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.

Is this category actually correct? The "TERF" label is mostly used facetiously by many women, many of whom are not radical feminists. 89.242.181.99 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that anyone who makes edits like this deserves a reply. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP has now "blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further vandalism." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bazza 7; I plead pneumonia, not enough sleep, and too many drugs.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, changing it to "public expressions [...] have" might be marginally better wordage. TBicks (talk) 16:20, 3 March 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:

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she made statements deemed "anti-trans", who is the subject of Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe.^[1][2][3] Thedayandthetime (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Please explain why it is worded in a biased way. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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]

Exactly, @Daff22. Thank you.

@Xxanthippe, that's the explanation. Thedayandthetime (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 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]

The BBC source does not call her views "anti-trans", that's your personal interpretation. WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Thedayandthetime (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to stick to the facts of the source, not the words of the source. Loki (talk) 00:56, 9 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]

Her behavior was considered transphobic by some. Her statements were not considered transphobic by several sources including BBC, The Guardian, The Times, Sky News. Also notice how most sources calling her statements "anti-trans" or "transphobic" are from the US. Thedayandthetime (talk) 19:23, 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]

Bear in mind that not even Forstater's own WP page mentions her being transphobic or anti-trans. TBicks (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an oversight. We definitely should say that much more clearly than we do over there. Loki (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If/when it gains common usage in reliable sources, perhaps. Not at present, though. TBicks (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, there are many reliable sources already that call her transphobic or anti-trans, including the NYT.

That the British press specifically is squeamish about this shouldn't affect our coverage. Loki (talk) 06:44, 12 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]