find mention of self identification using Ctrl-F to find in page.

Ref 2, talks about self identification but does not define it as trans exclusionary. It also says "self-proclaimed TERF J.K. Rowling", which is contradicted by a multitude of sources where JK Rowling fiercely rejects this term.

Can you please provide page numbers if I am wrong on either of these?

I do not understand how

"Particularly in the context of the proposed GRA reforms, trans-exclusive feminist individuals and organizations have sought to frame cisgender women as the victims of censorship by over-reaching gender ideological extremists, as well as overlooked as key stakeholders by decision-making bodies, thereby pitting trans rights against the freedoms and speech rights of cis women."

is meant to define opposition to self identification as exclusionary?

Point 2:

"That there exist people who support her is largely irrelevant because, as several sources point out, before she started saying these things everyone supported her"

I feel that in this case, better wording might be to say "this has been the cause of controversy amongst her fans". Characterising it as negative public image because many disagree with her, or even condemn her, is misplaced in my personal view. The term public image itself is perhaps the problem, it is quite strange to describe having a controversial opinion as harming your public image, it implies that one must have an all agreeable world view or else your public image suffers. I will point out that not a single source you've quoted uses the term 'public image' (correct me if I'm wrong). Chattenoir (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You can't just Ctrl+F, you need to read the text in context. In context, both sources call opposition to reforming the GRA (the reforms in question were to allow gender self-identification) a hallmark of trans-exclusionary radical feminism in the UK. Which is to say the sources are calling opposition to gender self-identification trans exclusionary.

Also, I realize that Rowling denies being a trans-exclusionary feminist but she calls herself gender-critical and our own article on the topic says those are synonyms. And also the large majority of sources both in our article and elsewhere that address the topic say she's trans-exclusionary (or a TERF or anti-trans or gender-critical or some other synonym; again you can't just Ctrl+F).

---

Going from "universal acclaim" to "controversy" is negative, but honestly I think that's a reasonable compromise. Loki (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Why can't I Ctrl-F to find specific information that you are saying is in the article? Could you please kindly provide the page number(s)? Chattenoir (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You need to read the text in context. The absence of specific words does not mean the absence of the things they mean. Loki (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I also gave you the precise quotes I'm talking about. If you want to verify they're present in those sources that's an appropriate use of Ctrl+F. Loki (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Can I suggest we just add this instead of the negative reception line? "In 2024, Variety wrote that Rowling had "made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona"." - It gets to the point of the matter, summarises a lot of the issues better than any other quote we have, and doesn't have any editorial judgement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 17:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't hate it but:

1. I feel like it's a little weird to quote a specific source in the lead.
2. Part of the point of the negative reception line is that Rowling's opinions have caused significant controversy about her among her fans that was not previously there. It's not just about what she's done but how other people have reacted to it.

Loki (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Aye, but it at least starts to get us somewhere. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 00:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, I don't hate it, and I'd prefer it to nothing at all. Loki (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

To be honest I agree with Loki here that a specific quote from a specific article is a little unusual. Chattenoir (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Also we don't have nothing at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Should the headline paragraph note her trans-related campaigning?

The first paragraph of the article is the "initial summary" of what people read and notes that she's best known for Harry Potter. So far so accurate; but it then brings up her Robert Gilbraith persona and books; which are almost certainly less well-known than her gender-critical campaigning. Her campaigning on transgender rights is first mentioned in the fifth paragraph after discussing her personal life, philanthropy (which side note, doesn't mention her funding of anti-trans groups and cases) and a summary of Harry Potter.

At the very least, it should be mentioned in the headline paragraph., and obviously written to be as neutral as possible given that opinions on this differ wildly.

Something vaguely along the lines of:

"Joanne Rowling, better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, philanthropist, producer, and screenwriter. She is best known for writing Harry Potter, a seven-volume series about a young wizard. Published from 1997 to 2007, the fantasy novels are the best-selling book series in history, with over 600 million copies sold. They have been translated into 84 languages and have spawned a global media franchise including films and video games. She has received both acclaim and criticism for her political campaigning and philanthropy, particularly on gender-critical subjects. She writes Cormoran Strike, an ongoing crime fiction series, under the alias Robert Galbraith."

Thoughts? ~2026-25464-01 (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if she has 'campaigned politically', rather just make some tweets for the most part? She is by far most well known for being an author and her lesser known books are a part of that description. Chattenoir (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Political campaign "A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making progress within a specific group." - clearly that test is met by the existence of the "JK Rowling Women's Fund", an organization that selectively funds legal cases that serve her political goals.

The 'brands' JK Rowling and Harry Potter are well-known. The 'brands' Robert Galbraith and 'literally can't remember the name of the books since I switched to the talk tab' are not. So how can they be part of what she's known for if they're not well known?

Pushing the thing she's criticised for four-paragraphs below definitely-notable facts like "she's divorced" smells like bias to me. ~2026-25464-01 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead is roughly in chronological order and in that context the fifth paragraph is where that info goes.

I would be perfectly fine with trimming down the lead in general, as I agree it's too long and contains too much extraneous info, but I don't think just hoisting stuff to the top paragraph makes sense. We don't want to create a "lead for the lead", and if we're thinking of doing that, it means the lead is too long. Loki (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's by far the most notable thing she did after Harry Potter. It's weird to deemphasise it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 03:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, I think if a statement being at the end of the lead is "deemphasized", that means the lead in general is too long rather than that the statement should be moved. Loki (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, most of the first three paragraphs is on Harry Potter, so I can't argue it's not. There is way too much about her works for a bio article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 05:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure cramming that sentence into the middle of a paragraph about her works as an author makes a lot of sense. TBicks (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into this conversation really late, but I absolutely think that her anti-trans activism should be in the opening sentence. It is in the opening sentence of Graham Lineham's article. Like Rowling, you could say that Lineham is better known for his writing, in his case of sitcoms. But editors have made the obviously sensible decision that, given anti-trans activism has been an absolute fixation of Lineham's in recent years, it belongs at the top of the article. The same logic applies to Rowling. Dubiously (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid having anything to do with Rowling's page these days (as it's always a hellish nightmare), but since I was replied to directly, I guess i'll engage.

They have two completely different bodies of reliable source material, so the fact that Linehan has something in the opening sentence of his article is pretty irrelevant to this article.

You say "But editors have made the obviously sensible decision that, given anti-trans activism has been an absolute fixation of Lineham's in recent years, it belongs at the top of the article". Respectfully, doubt this is true as presented, as we write/edit articles based on reliable secondary sources, not our subjective opinion of their "fixations". I don't recall being involved in that discussion, but editors will almost certainly have weighed the reliable sources regarding Linehan and decided that he was described as an anti-transgender activist in sufficient source material to warrant calling him one in the opening sentence.

Where it goes in Rowling's article, however, is going to depend on the Rowling source material. If you look back at the history of discussions on this talk page, whether it should be in the first sentence has been frequently discussed. Point is, you'll need more than just "it's in Linehan's first sentence" to make a convincing argument that it should be promoted in Rowling's article. TBicks (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair point, but in Lineham's case the sourcing is likely weaker than for Rowling given that, because of her fame, far more has been written about Rowling's anti-trans activism than about Lineham's. There's definitely no difficulty finding sourcing for Rowling's anti-trans activism. There's a whole article dedicated to Rowling's political views which includes a section titled Transgender people with 56 references. Dubiously (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

What has she written lately? Really nothing beyond tweets about how she's going to sue a human rights charity into the ground. Rowling is a former author who is principally, now, an anti-trans activist. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's not overstate the case. She's not a former author while she still has a book deal and still publishes books from time to time, albeit to very limited interest. (If her publisher dropped her or if she announced retirement from writing to spend more time pursuing her grievances then she would be a "former author".) I agree with your assessment that she is principally, now, an anti-trans activist but the lead has to summarise what she has been notable for over her entire career. We have to include both the extraordinary highs and the devastating lows. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

"JK Rowling is an author and anti-transgender activist" would work just fine, same as we did with Linehan Snokalok2 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. That's simple, direct and covers the two main things readers need to know. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly! Alongside being an author, the opening sentence lists her as a "philanthropist, producer, and screenwriter". And though her writing is more high profile than her anti-trans activism, her anti-trans activism is immensely more well publicised than her work as a producer. So naturally it should be added to the list. I don't see why this is controversial. As Snokalok2 says, she is an author and anti-transgender activist. Dubiously (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Already almost all coverage of Rowling is related to her anti-trans campaigns, and this will likely increase over time. Does this need a dedicated talk section? pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 15:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to make one, but if you're going to propose this, make sure to look back at the N previous times the following have been discussed in the last few years, and have answers for why this time is different to the other times they have been rejected:

• Describing her as anti-transgender in wikivoice
• Calling her as an "anti-transgender activist"
• Removing philanthropist from the lead sentence
• Removing producer and screenwriter (producer will be a particularly difficult ask given the current Harry Potter TV series)

If you don't have new information to bring to these discussions (which have been talked to death at this point), they'll end the same way: nobody being happy with the outcome, but nothing changing.

Note that hastily written descriptions based on one's interpretation of a subject's recent life, don't tend to do too well on wikipedia. I'd recommend familiarising yourselves with her reliable secondary source material as a whole since she hit fame, and taking a balanced view on how she is described in those sources. If you still decide this is the appropriate opening sentence, there will doubtless be yet another long and testy sparring session which will end with nobody being happy, but I won't be joining it lol. I've done my time when it comes to this talk page. I'm free now. TBicks (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I would support this phrasing. Google results for her name in the past year relate almost exclusively to her anti-trans advocacy, and it's rapidly becoming her primary point of notability. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Note the comment directly above by TBicks. Note also this RfC , which I think is the latest. Per WP:CONLEVEL, you'd need an RfC to overturn an RfC. And no, Google results are not almost exclusively about that. I just searched and of the firs page of hits, hits 1, 2, 4 and 10 were about her reaction to the new Harry Potter series. Hit 8 was this , hits 3 and 7 were about the Amnesty thing, and not a single one of them spoke of "advocacy". Which is moot anyway, as what you need are secondary sources, not counts of Google hits. Please take TBicks' advice seriously. What would be achieved by spending a lot of time re-running the RfC if the situation has not obviously changed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Rowling's most recent novel is the Hallmarked Man, released last September. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Linehan's source material in general will be significantly smaller than Rowling's, so any individual source written about his anti-trans activities will have more weight. As has been mentioned, we need to look at Rowling's source material as a whole, not just coverage over the past few years (see WP:RECENT).

The fact that the page on her political views has a section on trans stuff isn't the best argument for it being included here, as the source material specifically about her political views is obviously much smaller than the source material about all other aspects of her life over the years. There is a different standard for the lead sentence of her main article. TBicks (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Should we delete all the good stuff about Rowling from the lead?

LokiTheLiar, no, per this edsum the lead was not very bloated. It was just 457 words. That was perfectly reasonable, but for some reason you and Adam Cuerden felt it necessary to remove all the information about accolades and philanthropy from the lead. It is hard to see how that is a neutral approach, and I definitely strongly oppose the removal as it leaves the lead unbalanced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The lead is long enough that people are complaining above that putting something at the bottom of the lead is "deemphasizing" it. Furthermore Adam is completely right that this is the article on Rowling, not Harry Potter. Per WP:LEADLENGTH the leads of most featured articles contain about 250-400 words, which makes this lead's 457 uncommonly long. Loki (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so you address the de-emphasising by deleting all the good stuff. Not about Harry Potter but about Rowling. You deleted her OBE and companion of honour for services to literature, and all her philanthropic work. That is a very POVy edit. And no, 457 words is not uncommonly long. American Revolution is 724 words. Homeopathy is 497 words, Donald Trump is 575 words, and that's just 3 I tried at Random. It is not at all an uncommon length. (In fairness I also found that Enid Blyton is only 409 words, and maybe choosing Trump was not exactly random). It's not a lot of words, and if you are going to trim, précis is preferable to surgical amputation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think a compromise could be found here. I agree that the lead length wasn't excessive but trimming the more detailed Harry Potter material isn't going to really hurt anything. That would be the paragraph that starts with, "The novels follow a boy..." However, I object to removing the next paragraph that lists accolades such as, "She was named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy" and the mention of her philanthropic work. Removing those positive things yet leaving the trans controversy is unbalanced. Removing the "novels" paragraph reduces the lead to about 350 words. Springee (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with this compromise. Let me try to trim like this and see how much it improves. Loki (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, though I did trim one line from the philanthropy paragraph that IMO got too into the details of exactly which charities she donated to for the lead. Loki (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the sentence about the type of charities she donates to ("Rowling's philanthropy centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children.") is not supported by the text. We can probably get away with less specific listing, using "has included" instead of "centres on", because that's really the only part needing a source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 15:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

457 words is beyond what is recommend by MOS:LEADLENGTH TarnishedPath^talk 04:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

No it isn't. The sentence is analytic. It says that most (not all) leads in featured articles (which this is not) are between 250 and 400 words. Nothing there recommends all leads should comply, and 457 words is hardly a long lead emergency. In any case, it is 314 now, and yet without deleting all the positives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

314 is a lot more reader friendly. TarnishedPath^talk 03:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"A lot" is very subjective. Those 143 words take about a minute to read. the 57 words over the magic 400 word number adds about 27 seconds. All reading takes time, of course, and placing sufficient information in the lead in the most succinct manner is what we are aiming for. But there are no word limits.

On what MOS:LEADLENGTH says, where it says that most leads are 250-400 words long in featured articles, I suspected this may not be accurate, so I wrote a tool that would fetch articles from the FA category and compute their lead lengths (prose up to the first heading, stripped of wiki markup). There are about 7,000 FAs, so I contained this to a sample of 200. I then calculated average (mean and median) and standard deviation, as well as noting the largest. I ran this twice on random samples, and as this gave me the exact same mean, so I ran it once more. My results are:

Featured Article Lead Length (n=200)

Run	Mean	Median	Std Dev	Max
1	384	367	153	1088
2	384	371	162	1173
3	376	351	150	996

So actually most featured articles are between about 220-520 -ish words long (using one standard deviation as a reasonable definition of "most"). 400 is much closer to the average length, and certainly not a maximum. Let's concentrate on concision rather than word count. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Microsoft Word says that the lead is now 360 words, which is still an improvement over previously. Personally I wasn't involved in ripping out what you termed the "good stuff" previously and my main interest in jumping into this conversation was concision. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately there absolutely is a drive (and has been for a few years now) to remove anything from this article that casts Rowling in a good light. It's sort of clear what's happening. — Czello ^(music) 06:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite. I look at this article, and I think to myself "Puff piece". It reads like the sort of article that a billionaire obsessed with their self image would spend a great deal of money to curate - because for no other individual on this entire website, would you ever a person's negative behavior by which they have chosen to redefine their entire legacy, so thoroughly toned down. Snokalok2 (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

As I say, it's clear what's happening. — Czello ^(music) 06:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I've always thought that essay is very silly. For instance, I can figure out your opinions on Rowling right now by the fact that you think that the article is biased against Rowling. Do you think that means you shouldn't be on this talk page? Or is this really an excuse to gripe about biased editors, a category that mysteriously will never include yourself?

Almost all editors will have some POV about something and that's not a bad thing. Wikipedia doesn't require that every contributor have no POV, because that would be impossible. It requires that the article balances all the notable POVs in reliable sources. Loki (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And the truth is that most of what Rowling does these days is bankroll court cases that target trans people (mostly trans women) and those organizations that support them. A neutral article is going to make it clear that is her main occupation at the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Given she is about to release her 9th crime novel and is also executive producer on two ongoing television series, it would seem she spends a significant amount of her time doing other things, for which she is highly notable. Your comment rather neatly demonstrates the very bias being discussed here. ~2026-40246-82 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No, a neutral article is going to summarise the reliable secondary sources. The fact you're presenting your personal interpretation of her life in recent years as "truth" without feeling the need to anchor it with reliable sources kinda proves Czello's point. TBicks (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe (and have never said) the article is biased against her. And I also never said that certain people shouldn't be on the talk page.

All editors are biased to some degree, and I never said otherwise. But when you deliberately set out to introduce that bias into articles - that's the problem (and the point of the essay). — Czello ^(music) 16:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Czello The tone of the lead and early sections is hagiographic and not consistent with Wikipedia's standards for articles on such prominent public figures. Problematising this is not indicative of deliberate bias. Maria Power (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I simply disagree. It's not written like that, it just rightly points out her enormous impact. She is, after all, one of the biggest British authors of the 20th/21st Century. If it were hagiographic, there would be no mention of the controversy surrounding her. — Czello ^(music) 07:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Failed verification from ref405 in Views / Transgender People

In paragraph one of the sections on her views on transgender people, the article currently says "She rejects the view that gender identity is different from birth sex", citing the following Guardian article by Libby Brooks: but this article does not support this claim. Brooks does, however, write "Gender critical feminists disagree with the trans rights activists’ view that gender identity is separate from one’s biological sex". Now, it may be Brooks meant to imply Rowling is a gender-critical feminist, and thus holds this view, but she neither describes Rowling in this way, nor attributes this particular view to her directly. Furthermore, it may not be sensible to interpret Brooks' attribution as universal, so it could also be that Rowling is a GCF but lacks this view. Anyway, I find the current sentence plausible, but if true, another source would serve it better. Oliloqui.Cottage (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Rowling is a gender-critical feminist, as is clear enough just by reading her own essay, let alone everything else she has said on the matter. She has even self described as a TERF on at least one occasion (polemically, but still...) The article in question is titled, and seeks to answer the question: "Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?" It is surely perfectly clear that the author does, indeed, identify Rowling with the GC views. Brooks is not just saying those things out of the blue! She is talking about Rowling!

Now, I clearly don't agree with you that this fails verification. Verification is fine. However, it is a newspaper article. I'd be more than happy to replace this with an academic source if we can find one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a newspaper article. Something academic would probably better, at least in terms of precision of language. But, I think I did not explain the verification issue well enough. I agree that JKR is a GCF, that's made clear, and I erred by focusing on that question too much. Instead, as an example, imagine if the Guardian piece was about someone else and their view on taxes; in it this person is strongly implied to be a Republican, and in a paragraph it writes that "Republicans believe taxes should be lowered for everyone". This does not necessarily mean the person in question believes the same thing, because these kinds of statements are not universally qualified, they are generalizations. It's likely there are Republicans who want to raise taxes sometimes, and likewise, we would not expect all GCFs to share the view that gender identity and biological sex are identical.

Furthermore, it would be weird to adopt this as a syllogism from Brooks, since it would not be consistent with Wikipedia's own description of the views of GCFs! In Gender-critical feminism, GCFs explicitly distinguish between sex and gender identity. So, I find it hard to see how Brooks' articles supports this claim given that it does not directly support it, nor does it base an implied syllogism on a credible premise. Oliloqui.Cottage (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are saying. In fact we have been here before, and yet don't seem to have updated the text (I thought we had). See . Note there are better sources in that discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Oliloqui.Cottage to see what you think about the previous discussion and thus how we might improve this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Best path is to just remove the sentence "She rejects the view that gender identity is different from birth sex, and that it should take priority in equalities law". It conflates two separate propositions. The surrounding text already documents Rowling's opposition to legal self-identification, gender recognition reform, and treating gender identity as overriding sex in Equality Act contexts. Vissermc76 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for going AWOL, Sirfurboy. At the time of your last message I gave the archived talk a skim, but no source jumped out, and I also just kinda wanted a break from this. (That's mostly because I'm generally a neurotic person; you've been pleasant to work with, and I appreciate your patience.) I gave a look again today and I would maintain what seemed to be the conclusion of that talk: that we don't have a good source for the sentence in the article.

I was also wondering about your statement at that time regarding Rowling's 2020 essay . Not sure if you meant that this essay would support the article sentence, but cannot be cited as primary, or if it was just generally informative re her thoughts. I read the essay, but I do not come away with the impression that she "rejects the view that gender identity is different from birth sex". On the contrary, the essay gives me the impression that she believes the opposite.

Anyway, I do agree with Vissermc76 that we would be probably better off deleting this sentence, or the part before the comma. The part after the comma seems well supported to me ("[...] and that it should take priority in equalities law"). Oliloqui.Cottage (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back. I'm fine with changing the wording, as per that previous discussion. I'd prefer we didn't just delete it, as the point is to present what it is that Rowling believes. GC femiminists believe sex is biological and gender is socially constructed. Rowling objected to the change of the law because it replaced a biological category with a socially constructed one, and felt it "erased" the concept of women. She says in her essay

it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

Now her essay doesn't use the word "socially constructed" but she clearly argues that. For instance, she says:

Woman is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive.

That's a GCF position, and she also says:

Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation.

So what we have is sourced but wrong. Yet what we don't have is the statement of what she actually believes. She, as a Gender-Critical Feminist, believes (and it is quite clear she does) that sex is a biological category, but gender is a socially constructed one, and that the legal definition in equalities law should be based on sex. How we say that, and what sources we use, are the open questions. Not saying it at all would be unfortunate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Sirfurboy here. The phrasing of the sentence is up for debate but the factual content really isn't. Loki (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2026

On the topic of her views on transgenders and women, the current text is too one-sided, as she also received a lot of praise. This is a request to add that in, as to not fall into the trap of picking a side, and remain balanced, nuanced and impartial. Thank you. ~2026-38301-89 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Employment with Amnesty International

Surely it should also be detailed that she was fired from her job at Amnesty International because she was writing Harry Potter on company time, instead of doing her job? (~2026-24595-09 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC))

I think it's pretty relevant when a billionaire threatens retaliatory lawsuits against a former employer. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it would be worth a brief mention if well sourced but do we have good sources? A listicle isn't a great source and the Independent article it links to only mentions the incident in passing and doesn't say that the employer was Amnesty. I tried doing a search, filtering out recent hits about the recent debacle, and found something which might help. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The depth of coverage the recent Amnesty thing has gotten warrants mention imo, especially if they were her former employer Snokalok2 (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Should we mention her posting an upskirt photo of a trans woman on Twitter/X on this article?

Source: This Snopes article Shioprince (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be paywalled. (Possibly the thing where some stupid websites insist that I have an adblocker when I don't.) Anyway, I don't think that Snopes is enough on its own. Add another RS source and that might do it. That said, I think it is borderline for inclusion unless it leads to police action or other consequences and we all know that that is... um... unlikely... --DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Honestly I think the case for "holocaust denial" was a lot stronger, but if we couldn't get that added, then I doubt this will make it. Snokalok2 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this good? Shioprince (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

PinkNews also covering it.  Tewdar  17:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

And Out.  Tewdar  20:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The has all the gravitas of a storm in a teacup, which might be at home in a tabloid newspaper, but not in an encyclopedia.Mattymmoo (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree. We're WP:NOTTHENEWS. Will it pass the 10 year test? I doubt it. — Czello ^(music) 16:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's just par for the course tbh. Sadly when it comes to Rowling's page, whenever she says/does something that a smattering of tabloid-style sources decide to make a fuss about, there always seems to be someone popping up, wanting to instantly add it to her page rather than waiting to see if it turns into anything notable. TBicks (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Sexual harassment is notable enough to make it onto lots of wikipedia pages so I don't know why it wouldn't clear the bar here. Fourthcodwar (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so two things to consider here...

1) "Sexual harassment" might be something that you personally consider notable, but on wikipedia we base notability on the reliable secondary source material.

2) Different articles have different bodies of source material. If sexual harassment is mentioned in another subject's article, it is because it is sufficiently discussed in reliable secondary sources to be notable and worthy of inclusion. In Rowling's case, the same few sites which regularly discuss everything she does/says in relation to trans people have reported on it, but it was not a widely reported story and from what I can tell, has already left the media cycle. TBicks (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait to to see if there is more coverage than what has been posted in this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 03:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I think right now no.

If it ever reaches the level of actual police action, then yes absolutely. Also, it's possible that it will eventually reach the level of sustained coverage that would justify adding it. Otherwise: when a famous/infamous figure like Rowling does something nasty on social media, some sources will cover it just by the fact that it was done by J.K. Rowling, and that doesn't mean it has enough WP:WEIGHT to make it into her article. Loki (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Lemkin

This edit seeks to include text about the Lemkin assessment of the UK situation with respect to trans rights. This doesn't appear to be due here. Rowling is very much mentioned in passing. The Lemkin Institute is also an advocacy organisation. It seems obviously undue here, although there are several pages where it might be worth discussion. For instance Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom. Perhaps open something on that talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The Lemkin institute is an independent non profit human rights advocacy institute specifically advocating for highlighting the warning signs of genocide. JK rowling is mentioned as directly backing the supreme court decision put forward by the group mentioned in JK Rowlings opening. This is not an in passing reference. I am find for this claim to have an additonal note stating it is disputed but it is pertinent. Beachmilk (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The source is not about Rowling, and she is only mentioned once (and yes, it's very much in passing). It's not DUE here. TBicks (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The "passing reference" is directly in reference to her support for an organization and court case explicitly mentioned in the articles opening. The court case in question being directly attributed to decision to give a genocide warning. The statement "JK Rowling has given direct financial support to support a court case whose outcome resulted in a genocide warning" is an extremely relevant statement and uncontroversial. As I say, if we wish to state that this warning is contested that's fine. However this is an extremely relevant addition to her support of a court case if we wish to reference her court case at all as it is even mentioned within the article for the court case. Beachmilk (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on whether it's a passing reference or not, but there are a multitude of issues with this edit (even ignoring the obvious grammatical errors), not least that you're trying to use a single advocacy-based primary source to connect a BLP with genocide.

No reliable secondary sources (that I can find) have reported on this. The fact you believe it's "extremely relevant" isn't enough to make it DUE here. TBicks (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source which is in the list of reliable sources reporting on the Lemkin Report itself: https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/07/02/lemkin-institute-trans-red-flag/

However Rowling is not mentioned explicitly here. Beachmilk (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

So it's irrelevant then. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll remind you that you're attempting to edit JK Rowling's wikipedia page. Why on earth would a source that doesn't mention her be relevant? TBicks (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You asked for another source reporting on this. I took this to mean on the lemkins report. Here is a source that mentions both Rowling and the Lemkin institute

https://www.wearequeeraf.com/the-supreme-court-decision-one-year-on-365-days-of-confusion-gaslighting-and-fear/ who are regulated by the independent monitor for the press in the UK https://www.impressorg.com/publications/queeraf/

Here is another source https://gay45.eu/victoria-mccloud/ who are partnered with https://europeancorrespondent.com/en and https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/

Here is some slightly less reliable sources

https://himazagine.co.uk/britian-in-shock-king-charles-strikes-back/ This one mentions both Rowling and the Lemkin institute but not that she was named explicitly

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/entertainment/celebrity/royal/2026/07/01/queen-welcomes-jk-rowling

https://wegotthiscovered.com/politics/red-flag-alert-j-k-rowling-slammed-by-internationally-renowned-lemkin-institute-for-genocide-prevention/ Beachmilk (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Also here is the Alliance Against Genocide which are part of Genocide Watch, who have provided amicus curiae observations to the international criminal court in the past. Supporting the Lemkin institutes assertion. https://www.against-genocide.org/post/lemkin-institute-uk-threats-to-trans-intersex-rights which also cites Rowling. Beachmilk (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Not independent and a primary source. The Lemkin institute is a paying member, and that is their press release. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what mentioning Impress is meant to do. They don't vet or fact check articles. Also, have a read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:BESTSOURCES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The mention of impress is purely to indicate legitimacy as I wanted to flag that they are a reliable source of information. Impress WILL fact check if they receive a complaint as they are recognized by the Royal Press Recognition Panel under Royal Charter. So they are a regulated institution. From their website "Publishers must correct any significant inaccuracy with prominence equal to the original article at the earliest opportunity." To add to this though their podcast was recognised by the world health orginisation (https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/27-11-2022-putting-monkeypox-front-and-centre--two-journalists-explain-the-importance-of-continuing-to-talk-about-the-outbreak). They have won several awards:

https://www.britishpodcastawards.com/winners-2020

https://audioacademy.org.uk/arias/winners/

https://theprisma.co.uk/2022/03/28/the-prisma-wins-international-reporting-of-the-year-award/

Moreover the particulars of the article https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-on-anti-trans-and-intersex-rights-in-the-uk and JK Rowlings funding https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/02/19/jk-rowling-for-women-scotland-donation-legal-definition-woman/ are not in question here. I was asked to provide reliable secondary sources and I have provided them.

Do you have any additional issues with my gay45 article, or the Alliance against Genocide and or Genocide Watch as reliable sources? I note that you did not question their legitmacy Beachmilk (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Impress is a red herring. I already explained my objection. have a read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:BESTSOURCES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is your contention here? Beachmilk (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Specifically in reference to "have a read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:BESTSOURCES" but also what is meant by red herring in this context? They are an independent regulatory body? I have stated my intent with their inclusion Beachmilk (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You asked for another source reporting on this. I took this to mean on the lemkins report.

It's Rowling's page, so obviously we're looking for sources discussing Rowling, not just the report in general. I'm struggling to see from these sources why it would be appropriate for Rowling's page. Rowling isn't discussed at all aside from being named as the funder of the case. She's certainly not discussed in the context of what you're proposing to add to the article.

The only source that actually discusses this in the context of Rowling is We Got This Covered, which is RSP:RED

We can't connect a BLP article to genocide based on these sources. I think a read of WP:BLP might be of benefit here. TBicks (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

We can. In the Alliance Against Genocide link:

"The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security would like to bring attention to and condemn recent judicial and governmental developments in the United Kingdom, which attempt to harm transgender and intersex people in the UK by stripping them of privacy and segregating them as ‘others.’

The Lemkin Institute believes these moves are part of a broader process of erasure.

It is not only government action but also the media narrative that has fueled hostility to and debate about the humanity of trans and intersex people while ignoring their voices.

We see evidence of genocidal intent and actions targeting these communities."

Then two paragraphs down:

"The decision is the result of a court challenge brought by the gender critical group For Women Scotland, which is financially backed by author J.K. Rowling and characterizes itself as “feminist.”[i]"

In the QueerAF article:

"It began a crowdfunding campaign to fund the legal challenge in February 2024, earning just over £232,000 from 5,021 pledges. £70,000 of that sum came directly from ‘gender critical’ pundit JK Rowling."

"Thanks to its actions over the past year, the EHRC’s already damaged reputation has taken a nose-dive. Multiple organisations, including TransActual, Amnesty International, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, and the Trans Advocacy & Complaints Collective (TACC), and the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, requested that the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) downgrade the Commission. It would go on to face further calls by Trans Exile Network and the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention later in the year too."

In gay45:

"attritional case brought forward by the J.K. Rowling-funded lobby group For Women Scotland, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the term “woman,” for purposes of the 2010 Equality Act"

Then later:

"On behalf of the network, she is also drafting a paper to red flag what she worries are the “early stages of genocidal behaviour” by British institutions toward trans life. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has already backed her claims, as have the United Nations. Genocide Watch were warning of worsening endemic conditions as early as 2022. “I see it as my duty,” she says, “[…] the UK is the worst in the democratic world toward trans rights.”"

In Hi Magazine

"For Women Scotland, a gender-critical advocacy group backed by prominent figures including author J.K. Rowling, who reportedly donated £70,000 to their legal campaign, argued that this interpretation was legally incorrect and undermined sex-based rights."

Then:

"International human rights organizations have raised concerns about the ruling. In June 2025, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention issued a controversial “Red Flag Alert” for genocide of transgender people in the UK, claiming that “the practical repercussions for trans and intersex individuals are clear and serious.”"

Then from the New Daily:

"Daniel Lismore said it was “absolutely absurd that the Queen of England is platforming the woman who is cited in the red flag warning to the United Kingdom on transgender rights by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. I see this as a political stance on human rights in Great Britain.”"

and from we got you covered "Now, as a measure of how far she’s fallen, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has seen fit to mention her on their “Red Flag Alert” notice for the early signs of crimes against humanity:"

I wish to be clear when I say that I am not making a direct assertion that Rowlings actions ARE genocidal. I merely think that accusations of funding an alleged genocidal action are due even if those actions are qualified as disputed.

It is worth noting that the UN made a statement that they are concerned after the ruling for human rights within the UK

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/un-experts-warn-legal-uncertainty-and-rights-implications-following-uk "A group of independent human rights experts* today expressed concern about the implications of the recent UK Supreme Court judgment interpreting the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010."

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/un-experts-warn-legal-uncertainty-and-rights-implications-following-uk "She also urged political leaders, the media, businesses and civil society to work constructively toward implementing the Supreme Court's judgment in line with domestic law and the UK's international human rights obligations."

However these sources do not explicitly state genocide

It was also described as an "attempted genocide" by the National Education Union

https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/national-education-union-attempted-genocide-trans-youth-uk-518378/

https://shoutoutradio.lgbt/news/society-and-community-life/205/education-union-to-debate-govt-transgender-policies

However all of this is largely irrelevant I will admit because we are just trying to provide evidence that JK Rowling funded actions which some consider to be genocidal. I have provided numerous articles pointing to JK Rowling being named in relation to the actions being described as genocidal. Whether they are or not is not our place. Crimes against humanity are the most impactful, wide reaching and important crimes around and accusations of funding that which is being described as genocidal is more than due. I have provided evidence that the court case featured on the First paragraph of her article are being described as genocidal or at the very least genocidal in intent by many institutions who would be considered reliable. Namely the as mentioned institution which has previously made contributions to the international criminal court. It is not in dispute that this has been categorized as genocidal or genocidal in intent. Nor is it in dispute that SOME institutions of high regard and possessing reasonable reliablity have taken these claims seriously. I make no statement on their factual basis. Beachmilk (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's be clear, once again, that the Lemkin institute is an advocacy organisation. Grand sounding, it is named for the man who coined the term "genocide". But this five year old Pennsylvania non-profit with an annual $10,000 dollar turnover, is currently in a legal dispute over that name (regarded with horror by the family of Raphael Lemkin). One of the two founders of the institute has left it. If Elisa von Joeden-Forgey wants to put out a press release about UK law and culture regarding transgender issues, it is not nothing, but neither is it clearly due anywhere on the encyclopaedia. It is certainly not due here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The source you gave states 'The decision is the result of a court challenge brought by the gender critical group For Women Scotland, which is financially backed by author J.K. Rowling and characterises itself as “feminist.”'. I read this as stating that the Lemkin Institute takes the view that the UK Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of the UK's equality legislation. The source states that the case was brought by an organisation which Rowling has supported financially; the organisation challenged the Scottish government's interpretation of the legislation. It does not state that Rowling is the only or main contributor, or that her financial support is restricted to the case on which Lemkin is commenting as a foreign observer. It does not state that the UK has received a red warning for genocide. It does not state how Rowling is connected to the Supreme Court's ruling other than by helping to finance the organisation which brought the case in order to obtain clarification on the meaning of the equality legislation.

I do not see (a) how this is of pertinence in this article about Rowling (which already states she supports the For Women Scotland organisation); nor (b) why this single passing reference merits a place in the lead. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

"It does not state that the UK has received a red warning for genocide"

The title states "Red Flag Alert on Anti-Trans and Intersex Rights in the UK" Beachmilk (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's possible we use different variants of English. Please explain how "genocide" means "anti-trans and intersex rights" as far as this article on JK Rowling is concerned. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The lemkin institute specifically exists to prevent genocide. From the final paragraph in the link

"No denial or omission in law can erase the concrete reality that trans and intersex people have always and will always exist. Attempts to erase them as a class constitutes an intent to commit genocide." Beachmilk (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm with Beachmilk. Honestly, we've taken more care to write this article such that it doesn't make its subject look bad than any other article on this site. You look at the Elon Musk article, we don't mince our words - or his. Imagine if we just started posting direct quotes from Joanne's tweets anytime in the last five years. Then again, we tried that with the holocaust denial bit, and it got shot down. Snokalok2 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The opposition to this suggested change has been based on basic wikipedia policy (DUE, RS, etc), not an effort to make the subject 'not look bad'. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion that actually relates to the suggested edit in question, or are you just here to complain about the tone of the entire article? TBicks (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The Lemkin Institute is a source that bears due weight, as a prominent NGO, but beyond that we had RSP green sources reporting on the holocaust denial and even that didn't make it in - so I'm not hopeful here. Snokalok2 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the evidence that they are a prominent NGO? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a primary source which mentions her once (to say that she funded the case, which we already mention on her page). How is that due weight? TBicks (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@TBicks: The source doesn't say she funded the case; it states that the case was brought by "the gender critical group For Women Scotland, which is financially backed by author J.K. Rowling". My original reason for undoing @Beachmilk's addition was that the text they added was not supported by the reference given, regardless of its appropriateness for the lead or article body. That remains the case. Bazza 7 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)