Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 7

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205213016/http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scotsman.html to http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scotsman.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://burrow.sub.jp/library/original/03122001b.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41338
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rubbishbin_view.cfm?id=8
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=62
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=83
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602092002/http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/1205-bbc-fry.html to http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/1205-bbc-fry.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219121651/http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Harry-Potter-Phenom-JK-Rowling to http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Harry-Potter-Phenom-JK-Rowling
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl-et-rowling16oct16%2C0%2C7011068.story
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oneparentfamilies.org.uk/1/lx3x1olx-5001x1oix1794x1/0/0/110707/0/0/J_K_Rowling_-_One_Parent.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicrelief.com/stuff-to-buy/harrys-books/the-money/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121125004632/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12612 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12612
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: J.K. Rowling married Jorge Arantes in 1992, and divorced him in 1993. Please change this. I am a person who cringes when information is incorrect and nobody bothers to change it. 173.54.205.146 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Currently cited sources in the article state they separated in 1993 but did not file for divorce until late 1994 Cannolis (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802090434/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/jk-rowling.html to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/jk-rowling.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722185020/http://harrypotter.bloomsbury.com/author/awards to http://harrypotter.bloomsbury.com/author/awards
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802090434/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/jk-rowling.html to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/jk-rowling.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: a Church of Scotland congregation while writing Harry Potter. 
CHANGE TO
a Scottish Episcopalian congregation while writing Harry Potter. AmySandridge (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017 

message: "Marriage, divorce, and single parenthood" includes this: "She wrote in many cafés, especially Nicolson's Café (owned by her brother-in-law, Roger Moore)..."
I haven't found any indication that she is related by marriage to the notable late [Roger Moore], his widow Kristina Tholstrup, or any of the other Roger Moores fortunate enough to have their own WP articles.  Unless it's someone notable it is superfluous and a little confusing.  
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but "her brother in law" or "sister's husband" (or whatever he is) is sufficient and his name should be removed.2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:64B3:6653:FE1F:D4C4 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find evidence of relationsip, so have removed the comment.  It can be replaced if a reliable source is found to support it. Apuldram (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim was inserted in this edit.  Of course, it didn't state that the Roger Moore named was the Roger Moore.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I missed that because the reference was changed. All the same, I agree with the user above that the name is superfluous. Unless her brother-in-law was indeed the Roger Moore. Apuldram (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her brother in law, Roger Moore? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231114333/http://content.scholastic.com/browse/contributor.jsp?id=3578 to http://content.scholastic.com/browse/contributor.jsp?id=3578
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121230094234/http://www.jkrowling.com/en_US to http://www.jkrowling.com/en_US/
*Added  tag to http://www.barnesandnoble.com/writers/writerdetails.asp?z=y&cid=855300
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928044146/http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/content.asp?sec=4&sec2=1&unart=yes&artTitle=Harry%20Potter%20and%20the%20Deathly%20Hallows to http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/content.asp?sec=4&sec2=1&unart=yes&artTitle=Harry%20Potter%20and%20the%20Deathly%20Hallows
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201033450/http://www.exchange4media.com/kids/KidsFullStory.asp?section_id=24&news_id=26820&tag=21718 to http://www.exchange4media.com/kids/KidsFullStory.asp?section_id=24&news_id=26820&tag=21718
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224003428/http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/press_07252006_CP.htm to http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/press_07252006_CP.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230120430/http://www.spearswms.com/spears-lists/lists/the-season-of-giving-the-millionaire-donations-that-defined-2013-4151578 to http://www.spearswms.com/spears-lists/lists/the-season-of-giving-the-millionaire-donations-that-defined-2013-4151578
*Added  tag to http://news.sky.com/home/madeleine/article/1265397
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121230094234/http://www.jkrowling.com/en_US to http://www.jkrowling.com/en_US/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014014450/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20001720/page/4/ to http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20001720/page/4/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106074811/http://www.toe-by-toe.co.uk/prison_project.html to http://www.toe-by-toe.co.uk/prison_project.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does the 'K.' in her initials stand for anything? Why did she choose a male name as her pseudonym? Seems so wrong. Because she's female, of course.--193.163.223.192 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first question is answered in the article. Your second question is also answered in the article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 18 October 2017? Weird glitch.--193.163.223.192 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a glitch but a typo - you changed it yourself here.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name and 'Robert Galbraith'. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121129164019/http://www.wearelumos.org/about to http://wearelumos.org/about
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't know what this means: and read for a B.A. in French and Classics at the University of Exeter. Do you mean she studied a bachelor of arts in French and Classics at the university of exeter? Then why not just say that instead of saying 'she read for'. What does that even mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.136.77 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear to me 

message: change "Joanne Rowling" to Joanne Kathleen Rowling Death Spectre31 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because that is not her name. There's an entire section about it. Serendipodous 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018 

message: Are the Harry Potter books something that you would call children's books? I don't know, if this was discussed before, but isn't Young adult fiction the correct description? ZeR0101MiNt (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe.I’m not sure either. But children’s books seem right. It’s what they say in our country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColeCole714 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications 

message: Gjh bfjsm m (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article lists her birthday as 31/7/65. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018 

message: In the first paragraph of the article, it states that she has sold over 400 million copies worldwide. This is an outdated figure from 2008; she has recently surpassed 500 million total sales for the Harry Potter series, and the article should reflect this. Here is the most reliable source I could find: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/harry-potter-books-sales-reach-500-million-worldwide-723556. That source says they received their figure from the publishing house. I could not find the figure stated directly from the publishing house themselves. 
Thank you. Nomadben (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Stickee (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018 

message: Weirdoperso (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 05:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018 

message: Her occupation should include "philanthropist."  I'm sure it was just an oversight given that her Lumos foundation is referenced in the article.  Here is another famous living person who happens to be a male whose occupation also includes "philanthropist". 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
This is my first time submitting a talk topic so I hope I did it correctly.
Thank you,
Aus512
2018-08-13 (UTC)
````
:Added . :-) Serendipodous 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add philanthropist to occupation 

message: "Rowling had gained some creative control on the films, reviewing all the scripts[103] as well as acting as a producer on the final two-part instalment, Deathly Hallows.[104]"
"instalment" is spelled incorrectly. 74.85.95.74 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "common comments" box above. Serendipodous 20:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Not done: As mentioned, "instalment" is correct in British English. Those silly Brits. Saucy[talk – contribs] 04:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018 

message: Rowling visited Sarah Brown in hospital when her son John, not Fraser, was born in 2003. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Brown#Marriage_to_Gordon_Brown and the footnote with this statement (which is about the baptism of John). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.172.41 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small correction under 'remarriage and family' 

message: Would it be possible to update the image of J.K. Rowling on her wiki page? This photograph is about 20 years old. I have a recent photo that we have permission to use specifically for this page. Tbp2018 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Upload the photo and get consensus on this talk page to replace the current one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Please be aware of WP:IUPC - the copyright holder must have released the image under an acceptable free license. Permission to use the photo only on Wikipedia or on a specific page is insufficient. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2018 

message: I checked the scope of this Wikiproject and found that this Wikiproject discourages put the banner into writers' talk page. I would ask if it should be moved.Mariogoods (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is WikiProject Literature should be covered in this article's talk page? 

message: thumb|upright|The photo
Why is this a "horrible photo"? How is it inferior to this photo, where she is facing away and squinting? Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too dark, her hand and glass obscure part of her face being unnecessarily intrusive, and it's lower res than the original.  The original has none of those issues - nor is she "facing away" - and also has the added benefit of context - she was reading from Philospher's Stone when the photo was taken.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with Chaheel Riens' objections. Moreover, it looks inappropriate for the lead portrait on an encyclopedia article. The vibes it is sending, with the prominent glass of wine, it seems it would be more fitting in a profile on a seedy dating website. (Admittedly, that is just personal taste). The previous/current photograph is adequate and it doesn't need replacing; I think her face is clearly visible and she is smiling, not squinting. --Hazhk (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds a bit prudish, but I see your point :D Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox photo 

message: in the Childhood part, can you change it from 23 months to 1 year and 11 months 185.39.202.226 (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - it's common practice to list anything less than two years as combined months.  Changing to years and months breaks the flow of the sentence and adds unnecessary complexity.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019 

message: Charlton Athletic fan. 213.106.89.77 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019 

message: The data for an article mentioned in the section on Rowling's education is wrong. It says the year of Rowling's article "What was the Name of that Nymph Again?" from Pegasus, the journal of the University of Exeter's Classics department is 1988. However, I found a PDF of that article which clearly dates it as 1998. Not to mention that Rowling mentions Professor Binns in the article; the Potterverse wasn't even a gleam in her eye in 1988.
I think whoever wrote the citation got the date from WorldCat. 1988 is written in the Publisher field, but I don't know that necessarily means the article should be dated 1988.
 
A Princeton library has the correct date for it online. I suppose I could just change the citation to the Princeton library instead of WorldCat, but I find that untidy.
Should I try to change the WorldCat data? It seems like you have to be affiliated with some library in order to request changes.
Quickfoot (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WorldCat data in error for Pegasus article? 

message: The Education section notes J.K. Rowling's "What was the Name of that Nymph Again? or Greek and Roman Studies Recalled" as being published in 1988, but it appears to have been published in 1998 as found within the Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics And Ancient History on a University website at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf
https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf
AndrewHeagle (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education section 

message: I vote yes; it is a much talked about piece, and seems to have been written more as a true essay, rather than simply as a blog post. Inspector Semenych (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, no, it should not be listed in the "non-fiction" section at this time; it's better handled in the "views"/"gender identity" section. If it gets continuing coverage, and/or coverage as a significant non-fiction work rather than just a(nother) expression of her views on gender identity, then I would re-evaluate it at that time. ... Frankly, the fact that we're listing even some individual Guardian articles also seems questionable; I did not think these sections were intended to be comprehensive lists of everything a person had ever written, but only of notable/important works, but I may be mistaken there... -sche (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Transgender Essay be Included in Non-Fiction? 

message: Is the uk times a reliable enough source to label mermaids as controversial? From my understanding it's up there with the daily mail in terms of manufacturing fake controversies. EDIT: see also the wikipedia page about mermaids itself which does not refer to them as such.--Licks-rocks (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: to expand on this further: should we call a charity controversial if the subject it raises money for is already controversial? I feel the current wording implies that there is something nefarious going on with this charity beyond it dealing with potentially controversial subject matter, which, going by the charity's wikipedia page and my knowledge of it, doesn't seem to be the case--Licks-rocks (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  mermaids 

message: The paragraph about the Sun publishing, and being reprimanded for publishing, her husband saying her slapped her ... is currently in the "Views"→"Transgender issues" section, but does not ever mention or relate itself to transgender issues. So, it seems like it should be moved. Perhaps the sentence which says "Biographers have suggested that Rowling suffered domestic abuse during her marriage," which was recently expanded with "which was later confirmed by Rowling herself", should be further expanded with "...and by her first husband" + whatever additional details are actually DUE here (and we might want to discuss whether someone who is not the article subject reprimandng a paper for publishing something by someone else who is not the article subject is DUE here as opposed to in the article on e.g. the newspaper which was reprimanded). -sche (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on moving the Sun paragraph. Rab V (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: It was me who created this paragraph, I am not necessarily against moving it, but where do we move it to?  Although your last sentence was very convoluted, not sure I followed it, sche. PatGallacher (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

text: OK, I moved the paragraph up, into the part of the article that talks about the marriage and about the domestic abuse. For now, I left in the sentence about Jacobs reprimanding the Sun, although it's kind of ... straying off of the topic of this article? (But I don't feel strongly enough to remove it. Another idea for consideration is to make it a , though.) -sche (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi all. I added the bit about Jacobs and believe it should stay as context pivotal to a full understanding of the outcry against The Sun. Without that statement from Jacobs, it's not in itself clear why The Sun's publishing choices have been formally found to be reprehensible (the quote from the ex-husband is not enough... "he slapped her and he's not sorry" does not in itself adequately convey that his actions are domestic violence and therefore criminal). Thoughts welcome. Zedembee (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

text:   to answer your question in Contrib comments... "tribunal" (no need to follow with "case") is correct in British English. Her loss in the tribunal inspired Ms. Doe to advocate for better protections for pregnant women. Zedembee (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Her loss in the tribunal" is grammatically very different from "who lost her tribunal against [X]", though, are you sure the latter phrase is also grammatical? One can also say "her loss in court inspired Ms Doe", but not "she lost her court against X". I see all of eight(!) google hits for the phrase "lost her tribunal against", and while I know WP:GHITS aren't an argument for titling or deleting an article, it does make be wonder if the phrase is standard English. -sche (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobs / Sun paragraph 

message: ::  to answer your question in Contrib comments... "tribunal" (no need to follow with "case") is correct in British English. Her loss in the tribunal inspired Ms. Doe to advocate for better protections for pregnant women. Zedembee (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Her loss in the tribunal" is grammatically very different from "who lost her tribunal against [X]", though, are you sure the latter phrase is also grammatical? One can also say "her loss in court inspired Ms Doe", but not "she lost her court against X". I see all of eight(!) google hits for the phrase "lost her tribunal against", and while I know WP:GHITS aren't an argument for titling or deleting an article, it does make be wonder if the phrase is standard English. -sche (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "who lost her employment tribunal against (x)" 

message: Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the :J.K Rowling and :Politics of J. K. Rowling articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, here.  Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of Request for Comment 

message: The section Transgender issues reads like this:
::Rowling later published an essay on her website in response to the criticism.[251] She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. She also wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning.[252] 
This is such a poor summary of Rowling's essay that it's almost a caricature of that essay. For some reason, the summary focuses on  single-sex spaces access of transwomen although that is only a minor part of that essay (and as somebody else pointed it's not even clear if Rowling has a problem with access of transwomen as such, rather than with broad regulations which would allow any man to enter such spaces). There are so many other issues she addresses in that essay, including medical concerns re MS (she is involved in MS activism), concerns regarding huge increases in teenage girls transitioning in recent years, inability of women to define themselves as a class; Rowling sees these, as well as many other issues, as problems. If we choose to summarize  Rowling's essay we should do it properly, without misrepresenting what she says; if we can't do that, than we shouldn't comment at all on the essay, instead we should simply say that she wrote an essay in response which sought to clarify her positions on trans issues, with a link to the essay so that readers see for themselves what the essay contains and make their own minds.2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with something along the lines of "Rowling later published an essay... In which she opposed several transgender rights, such as changing the gender marker on IDs and letting trans people enter the same toilets as their gender." Which includes more of what she said there. You may also add that "she claimed trans women in women's toilets are a threat to women, an that the transgender community is trying to erase the concept of biological sex, forcing doctors to ignore it when treating them." All of these are claims in that essay, all of them are false. YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also let's not forget that she claimed trans men are confused women and that trans people are trying to "convert" cis gay men. You wanna include that too? YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we include your false claims? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TRIFECTA  keeping your cool, assume good faith and no personal attacks.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

text: WP:DNTL. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read Rowling's manifesto, or are you just calling me a liar to defend her? YuvalNehemia (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

text: For the record, I am not a SJW. I am a Level 12 Social Justice Warlock. And my house is Ravenclaw.  We will not have a section or points on what Rowling is right about or wrong about because that is not our call to make.  We report on what reliable sources say, and we include those bearing in mind various policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:DUE. I think Rowling's lawyers would tell her "No, you can't sue Wikipedia just because an editor there wrote that Daniel Radcliffe responded to your tweets by writing 'Trans women are women'", but then nor do I think Rowling would be stupid enough to ask her lawyer to look into it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of J. K. Rowling's essay on transgender issues 

message: I inserted the following:
:In July 2020, the MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron Harry Potter fansites jointly announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her Harry Potter fiction, as her views are "out of step with the message of acceptance and empowerment we find in her books and celebrated by the Harry Potter community," and describing them as "harmful and disproven beliefs about what it means to be a transgender person."
It was immediately reverted by , stating "Removing excessive material per WP:NOTNEWS. The RfC at BLPN is addressing the length of this section and most such comments favir brevity. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to add material".  
I contend that two of the biggest HP fansites jointly taking this action is notable and is certainly worthy of coverage; that the now moribund RFC was not called to discuss length; and that the excision of anything from this and related articles that could in any be viewed as critical of TERF positions, with a cry of "WP:ONUS!" is now bordering on tendentious editing - Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! Yet, here we are. Line up, usual sides... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC wasn't about this latest addition, which happened after the rfc, nor was it about the lenght of the text. NOTNEWS doesn't apply either, since these fansites are large enough to be notable and this is a permanent development. So crossroad's point is completely moot. If you guys want to improve the flow of the text by moving it around do that, and don't just revert because me no likey. I favour inclusion of the fact that this happened and you guys are free to figure out a way to better include it if you feel inclined to do so. Just keep in mind that there's nothing counterfactual, grammatically incorrect, or unencyclopedic about what is currently written in that alinea. Crossroad's personal preference is not an argument for reverting a change.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't think this needs its own lengthy paragraph at this time, but IMO it would be appropriate/due to expand the current sentence  to add . -sche (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good way to do it.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: , agreed there is no need for a lengthy paragraph. One sentence would seem resaonable? , if the RFC has drifted off=topic that's unfortunate, but if you want it to be discussing something other than the particular questions which have already been put, then maybe you should point that out there, openly? The fact is, the whole topic of Rowling's attitude to transgender people and issues is now very notable and is not going away.  There are additional related issues that should probably also be included.  Whatever whitewashing or censorship mission you're on - stop? Expecting a talk page section for every new addition simply is not on and is not how wikipedia works. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would OPPOSE the inclusion of the paragraph per WP:NOTNEWS.I also think it's entirely reasonable to propose major additions to an article on its talk page prior to adding them as per WP:ONUS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the addition of that paragraph too. It gives undue weight to recent events; and you end up with the section "Transgender issues" being mostly about the reactions of other people/organizations, rather than describing Rowling's views. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, yes? that's how that works? if someone says something controversial, people's reactions to it are a good way (and the only acceptable way) to illustrate that without violating wiki policy--Licks-rocks (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences. It doesn't make those consequences irrelevant to the article. YuvalNehemia (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that "Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences" is an appropriate tone to have a productive discussion here. And the "consequences" that Rowling faces are not all negative (there's more on this at the RfC). With regard to the reactions to her essay, there were very many of them, and we must choose carefully and give due weight to what we add here, both with regard of whose opinions we add and with regard to how much the discussion on others' opinion can take from that section. Just because these things are now all over the news, that doesn't mean we must throw everything here indiscriminately because WP:NOTNEWS. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, it's not even about consequences or anything as arcane as that, it's a basic principle of wikipedia. If you don't want OR in your articles, which we don't, citing other sources' reactions to something is the only legitimate way to actually include the fact that something happened on wikipedia. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm with Batsun. Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets or that she deleted a tweet praising Stephen King after he showed support for trans women may fall under WP:NOTNEWS. But these are two significant websites (combined they are about as popular as Pottermore), significant enough to have Warner Bros. send them movie materials before release. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unencyclopedic. YuvalNehemia (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You should really have in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Your claim "Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets" is deeply misleading because it implies that Rowling supports conversion therapy (in its original meaning, that is practices trying to change a person's sexual orientation). That tweet was about a Canadian law that dealt with children's biological sex and how it related to a child's gender identity and what can therapists say to that child about biological sex. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what's being reported. Would you care to log in, 2A92:ipv6? You appear to have forgotten to. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Again. Bastun has done the right thing. I disagree that consensus is clear. I suggest proposing an edit here and we'll see if we can find sth we're happy with.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That already happened. Considering the fact that you don't acknowledge this I am starting to feel that you are acting in bad faith by suggesting we go through the process again. Do you even know what the version you are reverting says? --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, the user did something similar on Talk:Graham Linehan, participating in a discussion about making a change and even supporting the change, as enough other users also did to establish consensus, but then claiming the change had been made without discussion or support. I assume good faith, though, despite being mindful of the WP:DUCK/Sealion test. :) -sche (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  the user just way too hastily dropped a 3rr admin request on my head after triggering an edit war with me (which stopped at excactly three revisions), so make of that what you will. (so hasty in fact that nothing on the form has actually been filled in besides my name) --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Someone boldly adding something and me reverting it as not encyclopedic is not gaming the system, it is the system, per WP:BRD. Crossroads -talk- 00:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: it also says you should err on the side of caution when choosing what to revert, something you certainly aren't a shining example of. let me remind you that BRD is not an excuse for tedentious editing, nor for reverting changes you don't like. BRD is never a reason for reverting, and I quote:  "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." which, despite all the random WP:pages you drag into it, certainly appears to be what you are doing. I recommend you stop doing it and take a good read through what WP:BRD is NOT before you press that undo button again, because I for one am seriously getting fed up with your antics. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  Shouldn't there be inclusion of the fact the the sites did more than merely criticising her? I mean, removing pictures of her, not linking to her site and practically ignoring her existence after 2007 is quite big. YuvalNehemia (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I liked the original version better for that reason, but since there seems to be a bit of a spanish inquisition present on this page I elected to be conservative in what the consensus version was. Feel free to try to add it to the current version, but I expect we'll have to deal with another bullshit revert-and-complain cycle immediately afterwards. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  HP fansites' statement on Rowling's anti-transgender activism 

message: "change Transgender issues to Transgender people" JKISEVIL (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What justification is there for this change? — Czello 20:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already done Rummskartoffel (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 

message: "=== Transgender people ===" to "=== Transgender issues ===", using 'Transgender people" makes no sense in the article. As these are her views, and the only reason why the said change was made was because of the transgender community taking offence to Ms. Rowling's views. Brakesahib (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: - , this is already being discussed in the previous section. You are welcome to comment there to help us reach a consensus. Crossroads -talk- 02:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020 

message: Add  on the External links section. It is the most complete source of all J.K. Rowling's writing, forewords, articles, and publications. 101008a (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: per WP:COPYVIOEL (and a shady-lookin' website anyway). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020