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, and on June 26, 2022.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 3, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 7, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 8, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted April 15, 2022 Featured article review Kept Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2017, July 31, 2021, July 31, 2022, and July 31, 2024. Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Children's literature Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article Women writers Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Women 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 Novels: Fantasy / Harry Potter High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Top-importance). Women in Business High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Gloucestershire Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Currently, in the Views --> Transgender People section, the final paragraph contains the sentence "In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left transgender people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault."

The phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed" feels very out of place in this paragraph, in which her views, and the basis for them, are explained. Personally I find the phrase a little problematic (e.g. nonspecific; which trans people?), but if it is to be included, I think it would fit better in the 2nd or 4th paragraphs, which list the reactions to her statements/views.

Wanted to get opinions on a) if this sounds reasonable and b) if so, how it might best be done. TBicks (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current phrasing doesn't allow for her opinion to be presented neutrally. It should be split up as you stated. A quick way to solve this could be to move the reaction to the end of the paragraph, or right before the assertion of Whited? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it actually fits quite well with the final sentence regarding Whited. I'd support moving it to the end of the paragraph. TBicks (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be made a bit more specific though. I can't access the source unfortunately, but the current wording could mean every trans person in the world or a small group of them. If the source says something like 'transgender fans of her books', that would be a better wording I think. TBicks (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone with access stops by and joins the discussion, but until then, just splitting the sentence up should be fine as well. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the reaction is specific to the essay, it'd be better to mention it there, rather than having to reintroduce the essay later.

I don't think the section is particularly organised, but moving one sentence phrase isn't going to help. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it takes care of the immediate issue of neutral presentation though. TBicks (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's more "neutral" to give her unchallenged attacks on transgender people. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. To present neutrally, we should first share one opinion and then include other perspectives or criticism. This applies to any topic. I see you have a strong opinion about this, but it might help to take a step back for a moment. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're considering moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have no idea what you're talking about.

For what its worth, and not that it has anything to do with paragraph organization, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:WIAE), not a place to challenge views you don't like (see WP:ADVOCACY). If you're so prejudiced in this area that you don't think wikipedia should maintain a neutral POV, it might not be the right WP topic for you? TBicks (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware. But you're acting as if transphobia isn't WP:FRINGE Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm suggesting moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph to better faciliate a neutral presentation of her views. I haven't even mentioned transphobia, let alone stated an opinion on its validity. TBicks (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that it's not really a neutral presentation of her views to treat them as non-controversial, then bring in criticism afterwards. It seems like a lot of newspapers have taken to including a discussion of her views in pretty much any reporting on her. Just searching J.K. Rowling news:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/ed-sheeran-jk-rowling-new-years-eve-party-instagram-b2684736.html "Rowling has been met with strong backlash in recent years over her outspoken stance on trans women, which many, including LGBT+ spokespeople, have deemed transphobic. [continues on from there]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14308263/JK-Rowling-backs-Donald-Trumps-crackdown-gender-ideology-saying-Left-overseen-calamity.html "The writer, who now dedicates much of her time to clashing with people online about gender issues, posted on X about the US President's order."

https://www.cbr.com/jk-rowlings-cb-strike-season-6-everything-we-know/ Box at start: "It's important to remember the ongoing controversial statements by the creator of the Harry Potter franchise..."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr37d76rzgo [No mention]

It feels like discussing her transphobia is becoming more and more the mainstream view of her, while this article is minimising it more and more. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Nobody is treating her views as non-controversial. The paragraph in question is preceded by several paragraphs which explain the mixed reactions to her views.

We're talking about moving a 6 word phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have already elucidated the reasons I feel that is neccesary, none of which have to do with the content of her speech/views. It has nothing to do with "minimizing" anything - i'm not even suggesting we remove the phrase, simply move it to a more suitable position.

If you're seriously unable to WP:AGF when it comes to simple paragraph organization, I think you should consider avoiding this topic in the future. TBicks (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it feels like it'd be awkward to realise the point later, and that it may mischaracterise the essay if it's not done very carefully. The section is a disorganised mess, but at least it doesn't first cover the whole situation from Rowling's perspective then again from the outside perspective, like a sequential WP:POVFORK. I don't like the suggested change outside of a full rework, as I think it'll make the section worse. It's also a basic rule of journalism that the higher up on the page material is introduced, the more weight is being given to it, which I suppose you may be unaware of. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence already describes the reaction to the essay and her speech on the issue, making the end of the paragraph a more natural place to put the phrase. We wouldn't be creating a POV order change, merely adding to a preexisting one.

The way it's currently written interjects other people's POV into a sentence about her POV, which is bad practice for neutral presentation. TBicks (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly -- my husband has been hospitalized for a week; I'm aware I still have to answer #Citation consistency above. (Done, 13:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC) )

I think the suggestion to combine the questioned clause somewhere around the Whited sentence would work. I also agree the section became somewhat haphazard when a few months back there was some rapid-fire nonconsensual editing; slow and steady wins the race. I'd also like to remind Adam Cuerden to aim for a collaborative approach to work on this talk page, lower the POV statements on a BLP talk page, and that sources like the Daily Mail aren't relevant here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that SandyGeorgia. Hope he is on the mend.

I have temporarily relocated it to avoid the neutral presentation issue, but frankly the section as a whole could so with a redo, and that seems like a good opportunity to place it better. TBicks (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia ah okay, i've just tempororarily removed it until we can clear up which source is correct. I don't have access to either. We should seek some consensus on location ASAP though. TBicks (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found Whited and checked ... it was verified, so I'll reinstate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

We had a discussion about this somewhere in archives -- it may take me a bit to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 28 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]