The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
J. K. Rowling's ethnicity/nationality has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Current consensus is that she is British, and that whether she is also English, Scottish or Welsh has no bearing on her work or her biography, and is best not discussed.
The topic of her middle name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Her full name is simply Joanne Rowling; she contracted the first name and chose the middle initial K from her grandmother's name, Kathleen, in order to remove the gender association from her own name.
Her married name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She uses her married name, Murray, for private business, but her maiden name, "Rowling", is used here, as it is the one by which she is most widely known.
The pronunciation of her name has been discussed here, here, here, here and here. She has commented that her name is pronounced like bowling and not like howling.
Allegations that she supports communism in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any such views; attempts to describe such views in her works have been rejected as original research of published material.
If you have a question relating to the spelling in this article (such as "instalment"/"installment") remember that this article is written in British English.
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
I believe this page to have an error in regards to the first printing of the first Harry Potter Book. The page says over 5,000 books were printed in the first run. However, any book collector knows there were only 500 books printed in the first run of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. 300 were given to Libraries and the remaining 200 are some of the most sought after book collectibles available. These 200 are considered the "Holy Grail" of Harry Potter book collecting and are worth six-figures in some circumstances. The original 500 books have many uniquities including the author listed as Joanne Rowling, not J.K. Rowling. 173.248.10.123 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's right in the footnote (m), according to Errington, a high-quality and authoritative source: According to Errington, 500 hardbacks and 5,150 paperbacks "were published on the same date and neither has bibliographical priority". It was previously believed that the initial print run was 500 copies total, but this number is "woefully inaccurate".SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that the second paragraph in the transgender views section to be worded like this with these citations since it is currently worded in a biased way:
Actually, I can see an issue with the current wording. It states that Forstater made "anti-trans" statement. That fails NPOV and probably BLP, as Forstater went on to win her tribunal, and her conduct was not found to be discriminatory. It should probably be "allegedly anti-trans" or "statements considered to be anti-trans". I am sure someone can come up with better wording, but it really should be changed. Daff22 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read through the case article, and Forstater's own article, neither of which label her views as "anti-trans". There is definitely a BLP issue here. It should probably read made "gender-critical statements", with an added caveat "which some considered anti-trans", of editors prefer. Sources wise, the NY Times article doesn't refer to Forstater as "anti-trans" (only in the headline, which obviously doesn't count), but I don't have access to the Whited source to know how that describes her. However, given the outcome of the case, it really would seem like a BLP violation. Daff22 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? This is in the BBC source: Ms Forstater believes trans women holding certificates that recognise their transgender identity cannot describe themselves as women. That seems clearly to be saying Forstater's views are anti-trans to me. Loki (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is not 'sticking to the facts" it is assigning a non-neutral POV label to a BLP. Labelling Forster "anti-trans" in the context of her court case implies that her behaviour was discriminatory. The courts did not find this to be the case, in fact they found the opposite, with her being the one discriminated against. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Your "clearly" is a POV interpretation, and not how Wikipedia articles should be written. Daff22 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her behavior was transphobic. The original court case found that and we have plenty of reliable sources backing that up, such as CBS, PinkNews, and the NYT.
Like, this is a pretty straightforward interpretation of what she said. It really shouldn't surprise you that I was able to easily find sources saying so in those words. Loki (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those articles are following the origin hearing, which the subsequent appeal and merits hearing found to have mischaracterised Forstater's views. And the NYT article does not label her as anti trans or transphobic beyond the headline, which again is discounted when considering use as a source on Wikipedia. This isn't about interpretation, it is about factual representation, and BLP. I agree with the recent change made to the article, per my previous suggestion.Daff22 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She won the tribunal case on appeal, as mentioned by Daff22. The CBS and NYT articles were written before the appeal was lodged, and PinkNews isn't exactly a reliable source on this issue. TBicks (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to two articles written before her (successful) appeal was lodged, and one article by a biased publication on this particular topic. Not exactly gold standard source material. TBicks (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinknews is green at WP:RSP and the dates of these articles don't matter. A court saying her opinion is protected doesn't make it not transphobic. Loki (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP green doesn't mean it should be used with impunity. The nature of the publication means that it has obvious bias here, which should be given due weight. WP:RSP itself states that caution should be used for PinkNews.
If they were basing their usage of that label on the finding of the tribunal, the dates absolutely do matter. There's an easy litmus test for that: look at the language used in RS before and after the successful appeal. I'm yet to see you provide an example of her being called these labels after the appeal in RSs. TBicks (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am I crazy for thinking this page is overly detailed, especially in regard to her 'Life and Career'? It reads like someone watched a movie on her and inserted the whole thing straight into her Wikipedia page. Comparing with authors of similar note, Ursula K. Le Guin, J. R. R. Tolkien leaves a lot still on the table still.EVorpahl (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's been a natural increase in reporting on the lives of celebrities in recent decades, and she wrote the best selling book series in history. So i'm sure it's just a consequence of there being more known about her life than equally successful writers of different eras. TBicks (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
