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:
Is it just me or the photo used to depict Rowling in this article is kind of "not the best". With a quick Google search you can find more "good looking" let's say photos of her. Donboss21 (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no Im not saying that your image does not follow the guidelines, im just saying like i feel like it was chosen on purpose by someone that does not like her, maybe im wrong Donboss21 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem you read the page I linked; images have to be freely available. If you can find an alternate image that meets policy, by all means, upload it. No one else has found any other image that meets Wikipedia policy, and copyright is a legal concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one mention of her losing billionaire status due to philanthropy: "By 2012, Forbes concluded she was no longer a billionaire due to her charitable donations and high UK taxes."
I agree it's likely that she probably is a billionaire now, but we need a high-quality source that supports that. I haven't had time of late for a deep dive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can tell, she is on neither the 2024 nor the 2025 Forbes billionaire lists. I do find some marginal sources parroting the old information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can this article please be unlocked so responsible editors are able to add the controversies about the author? Including her funding UK anti-trans groups?
It appears Wikipedia is not allowing negative but accurate information, which is not only not in the purview of an encyclopedia but also against Wikipedia’s own guidelines.
yeah, i was very surprised to learn that there is no Controversy heading. i recognize that some editors may consider this WP:UNDUE but the very first sentence in that heading is "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints" and i struggle to come up with how such a culturally significant author going full mask-off about her transphobia is not significant RachelF42 (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with the IP and Rachel that this article should mention her anti-trans activism much more significantly (and have for a long time). (Unprotecting the article of a politically controversial BLP seems obviously dumb to me, though. Sorry.) Loki (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're covering this, I'd prefer to start with the 2024 donation, describe the court decision a bit more carefully, and end with her celebration of the result. Since the "VE Day" stuff is Rowling quoting her husband, I think it's not worth the words. I'm not sure about the best way to describe FWS, but "anti-trans activist group" seems too much of an NPOV stretch based off a brief glance at some sources. Though I'd prefer something shorter, and preferably more grammatically and thematically connected to the status quo ante, my first attempt version would look something like
That sentence is better for removing the PROSELINE, and being more neutrally worded (although as we link to an article on For Women Scotland, we don't need to describe them at all). But the first question is whether this bit of news reporting is even due in the article (which you seem to question too). People want it in because it is current, but that is not the way encyclopaedic articles work. If it were due, I would attach it to: She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. Perhaps: She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis, and donated to the legal challenge brought by For Women Scotland against the Scottish Ministers in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in 2025 that the Equality Act 2010 does not consider trans women to be women for purposes of the Act.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Firefangledfeathers and others that the content inserted "is problematic enough that it'd be better to have nothing", and have removed it. The content is UNDUE NEWSY PROSELINE and *if* something is to be included, should have better sourcing with wording developed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources present the issue in a way that is more aligned with the proposed text from Sirfurboy, and without the sensationalized and UNDUE focus on "TERF V-E day". Sifurboy's text provides a better starting point for developing content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
