Talk:Hermann Kelly

What needs to be done

The article needs more in the way of background from reliable sources - most of the article is about the Kathy Beirne controversy.Autarch (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Except for two sentences at the beginning the whole article is about the book. I suggest moving the book info somewhere else, or cull it to a single paragraph. It's nonsensical to leave it as it is, IMHO. Does anyone have any opinions on this? Hohenloh ⁺ 14:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Climate Change Denial

Sorry, not very good at this and flying past, but Mr Kelly thinks climate change is a scam and this is something that should be added to the article. There are examples on his twitter such as this: https://twitter.com/hermannkelly/status/1552267814995730432 but there are others in which he argues about CO2 percentages (and gets it all wrong). 82.24.18.184 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. If Kelly is a denier of climate change (rather than, say, 'just' a decrier of carbon tax), then this would ideally be stated in reliable secondary sources. As expected by WP:PST. And the article then updated to reflect that source. Rather than, say, an editor interpreting the primary source. As covered by WP:OR. Otherwise all that Tweet can be used for is a quote... Guliolopez (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hermann Kelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100603215818/http://www.efdgroup.eu:80/the-group/staff.html to http://www.efdgroup.eu/the-group/staff.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hermann Kelly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616182726/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=27281&sectioncode=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=27281&sectioncode=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622121254/http://archives.tcm.ie/irishpost/2008/02/20/story7050.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/irishpost/2008/02/20/story7050.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Advocacy

Hi Howdaypartner. In recent days you have made a number of edits which have (quite clearly) sought to address what you seem to perceive as an imbalance in the article. And to paint the subject in a more flattering light. While balance is laudable, I want to address a few things with your most recent edit. Specifically:

1. The text (and quote) which states "He believes democratic self-determination is the highest values in politics ..." etc reads primarily like a form of party political broadcast. There is already more than enough detail and quotes to support the subject's views (on freedom of speech, self-determination, pronatalism, etc). Quoting every statement made by the subject is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the subject's views.
2. Anti-abortion is the term used on this project. Whatever the subject's (or individual editors) opinions on the topic, that is the term that is used here. And is what the linked article is titled. There is a longstanding consensus in this regard.
3. The suggestion that the subject's multiple and repeated references to the Great Replacement theory is somehow "not racially charged" is not consistent with the references or reality. While the subject has claimed that it is not, and that is already reflected in the article, multiple reliable sources have noted that it is typically interpreted as such (and they have interpreted it as such). And that is also reflected in the sources. And therefore in the article. That it is a "description used by a journo" is exactly what the text already states. Attempts to diminish the validity of the source (as if "just some journo's opinion" means we can reclassify a reliable source as something discountable) are not really appropriate.

Separately I would note that, if the subject doesn't believe in the "Great Replacement", then the subject should probably stop making statements to white nationalists in support of it, or posting on Twitter that "those talking about a Great Replacement in Ireland have a point". Pointing to a single Tweet, in which the subject stated "that's not what I meant" or "I didn't mean it in a racist way", doesn't override the other reliable and valid sources. Which have a different interpretation.... In short, balance is fine. Whitewashing or advocacy as a counter is not. (FYI. Please take a look at WP:COI. If you have a connection to either of the two subjects on which you have exclusively edited, you would ideally declare that connection.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guliolopez. I'm glad you accept the need to bring greater balance to this page which under your almost sole contribution was quite biased indeed. I am not a member of any party but somebody did point out to me the very one-sided nature of this and a few other pages, and so I have contributed. I accept your reasoning on the use of the prolife / anti-abortion nomenclature if that is the accepted norm.

Under policies on this page, there is no reason why it should not be like the Sinn Fein page with a list of policy summaries and proof links. There is still a lot of room for an exposition of Kelly's policies on the environment and taxation, none of which are covered and give a necessary rounding of his political ideology.

Howdaypartner —Preceding undated comment added 10:22 (UTC), 10 September 2020‎

Hi Howdaypartner. Thanks for your note.

• WP:BALANCE is a tenet of the NPOV policy that I am happy to support. Always. And, in honesty, was the trigger for my review of this article in the first place. (To address the apparent COATRACK concerns/tag that had been in place for 8 years prior to my first edit on this article.)
• "Under your almost sole contribution was quite biased indeed". I do not accept that statement. At all. And would point you to the policy on making claims about editing or editor behaviours that lack evidence. In terms of the implication that I have supported a "bias" in the article, then I refute that outright. In terms of the suggestion that I am the "sole contributor", then that is also flatly untrue. Demonstrably so. Of the 71 editors who have contributed to this article, I have perhaps made the most number of the edits ("top editor by edit count"). Most of these have, however, been to review, temper, copyedit or correct other's changes. Often in the context of the above. I would separately note that, though you have only been editing for a few months (and seem to be editing this article exclusively) in the context of this page, you are the "top editor by content added".
• "you accept the need to bring greater balance". I have stated that balance is a goal. I have not stated that balance is an issue that remains in this article. Frankly I would contend that the article is now more than sufficiently balanced. And that there is now a risk of conflating "balance" with "weight".
• "Somebody pointed out to me the very one-sided nature of this article". If, as you imply, your editing (and the changes that you are making) are prompted or triggered by a third-party, then elements of WP:MEAT and WP:COI policies apply. After you have reviewed the policies about making unfounded or demonstrably untrue statements about other editors, you might consider reviewing those policies too.
• "no reason why it should not be like the Sinn Fein page". There absolutely is every reason why an article on one person shouldn't be equivalent to the article on any political party. In Sinn Féin's case, one with 15,000 members. As above, please be careful not to conflate balance with weight. Or one man's "letters to the editor" with the published policies of a political party.
• "still a lot of room for an exposition of Kelly's policies". No. There is not. As above (and as before), Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anyone's musings. The approach you seem to be taking (to use Wikipedia to republish the subject's very recent "letters to the editor" or link to republish snippets from the subject's YouTube channel) is significantly beyond the scope and content policies.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Questionable sources

1. The Burkean - I question whether the Burkean counts as a WP:RS. For one thing, the editor wrote an article supporting eugenics and racism which his own staff condemned him for. This suggests that editorial control is an issue and that it fails WP:RS.
2. Youtube - Several YouTube links are used - WP:YOUTUBE says that there is no blanket ban, but not all videos meet the standards for WP:RS.
3. Herman Kelly Twitter account - Do all the tweets referenced meet the required standard, particularly it does not involve claims about third parties; and the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;.

Autarch (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. In each case it depends on where and how the sources are used. In terms of:

• Twitter - as far as I can tell the Twitter links are being used to support quotes and/or text like: "A 2019 tweet, from Kelly's Twitter account, said XYZPQ". Per WP:TWITTER, unless there is a "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (that Kelly's Twitter account was hacked or something), then using a Twitter post (to support text quoted from that Twitter post) is fine.
• Burkean - from what I can tell there is one Burkean source. Albeit replicated three times. In a way that should probably be tidied-up. In each case that webpage also seems to be used ONLY to support quotes attributed directly to the subject. Again, unless there is a question as to whether the Burkean has misrepresented these quotes, this would also likely seem OK.
• YouTube - again, YouTube seems to be used to support/attribute quotes to the subject. And, again, unless there's a question about whether the YouTube videos are faked (or unless someone hasn't actually verified the quotes attributed/supported by the videos) then I'm not seeing a specific issue.

While, obviously, some random post by some random YouTuber/Twitter user/whatever shouldn't be used to support other types of text or claims, posts from a subject (by/about themselves and/or where used to support quoted text) are not automatically unreliable or "inadmissible". Guliolopez (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)