Talk:J. K. Rowling

Active discussions
J. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008.
Article milestones
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Are the remarks made a violation of BLP tho on the talk page? Are those remarks themselves hateful?Edit

Above somebody (who has no access to the heart of Rowling) judged and declared:

"These hateful views of hers have been the defining characteristic of her public life for several months now, and there's no reason to think this will stop being the case anytime soon. What do others think?"

Should that statement above be deleted from the talk page as judgmental, unproven, improbable, hateful, & a violation of BLP? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC))

No. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Well it is fair to see them as inappropriate, but that doesn't necessarily amount to violation of WP:BIO. Also it should be kept mind that Wikipedia needs to allow a frank exchange between edeitors on a topic. Those remarks will evetually be archived anyhow and hence not remain as visible insult to the author.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If the remarks were not critical of Rowling and instead supportive, it would be deleted Since the remarks are anti Rowling and claim to predict her intentions, its allowed Such neutrality is heartening (sarcasm)

Those comments should be deleted. When comments that are neutral and or supportive of Rowling would be easily deleted, why shouldn't negativity and hatefulness of this comment be deleted. Hpdh4 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talkcontribs)

What is your logic for assuming that positive comments would be deleted? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

At the height of the controversy, The so called media enforced and twitter enforced anti Rowling rhetoric prevented the inclusion of Positive support for Rowling on wikipedia , such comments has been deleted many a time.

Literally people were side taking over the issue of Dana international (this qualified as positive support) not too mention neutrality went out the window.

Under the impression this was a site for information not debating gender politics, guessing peoples intentions or venting out opinions. Hpdh4 22:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talkcontribs)

This entire discussion should be archived. It's completely pointless and isn't about the article in any way. Serendipodous 08:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Even though BLP guidelines extend to talk pages, there's simply no blp violation here. Reliable sources acknowledged that her comments were considered hateful\transphobic by many, so why should Editors be forbidden to say that? Sounds like censorship to me. This pointless discussions should be archived 2. - Daveout(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" - same reliable resources reported a trans character in troubled blood when the character in question isn't a trans person but a man who crossdresses. "Its censorship"= removal of Dana International support of Jk Rowling is censorship but allowing PR actors opinions is fine. Hpdh4 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020Edit

change "is a British writer and philanthropist." to "is a British writer and anti-trans activist." New Dawn2 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That change seems somewhat nonsensical anyway. Afaik all Rowling did was making a few "controversial" remarks, which aren't even anti-trans strictly speaking, but nevertheless sparked a highly aggressive media hype over supposedly being "anti-trans". That hardly qualifies her as an activist on transgender issues, neither pro nor anti. Moreover it is certainly no justification to drop "philanthropist" from the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I would have been tempted to remove it as being deliberately provocative, and not a serious request anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020Edit

1. "Change 'Her home life was complicated by her mother's diagnosis with multiple sclerosis[38] and a strained relationship with her father, with whom she is not on speaking terms.' to 'Her mother's diagnosis complicated her home life with multiple sclerosis[38] and a strained relationship with her father, with whom she is not on speaking terms.'." 2. Change 'then boyfriend' to 'then-boyfriend'." 3. Change ' Book were sold in its first day in the UK' to ' Book were sold on its first day in the UK'." 4. Change 'It sold 11 million copies in the first day of release in the United Kingdom and United States' to 'It sold 11 million copies on the first day of release in the United Kingdom and the United States'." 5. Change 'on a street with 24-hour security.' to 'on the street with 24-hour security.'." 6. Change 'Rowling was the first to visit her in hospital.' to 'Rowling was the first to visit her in the hospital.' Shefalisri (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

#2   Done, but the rest   Not done as just plain ungrammatical, except for #6, which is merely a UK vs US difference. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to "J. K. Rowling" page.