Talk:J. K. Rowling

New Politico article

Anything in the following article worth using? I wasn't too involved in writing J. K. Rowling#Transgender people so I wouldn't really know. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Wheaton, Sarah (3 July 2022). "The metamorphosis of J.K. Rowling". Politico. Retrieved 3 July 2022.

I read it yesterday, and didn't find anything I thought we hadn't covered or discussed, and additionally, am unsure how others feel about using Politico, although I found the article very comprehensive (it seemed to cover all issues well, and from all sides). I did note that we say "critics" call her transphobic, while Politico points to fans: "have been denounced by fans as transphobic". I still prefer our term, as more encompassing. The other thing I noted (and also in other sources) is that the institutions who benefit from her writing seem to be hedging their bets more now; eg, Warner Bros came out and defended her when an external PR group disallowed a question about her at an interview of one of the actors. Politico says she "seems to be winning" the debate, but I doubt anyone would be comfortable adding that based on such a source. I came out at the same place where I sensed we were left at the end of the FAR: several months down the road, a new survey of scholarly sources will be needed, and after that is done, we may then be in position to re-discuss the lead, with sufficient distance from the ill-prepared RFC. So I didn't immediately spot anything we could/would use there for now. The article brings a lot of new points that are already covered by some of the newer scholarly sources, and my hunch is that, several months down the road, we will be in better position to lower the use of less scholarly sources, so am unconvinced we should bring in another one now. I hope we'll hear from others on this particular source, as it is quite complete in its coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I too think it is broadly in line with what we already have in the article. I was tempted to suggest we could include her recent championing by Vladimir Putin, and her annoyance at being associated with him. It's certainly contemporary and nicely illustrates the difficulties of her stance on trans issues. Perhaps this has been discussed already? If not, could we spare a sentence to mention it? It's easy to find good sources for it, certainly. --Wubslin (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We had what I recall as a well-attended discussion on Putin, and I can't understand why I am unable to locate that discussion now. What we decided was basically not to include Putin until/unless scholarly sources did, because a) length and DUE weight issues, and b) not to entertain Putin's fantasies. I suggest the broader issue of cancel culture can be dealt with without invoking Putin's fantasies ... and there are scholarly sources for the broader issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

At last ... found it ... Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3#Putin ... it continues in Archive 5, but no one responded there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your trouble in looking it out. Having read over that archive, I agree with not including it. Even though the Politico article does. --Wubslin (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Jessica rowling

Why they gave a name for portuguese tradition? Are she is a british national or a portuguese national? Ow man this is annoying since maternal name is the 1st surname while the paternal name is the 2nd surname Please anyone want to know and ask? Why jessica has a wrong surname ordering? She is actually a rowling in the last name! UrutoramanGuy66 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources (and Wikipedia) say that Portuguese naming customs are the opposite of Spanish, for example. In Spanish naming customs, the paternal name would be first (Jessica Isabel Arantes Rowling). But in Portuguese, sources say it is typically the opposite: the maternal name always comes first (Jessica Isabel Rowling Arantes). See Portuguese name#General; other sources say the same, although Portuguese is more flexible than Spanish, and either is possible.[1][2]

I have not seen any source discussing her nationality; I'm unclear why that is relevant. Regardless of what nationality she now has, she was born in Portugal, which means she would have both last names unless she was not recognized by her father.

That said, her full name was in the article before the Featured article review, but the source used [3] does not actually include the double last name; they don't give any last name. I can't find any source that claims her name is Jessica Rowling rather than Jessica Arantes. What is your basis for saying her name is Jessica Rowling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And Pugh, page 3, has the full name as Jessica Isabel Rowling Arantes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Her title is stated as FRCPE, but she is not a physician

Was this added as a troll? The citation listed doesn't include any references to her being a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Citation needed or mark for deletion 2604:CA00:17C:C007:0:0:1064:FC71 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's cited in the body to this, which lists her in a list of fellows for Author. For services to Literature and Philanthropy. She does appear to be the only non-medical person on the list. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed both of the honorary fellowship post-nominals - she isn't a physician. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"Female privilege"

This content about "female privilege" was inserted a second time after these user talk notices, and with no article talk discussion. I am unable to find any high-quality sources using this terminology, much less anything to support due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The female privilege article has just been reverted to a redirect. It was created (and recreated) by the same user who was adding the reference to this article, so I suspect they might have an axe to grind. — Czello 11:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspicions are wrong. I don't have an Ax To Grind. I was creating a link to JK Rowling as there was an article concerning her and Trans. I was googling female privilege and trans, she came up. I put it in both articles to create a more substantial article. I have no issue with either JK Rowling or female privilege. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:DUE, and then contrast Wikipedia policies with the low-quality junk that turns up when you google "female privilege" Rowling. Those are not the kinds of sources Wikipedia uses for biographies of living persons, and adding the content here would be unduly weighted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, as a lifelong learner. Thank you for the information. I will go forth and use it. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)