Wikipedia

Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull/Archive 3

< Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull
Latest comment: 8 months ago by DanielRigal in topic Addition of The Spinoff reference
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Biography and other aspects of article need improving

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I can see that there is much contesation about this article and I don't wish to get involved in that, but I do find the structure rather messy and there is a strange lacuna at its core. It is not clear to the reader that Kellie Jay Keen Minshull is a real person and not a maintained persona (e.g. Posie Parker). I'm not suggesting the person doesn't exist (!) but rather that there is no information at all to support the status of the title of the article. Other aspects need filling out and justifying too. For example, it is not clear to any reader who might click through to the related citation that Standing for Women can be described as an organisation rather than simply a personal website. It seems odd, too, to descibe anyone as the populariser of the term "adult human female"; this seems at face value an aggrandisement which might be better phrased in terms of it being a phrase the subject uses to popularise her cause? Any thoughts, other Wikipedians? Emmentalist (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Having read it again, it does seem odd that the subject is clearly highly active across the world (US, Australia, NZ, UK, etc) and yet there is effectively no confirmed biographical information about her here (the 'biography' section isn't really a biography section at all and the 'personal' section doesn't include anything about the personality other than one reference to her family which itself provides no source for the information. Why, for example, is the the subject referred to as "Keen" throughout yet in the title her name is given as Keen-Minshull? I had never heard of her until today, but I can see that she appears to be very well known across several continents. The lack of any details confirming background, life, birth date, funding, etc, appears to flaw the article considerably. The content seems driven by opposing views about the subject's activism rather than actually being an informative article about a notable subject (I am not suggesting the subject is not notable, but rather simply commenting on the content and structure of the article.Emmentalist (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that including more information about early life, education, personal life etc would be very appropriate and the current biography is unbalanced in favor of mostly covering KJKM's activism, rallies etc. Unfortunately, the problem is that the sources themselves are unbalanced in covering only her activist activities. Wikipedia needs reliable sources in order to properly verify facts. For biographies of living persons, the standard for what types of sources are acceptable is even higher. Things like blog posts, social media etc are not usable except in specific circumstances and we mainly rely on secondary sources like newspaper and magazine articles for things like this. If you have some good sources we haven't uncovered yet that give other biographical information please share them, I'm sure we would be happy to add those details in. Unfortunately this is a problem common to political activists of all stripes, as coverage understandably focuses on their activism. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
As regards Standing for Women, there is a company registered in that name with KJKM as sole director (although named as "Keen" only) but it was only registered in January this year. I can find little evidence that it is any more that KJKM's own vehicle. There is a "membership" page but it asks for monthly donations to join ([1]). Incidentally, the Companies House listing has a partial DOB for KJKM of June 1974, which we don't appear to have.([2]) Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Your wikilink looks broken to me. Regardless, per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY I'd avoid giving even a partial DOB sourced to public records, unless the subject has also published it herself or had it discussed in RS. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed the link, not sure what happened there. I wasn't suggesting using it on it's own (per WP:BLPPRIMARY as you say), merely that it may help to find a secondary source. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the lead to qualify the meaning of the article title, and to reflect the ambiguity about the nature of Standing for Women. There is a Times of London reference to a person using the name, but this is too fragile a basis to assume that the name is not a maintained persona or a nom de plume, particularly as the subject does use such a maintained persona elsewhere. The Times routinely reports on prominent people according to how they identify themselves (e.g. Conchita Wurst) when they talk to the newspaper. See: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/conchita-wursts-refugee-rock-band-totally-heartbroken-over-visa-row-5lphqjwl2. In addition, while the following deprecated source (The Daily Mail) refers to the subject's apparent husband (from where the name Minshull appears to derive) it also notes that he too is known by another name. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11883261/How-transphobe-Kellie-Jay-Keen-aka-Posie-Parker-caused-controversy-Australian-tour.html. Moreover, while the organisation Standing for Women is referred to in good sources, they each appear to be taking the reference from each other or from the subject. There is no evidence at this article that it is actually an organisation and not simply the subject's website. To be safe, there should be some evidence provided of activity of the organisation other than the subject's claims for it. My instinct is that the name is real and not a persona, and that Standing for Women may indeed be an organisation with members and activies, but the lack of evidence here weakens the article in important ways. Perhaps other editors are able to fill in the details? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  • The first several sources in the article include:
Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not interested in standing up for lazy journalism; there's no evidence at all that the subject's name is actually as per the title of the article. People can quote secondary sources 'til the cows come home; the lacuna remains unfilled. Appropriate primary sources as per WP:primary sources might turn up at some point. For now, this article has a confected feel about it: A woman whose name may or may not be as per the title of the article has carried out PR spectaculars in a number of countries and the media have reported them as per the subject's own press releases, seems about the size of it. The absence of any relible biographical information should make editors here pause before repeating ideas about the subject's 'real' name (it should say 'reported as') and we should certainly not assume Standing For Women is anything more than a website (again, it should say 'reported as'). Moreover, I see one of the edits refers to WP:Weasel words. Weasel words, just for interest, are those which seek to unjustifiably strengthen a position; my now-reverted edit did literally the opposte by qualifying it. I've amended the lead a little on the basis of WP:BRD but if it is reverted I'll make that the last edit to the lead, I think. Anyway, I've said enough and the discourse above looks pretty constructive and useful. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources cast doubt on KJKM being her name (and PP her pseudonym)? If not, then because we have multiple RS explicitly saying it is her real name, I see no basis to doubt it. How to characterize SFW seems like a seperate issue (although there too we must follow RS, as far as what is verifiable to say about it, and how much is due to include about it). -sche (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand/Aotearoa, details of violence, far right activity

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm a trans person from Aotearoa (New Zealand), after nazis showed up in my hometown I checked out this page and its missing up to date information.

Why isn't the violence against Marama Davidson and Lidia Thorpe mentioned? Or Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull using an avatar dressing as a nazi barbie on social media? Pesutto talked about it in his dossier against Moira Deeming and Parker admitted it.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/no-knife-was-not-held-to-posie-parkers-throat-during-nz-protest/

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/victory-as-antitrans-tour-boosts-mainstream-support-for-keen/news-story/faa3fb4b082a1fb486df39aad306a95c

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/violence-erupts-at-antitransgender-rally/news-story/87e06cdf34e9551c2d869849fd41d550 TransMissive (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So, I am very sympathetic to what you want to include here, but you need to get some very strong sources for it. The policy that's standing in the way of including it is mostly the WP:BLP policy which makes it harder to include potentially dubious information in articles about living people, especially if that information is negative. Explained like that, you hopefully can see why we have this policy.
I can't check two of those sources because they're behind a paywall. The first one and its sources I think are good enough to say that those two people were attacked at rallies put on by Parker. Loki (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Copies can be found on archive.org
Here: https://archive.is/aHf5G#selection-483.0-483.224
Relevant quote:
"...She vehemently denies any links to Nazis, but acknowledges to once using a Nazi-dressed ­Barbie doll as an avatar as a joke and to “take the sting out of that horrible name calling” when her friends called her a Nazi Barbie...."
And Here: https://archive.is/cHbkK#selection-425.0-438.0
Relevant quote:
"...Victorian Opposition Leader John Pesutto – in a dossier justifying his moves to expel Ms Deeming – has accused the British activist of taking selfies with a leader of Norway’s far-right movement, Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen, and said she was using a profile picture of a Barbie doll wearing a Nazi swastika on her social media pages.
Ms Keen said the Barbie picture was a “joke” and she did not know Mr Johansen when he asked for a photograph...." TransMissive (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Activist labeling in lede

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments10 people in discussion

"Anti-transgender rights activist" label needs to be removed. She is a women's rights activist. Adding this is very misleading and misrepresents this person. 98.61.138.189 (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, please familiarize yourself with the many sources saying she is an anti-trans activist. We are not going to describe her as a woman's rights activist until that description is published in enough independent reliable sources to override the many sources that call her an anti-trans activist. Loki (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The many sources calling her an anti-trans activist are lying and probably get their information from this incorrect page full of lies and slander.
Here are several sources correctly calling her a woman's rights activist/campaigner:
The Daily Mail
The Post
The Telegraph
The Megyn Kelly Show
Talk TV
GB News
TRIGGERnometry
The Spectator
Is that enough? I can find more. BloodSkullzRock (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please add “women’s rights activist” 208.114.139.6 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  •   Not done Please see the FAQ on this page. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


his line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 

The correct discription for Kellie Jay Keen is a women's rights activist not anti trans. The comments on this page are propaganda. Shame on the people responsible for writing this page and locking it. 2A02:C7D:409:E000:45B2:F59:AA46:8375 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Note We had around 300[hyperbole] threads saying almost exactly the same thing. For clarity's sake, I've archived some old ones and collapsed the recent ones into this one thread. This is purely housekeeping, and I'm not making any arguments for or against the proposal. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It is clearly at least semi-coordinated. Do we know who is pointing them in our direction? DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The first line is a lie. KJK is not an "anti-transgender rights activist" she is a "women's rights activist". BloodSkullzRock (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious edit requests

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Time to get a big red banner like the ones at Talk:Nazi Party and start reverting these repetitive edit requests? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We could, but even if we add it plus an edit notice are the editors who are filing the repetitive requests actually going to read it? Or will they just ignore it, like they're largely ignoring the FAQ, and continue on as per previous? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The value it would have is twofold:
  1. If anybody does show up wanting to make such a silly request in confused good faith then it will set them straight before they waste their time and make a fool of themselves.
  2. If the people making these vexatious requests in bad faith see a big red banner, and still choose to make their vexatious requests, then we can be certain that they know what they are doing and we can give them appropriately short shrift.
DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
As the reigning champion of declining and removing edit requests, I suggest we just remove them with a note that you're removing a duplicate request or WP:SOAP and move on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please separate the Australia and New Zealand content?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Apologies, I am not an experienced Wikipedia user, however I do donate. But, I don't know how to make the changes I would like to suggest...

As a New Zealander I would like to see the New Zealand specific content represented under a separate heading called New Zealand, not combined under one heading called Australia and New Zealand.

At the moment, much of what is described under the single combined heading relates to New Zealand only. It does not relate to Australia. The controversy and the consequences of the events that occurred were very different between our two separate countries, so I do not believe it is correct to combine them. As visible in the article itself, the media coverage of the events were very different. We are also two countries with very different laws on this sensitive topic, many of which are about to change in New Zealand on June 2023 (a little more than a month away). I therefore I think there is justification to separate the narrative related to this individual.

Thank you in advance to anyone who can consider and/or action my request. ~ 2404:440C:2A14:9B00:8CEB:763C:F329:55D2 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Done Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Beccaynr 2404:440C:2A14:9B00:8CEB:763C:F329:55D2 (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Lie

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

So, this section: "At a Standing For Women rally in Newcastle upon Tyne on 15 January 2023, speaker Lisa Morgan referred to "the big lie", including that it was "first described by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf", and said "The big lie is that trans women are women."

Strikes me as a fairly inaccurate way of foreshortening this set of quotes (from the cited material):

“Do you know the big lie? The big lie was first described by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. The big lie is such a big lie that ordinary people like us think: ‘Well, that can’t be a lie because I would never tell such a big lie as that. We only lie in small ways.’" “The big lie, well there is one big lie going on, and it was begun by men in the early part of the 20th century. It began when they had an erotic fantasy and they decided they were going to sell us the big lie – and what is the big lie?" “The big lie is that trans women are women. But they’re not, are they? They’re men.”

As written, it seems like she's ascribing "trans women are women" to Hitler, when she's saying "Hitler came up with the concept of the big lie" and "one big lie is trans women are women".

What do folks think? I'm struggling to see a better way to rewrite though. Maybe something like:

At a Standing For Women rally in Newcastle upon Tyne on 15 January 2023, speaker Lisa Morgan referenced a definition of "the big lie" which she claimed was "first described by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf" and which she defined as such a large lie that it is believed as the audience reacts by believing it. She went on to state that “The big lie is that trans women are women." 47.6.202.252 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Morgan refers to the "big lie" (which is wikilinked in the article), notes the concept is described by Hitler, and uses that concept as applied to trans women - I do not think adding more detail makes it more clear, and it may be undue weight in the context of this article - the secondary sources report about this event in the context of Keen-Minshull, e.g. her reaction to this speaker at the rally she organized. Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The way it is currently written caused me to believe that she was saying that Hitler had said "The big lie is that trans women are women" which is not what she said, but perhaps the confusion is only on my end. 47.6.202.252 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
After reviewing this more, I think I understand - I have updated the text to "speaker Lisa Morgan referred to "the big lie" concept, including that it was...", to try to clarify how she is talking about the general concept, then applying it specifically. Does that seem helpful for addressing the ambiguity? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep. There's still some potential for confusion, but it would require misreading rather than closely reading the content. Thanks! 47.6.202.252 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, IP. I agree that adding "concept" is an improvement. The only other tweak that comes to mind to suggest is changing ...and said "The big lie is... to ...and said one "big lie is..., but I don't know if that would perhaps be doing inappropriately much to 'clean up' her quote and make it seem more sensical than it is, like how journalists have said they've sometimes tried to put complete quotations of entire sentences Trump said into articles and editors have insisted they cut the quotes down snippets that make him sound more coherent — even in her full quote, she muddles the issue, she says "trans women are women" is "the big lie", not "a big lie" or "one big lie", so I suppose what we have now is accurate (the incoherency comes from her, not Wikipedia). -sche (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kellie-Jay Keen is not an anti trans activist but a women’s rights activist. Please correct this error. Thankyou 180.150.38.148 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Political career" - text removal and reversion

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments8 people in discussion

DanielRigal, please read my edit summary more carefully. The source might be regarded as RS but it is not a neutral piece and therefore information should be selected from it with care. My edit summary explicitly states that the reason why I removed the sentences "During her livestreamed announcement, she promoted her own merchandise, called the hijab "atrocious" and a "tool of oppression", said she would not boycott PayPal over their removal of service for anti-LGBT group Free Speech Union, and called Tucker Carlson "an intelligent, really lovely, welcoming, warmly welcoming man" is because that information isn't noteworthy, and the description of the Free Speech Union as being "anti-LGBT" is unsubstantiated.
Of course the article subject sells merchandise - why is this notable? Why is the Free Speech Union described as "anti-LGBT"? Where is the evidence for this assertion? Our own article doesn't use such a description. Why is a banal comment about a TV host relevant? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you not have any comment, DanielRigal? You did revert my edit and suggest starting this thread. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
What do you want me to say? I was hoping that you would articulate an arguable reason to remove the content but I don't see anything. You simply assert that it is "not noteworthy". Reliable sources have noted it, therefore it was demonstrably notable. The description of the Free Speech Union as being "anti-LGBT" is literally in the reference. (It's omission from their article strikes me as somewhat odd.) Again, what do you want me to say?
Anybody else want to add anything? DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Even when using a source regarded as reliable, that doesn't mean that everything included in the source should be included in our article, otherwise our articles would become extremely long, bloated with extraneous information. Let's take this one bit at a time, starting with the phrase ""During her livestreamed announcement, she promoted her own merchandise". I do not believe this to be noteworthy information because it is standard practice for youtubers to sell merchandise. It is also standard practice for political campaigns to require funding. Please explain why you believe that readers should be told that the article subject does something that is standard practice and thus unremarkable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
That's not all you removed though, is it? So, is that really all you object to? If it is then, OK, I can see it. If taking out the bit about merch and only the bit about merch will resolve this then I have no objection. If anybody can find valid references to unambiguously support coverage of an allegation of grifting then maybe that's something that can be added later but the source we have doesn't do that and we should avoid anything that can be read as an insinuation. The absolutely key point here is that the parts about her comments condemning the hajib and making supportive comments about far-right media personalities absolutely have to stay. I am at a loss to understand why you removed those and are focussing solely on the merch bit here. So... do we have a satisfactory resolution here? DanielRigal (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in replying. No, that one sentence wasn't all that I removed, but I thought it would be easier to discuss if taken one section at a time. So there's agreement about the merchandising. The next bit I'd like to look at is the line that says the article subject "said she would not boycott PayPal over their removal of service for anti-LGBT group Free Speech Union". Can you please explain, beyond just saying 'it's in the source', why you think this should be included? It doesn't make any sense to me, and looks like bad journalism (i.e. trying to make the article subject appear anti the whole 'rainbow alphabet'). Why is not boycotting Paypal (a service used by millions of people) deemed worthy of comment? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Let's stop wasting time. Please just say which parts, if any, you would be prepared to include? None of us are getting paid to be here so lets not make this more painful than it needs to be. Are you seriously claiming that the hijab comment is not relevant? DanielRigal (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
If I may interject, doesn't the fact that Keen "said she would not boycott PayPal over their removal of service for anti-LGBT group Free Speech Union" tend to suggest her LACK of support for the allegedly "anti-LGBT group Free Speech Union"? --Blurryman (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Blurryman, yes, that is correct. If the FSU were indeed "anti-LGBT" and Paypal withdrew service because of this, that would make Paypal's action supportive of the LGBT banner, and thus the article subject's decision to not boycott Paypal would align them with Paypal's supportive position. This is a terribly worded sentence to have in the article because, on first reading, the casual use of "anti-LGBT" as an adjective for the FSU can give the impression, via a kind of double negative and general word association, that the article subject is also "anti-LGBT", when in fact the sentence says the opposite. If we wish to state that the article subject is supportive of the LGBT banner, then a clearer source should be found, and we would also need a source prepared to pick out nuances, because it makes no sense to assert that Keen-Minshull is both anti-trans and supportive of everything LGBT.
DanielRigal, your assertion to "stop wasting time" is extremely disappointing and unproductive, not to mention in opposition to the whole principle of discussing disagreements on talk pages. There is agreement that the merchandising bit can be dropped, now I wish to discuss another segment. I see this as making progress, not wasting time. If you do not wish to discuss these sentences then under Wikipedia's editing protocol you surely should not have reverted my removal of them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
We can discuss this if you are willing to engage with this in a sensible way but this seems like sealioning. I'm not saying that you are doing that intentionally, but that is the effect. We don't have time to go item by item, one at a time, with a separate discussion for each. Please either say which parts you think are and are not acceptable content or just admit that you are unwilling to discuss the mater in it's entirety and that we are just wasting time here. Are you seriously claiming that the hijab comment is not relevant? Are we really going to have to have an RfC on that?
I'll can set out my position in one short paragraph without wasting time:
Remove the merch bit. Keep the Hijab bit and the Carlson bit. Clarify the FSA bit, if we can, and remove it only if it cannot be rendered unambiguously meaningful.
Can you do likewise? DanielRigal (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I boldy edited this part to remove the merch bit, and because I could not figure out a way to clarify the FSU non-boycott part that didn't seem WP:UNDUE (the source quotes Keen-Minshull as explaining "We love money that sounds nice, we love money that rattles, we love money that folds, we love all of it… A lot of people actually get merch on PayPal, so am I boycotting? No I’m not."), I also removed it pending further discussion. I am thinking it is a less relevant detail than the content that has been retained, which seems more relevant to the political campaign and other content in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I support the removal of those two items, and I can see that retention of the hijab reference is consistent with the article subject's 'self-description' as a women's rights activist. However, I think the reference to Carlson should also be removed, unless someone can explain the relevance and significance for this article of a polite and courteous remark about a television presenter she encountered who is not otherwise mentioned in the article. --Blurryman (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Carlson is not just "a television presenter". He is an absolutely key figure in contemporary American far-right popularist ideology. (OK, maybe not quite as key as he was a few days ago, lol, but still very important.) This information serves a role in letting our readers assess where keen-Minshull sits in the political spectrum and what alliances she chooses to make. Unlike competing claims that she is or is not far-right herself, this is just factual coverage of her statements. Carlson is mentioned at one other point in the article. If the quote about Carlson was consolidated into that then I think that would be OK but I don't think we can, or should want to, get rid of it completely. DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

DanielRigal, no, I am not "sealioning", I have merely been seeking the simplest way to discuss the content.
On the issue of the Tucker Carlson info, your assertion that it "serves a role in letting our readers assess where keen-Minshull sits in the political spectrum and what alliances she chooses to make" is - if people are going to interpret it this way - a reason why it should be removed. Keen-Minshull has stated in interviews that she comes from the British political left, but is currently "politically homeless". It is misleading to use a banal comment that she made about Carlson to suggest in which direction her political compass points. Saying that Carlson is a "warmly welcoming man" does not prove any kind of alliance, it just shows that she found him warmly welcoming, which isn't very notable information. It is possible for people to get along but have different political views.
On the issue of the hijab comments, I have taken the time to seek out the source livestream made by the article subject, and this is what she said (the dots indicate pauses and changes in direction, and not missing text): "Solidarity to all women in Iran. It's not a topic that I've shied away from over the years, and for that the lefty feminists have criticised me roundly for my objection to sexist garments like the hijab that ... as far as I'm concerned if something is a tool of oppression then it is a tool of oppression - it doesn't really matter where it comes from, and the fact that there are so many Iranian ... women in countries where they are forced to wear it, there will be women that don't want to wear it, is not the same as women choosing to wear it in a country where they have the right to choose it or not ... it's not the same thing. And I do see it as part of the same story I'm afraid - I do see the hijab always as a tool of oppression because it is actually controlling women in order to allow men to control themselves. That's what I think it is. I think it's absolutely atrocious to ever see it on little girls and I've spoken to moslem women who feel that they are pressurised by moslem men at the mosque to make their very very young daughters wear it so they get used to it, and it's not very nice." This is far too detailed an explanation of her position to be reduced to just saying, as per Pink News, that she 'called the hijab "atrocious" and a "tool of oppression"', and indeed it can be seen that it is plain incorrect to say that she "called the hijab atrocious" because what she actually said was atrocious was seeing it on little girls, which is rather different. (The relevant section of the livestream occurs from about 6:38 here, for those wishing to check). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Do people have no answer to the comment I made above (11 days ago)? Do people really believe that Wikipedia should quote Pink News as saying Keen-Minshull "called the hijab atrocious" when we can see for ourselves that this is a misquote and misleading? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Forcing to wear, or punishing women for choosing not to wear a Hijab is widely condemned and you and I agree that is all Minshull is doing here. I think we would also agree that the article doesn't contradict that. It just says that's what she said.
I can't find anything, other than the quote from the Pink News, to support the Tucker Carlson bit - but it wouldn't surprise me if she did. And the article doesn't draw any adverse conclusions about that.
What the article does do (IMHO), on aggregate, is to attempt to pillory Minshull. Just read it differently and what are negative connotations for some are positive for others.
The article falls a mile short of NPOV and needs a rewrite. To do that would involve decades of talk discussions, RfCs and probably lead to edit warring.
Having read through it more than once I have concluded that it has become a parody of itself and is best left.
I haven't - but if you have the time and energy to engage with it point by point I would certainly take the time and trouble to engage positively with you and encourage some progress towards that end. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention that at least one major feminist group cut ties with her over that little rant ("we object to her stated views on race and religion. We do not agree that this reflects a feminist position.") [3]. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The news coverage is why the content, in some form, seems due to include. In 2023, The National reported that group in 2018 "cut links to Parker citing “her stated views on race and religion”", and then in 2022 further explained the group had acted because of what they said were 2018 tweets posted by Keen-Minshull. [4] Woman's Place UK posted their clarification on 22 June 2022; Keen-Minshull received coverage from Pink News about the campaign announcement in September 2022 [5].
Also, the The Spinoff states Keen-Minshull "has described Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has in the past promoted conspiracy theories, as “an intelligent, really lovely, welcoming, warmly welcoming man”." [6] Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@PaleCloudedWhite I think that's a perfectly reasonable characterization of her quote and I oppose removing this content. I don't know why you're saying "it's sourced to PinkNews" as if that's a bad thing. PinkNews is green on WP:RSP. Loki (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
What WP:RSP actually says is: There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject.
PaleCloudedWhite’s comments above about the full quotation on the hijab demonstrate why caution should be exercised when using PinkNews as a source. And the assessment of PinkNews as reliable for facts has no implication that everything said in PinkNews must be included in Wikipedia. The quote about Tucker Carlson is trivia, and has no place in an encyclopaedia.
Sweet6970 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

KJK is pro women's and children's right. She is not anti-trans. Remove all references to 'anti-transgender' and replace with 'women's rights and child safeguarding activist'. 78.143.208.137 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No, see above. --Pokelova (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you won't accept this edit request. KJK is not anti-trans, she is just pro woman's and children's rights. Your answer of No, see above, doesn't explain why you have false information on the page. Update223 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

New Shaun Video

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new video by leftist creator Shaun has released that talks extensively about Keen. Expect a large amount of edits in the next few days.

Also: I am a fan of Shaun, but please do not make lengthy, partisan edits to this page; it has remained fairly neutral over time, and does not need an extensive amount of detail as to everything Keen has done that you think is bad. If you think an edit should be made, discuss it here in the talk section or it will probably be reverted almost immediately. ThinkeyKong (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Rules for editing this article

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
continued in the "Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally" section below

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Beccaynr: When I go to edit this article, I see the following notice:

You are subject to additional rules when you edit this article.

If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:

Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

As far as I can see, this means you should not have restored any of the text which I deleted. I suggest you self-revert, and explain here what relevance your text has to the subject of this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Sweet6970, I have self-reverted the partial restoration and move of the content [7]; from my view, this content appears to be relevant and not a WP:COATRACK due to the focus on the rally and the similarity to other content already included in the article, i.e. the reaction from the PM in the preceding sentence. The content is reliably-sourced, and inclusion appears supported by NPOV policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to request that Kelly Jay Keen not be described as an anti transgender activist but rather a women’s rights activist. Kelly Jay Keen advocates for the safeguarding of women and children and the protection of women’s rights. It is in accurate to describe her as anti transgender any more than you would describe her as anti pedophilia or anti rapists. Rather, she promotes the rights of biological women to safety, dignity and privacy. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/05/allow-women-and-girls-speak-sex-gender-and-gender-identity-without?fbclid=IwAR1c_sr2gZ4MWcfYcwZ-M1cftGGCKoXsZFLkfDlrOl8N5VM5NBmh-ESq3tI_aem_th_AeOHyeh2-z5I_y6bLgnz2WYMMr_jN-55HmFR7xMSpjwWO8C9cWL4Yan5Xzucnwbo5wI MadamebutterflyEdits (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally please see the FAQ at the top of the talk page, as this issue has been discussed many times. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Lidia Thorpe

Latest comment: 9 months ago37 comments7 people in discussion

I see that Blurryman has commented in the section above ‘And, to move further towards some kind of balance in the article, other parts of the existing text should also be removed, such as the lengthy mention of the police response to the behaviour of senator Lidia Thorpe, where Keen-Minshull had no involvement.’ I agree that the behaviour of Lidia Thorpe is irrelevant to the subject of this article, and I propose that the text ‘including senator Lidia Thorpe, who on video footage of the rally appeared to be pulled to the ground by police after she approached Keen-Minshull while shouting "you're not welcome here.”’ be deleted from the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think if content from reliable sources about Keen-Minshull (such as a high-profile protester rushing her and getting pulled to the ground at her rally) is pruned from this article, we could end up with a brochure article, otherwise known as an "advertisment masquerading as an article." This article could end up reading like an itinerary of her rallies and activities, without encyclopedic context reported by reliable sources.
This event had ongoing coverage in e.g. Guardian (24 Mar. 2023), BBC (24 Mar 2023, includes statements from Thorpe, and "Police say their professional standards unit is now investigating" - this source also notes Keen-Minshull denies links to the neo-Nazi group that attended her Melbourne rally on the previous weekend). In an encyclopedic context, I think the brief mention of Thorpe at Keen-Minshull's rally is WP:DUE to include and appears to be part of the coverage related to Keen-Minshull and her rallies. Beccaynr (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Beccaynr: You have provided sources showing that the incident with Lidia Thorpe was reported, but you have not given reasons as to why this should be included in an article about someone else i.e. K-J K-M. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the sources show Thorpe is a high-profile figure who received wide coverage in the context of Keen-Minshull and Keen-Minshull's rally, including secondary coverage. Inclusion of what happened at Keen-Minshull's rally appears WP:DUE based on the coverage, and exclusion seems contrary to WP:NOTPROMO policy - if this article is pruned to only say e.g. "Keen-Minshull had a rally in Melbourne; then she had a rally in Canberra," etc, I think the article would start seeming like a brochure, instead of an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources and policy. Beccaynr (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
You say: I think the sources show Thorpe is a high-profile figure who received wide coverage in the context of Keen-Minshull and Keen-Minshull's rally, including secondary coverage. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me as if you are saying that this coverage is about Lidia Thorpe. This is my point – this article should not be used to give information about Lidia Thorpe – its purpose is to give readers information about K-J K-M. Therefore, the inf about Lidia Thorpe is not due in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I am saying the brief mention in the article of Thorpe is based on coverage of what happened at Keen-Minshull's rally, and to Keen-Minshull, and the coverage appears to further show Thorpe is a high-profile figure (which seems to further support inclusion). So the coverage shows this is coverage of Keen-Minshull and what happened at her rally, and is therefore due to include. As Daniel Rigal notes below, a slight expansion may be warranted based on the extensive coverage about Keen-Minshull and her rally (which includes Thorpe's participation and secondary coverage). I agree the purpose of this article is to give readers information about Keen-Minshull; according to applicable content policies, this information is based on reliable sources, with encyclopedic context. Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
A lengthy digression about Thorpe would be undue but that's not what we have here. We have one sentence which is perfectly due, demonstrably on-topic for this article, perfectly neutral, both in tone and content, and perfectly well referenced. In fact, it might even merit a little expansion, although absolutely not to the point where it becomes a lengthy digression. DanielRigal (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
DanielRigal: I do not see how the sentence about Lidia Thorpe is ‘due’ or ‘on topic’. Please explain. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
If this is not completely self-evident then I don't know what to say. Maybe it is best if I just refer you to Beccaynr's reply above. DanielRigal (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not ‘self-evident’ that material about Lidia Thorpe is ‘due’ and ‘on topic’ for an article about someone else. Please also see my reply to Beccaynr above. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the question is - why are we trying soooo hard here? We choose what to include and we have accumulated loads of properly cited but properly dead wood in this article.
let’s pick a few of the best, most appropriate examples and clear the decks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Just to say also, to couch it in your terms User:DanielRigal too many ‘one sentences’ can and have ended up in a lengthy digression. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
If there was a lengthy digression then I would be against it but there really isn't. One sentence is not a lengthy digression, nor is this part of some other digression. This is basic, ordinary article content. I am not seeing any reason to remove it beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT phrased in subtle ways. If it were to grow into a digression then that would be bad but I think there is scope for one or two sentences here without even the slightest risk of it becoming undue. I get that there is a notional straw that beaks the camel's back but this absolutely isn't it. Why are we discussing this? What is this really about? DanielRigal (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think a short mention is due. Reactions to the article subject and her work that are covered by multiple reliable sources are very much on-topic for this article. It's not a coatrack. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


It looks to me as if there is not a consensus to include the text which I have specifically disputed, and therefore it should be deleted. But I suggest waiting a little longer in case other editors wish to comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

From my view, two participants in this discussion have supported inclusion based on core content policies and wide coverage sources, while a policy basis for exclusion has not yet been articulated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It is completely basic that a Wikipedia article should be about its subject, and not about something/someone else. Also see WP:COATRACK which I have previously referred to on this Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
And I have interpreted your prior reference to WP:COATRACK as a reference to WP:NPOV, and explained in detail here how sources support inclusion of content about what happened to Keen-Minshull at Keen-Minshull's rally. So even with this policy basis now articulated, the sources show how a brief mention in the article is supported; in addition, I think we should consider WP:NOTPROMO policy, as I outlined above, and what appears to be a clear risk of creating promotional content if encyclopedic context is removed. Beccaynr (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The article is about Minshull and her activities. This is about her activities. I wanted to make sure that I was not going mad so I took a look at Donald_Trump#January_6_Capitol_attack to see if that mentioned actions performed by people other than Donald Trump on January 6th. You know what? It does. It talks about those actions in limited detail and in the context of Trump's actions. The same thing applies here. No lengthy digression but we need to cover what happened at Minshull's event in the context of Minshull's involvement. We are not here to make this stuff sound any worse than it is but we are also not here to cover up that it happened and to launder Minshull's reputation for her. I think it is well past time to drop the stick on this one. Please. DanielRigal (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
DanielRigal: Since you have failed to provide any justification for including the disputed text, I think it is time for you to agree that the disputed text should be deleted – and drop the stick. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMO: we are not here to promote the views of Lidia Thorpe. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how a single sentence about an event that is very much to do with the subject of this article, and was covered in multiple RS, is "promoting the views of Lidia Thorpe". Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The disputed text including senator Lidia Thorpe, who on video footage of the rally appeared to be pulled to the ground by police after she approached Keen-Minshull while shouting "you're not welcome here.” is giving the views of Ms Thorpe – that K-J K-M is, according to Ms Thorpe, not welcome in Australia. We already have in the article comments made by Anthony Albanese, the prime minister of Australia, and I would agree to adding certain comments by Daniel Andrews, the prime minister of Victoria (see discussion in the section above). If we keep the text about Lidia Thorpe, we tell our readers nothing about K-J K-M, but we are giving publicity to the views of a politician who apparently has no significance outside Australia. The incident is mentioned in the article on Lidia Thorpe herself, and I do not see any justification for including it in the K-J K-M article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The BBC and The Guardian report on what happened at the Keen-Minshull rally in Canberra (including the presence of Thorpe, etc), so there is significance outside of Australia, although international coverage does not appear to be necessary to support inclusion, given the wide coverage that also existed nationally within Australia.
Keen-Minshull engages in a variety of activist activities, including rallies, and her rallies have counter-protesters; responses to her rallies and other activities also receive coverage. All of this information is about her and what she does, and we work according to core content policies to present information from a neutral point of view. The coverage about Keen-Minshull includes the context, which helps us build an encyclopedia article for our readers. If we remove this context, then we deprive our readers of what is available about Keen-Minshull. Beccaynr (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I understand your point; but do you really think that the inclusion of this, for example, improves our article?
In May 2019, a sticker stating "Women only. This is a single sexservice under the Equality Act 2010" that was produced by Standing for Women and designed to appear official was removed from a Dundee Railway Station bathroom door after station staff were alerted. Keen-Minshull denied that the group had placed the sticker in the station and said "We are fed up that the protected category of sex in the Equality Act is routinely ignored and are standing up and saying we matter too." 185.106.45.47 (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry. That was me not logged in. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Thorpe is extremely famous (or even infamous) in Australia, and her doings are widely covered. To give an analogy, if a protest march had happened in Georgia, and the politician had been Marjorie Taylor Greene, would we have given it a sentence? I think we would. Black Kite (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, come on. We are not promoting, or even really covering, Thorpe's views. We are briefly covering that there was a scuffle. A scuffle, at a notable event organised by Minshull. A notable scuffle that received non-trivial attention in Reliable Sources at an event organised by Minshull. There are well founded concerns that selectively omitting significant and relevant information risks turning this article into a brochure, CV or a hagiography. Citing WP:PROMO back at us doesn't cut it. I really don't think that trying to pull an Uno Reverse card is a credible move here. Please stop. DanielRigal (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
to DanielRigal : I’ve no idea what a Uno Reverse card is. I was pointing out that your view did not have consensus, and that according to the usual procedure on Wikipedia on BLPs, the material should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk)
You have absolutely no consensus to remove the content. You do not have a personal veto on article content you dislike. I reiterate that it is transparently obvious to me that it is validly referenced, due and on-topic content for this article and I remind you that multiple people have told you that it is valid. I guess you could start an RfC if you really want to but I don't recommend it. Nobody would get anything out of it. It isn't going to do anything other than waste a lot of time. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@DanielRigal: You seem to have completely misread the situation here. Blurryman originally queried the inclusion of this material. I agreed that it should be deleted. Lukewarmbeer is also in favour of deletion. You and Beccaynr are in favour of inclusion. That made a majority for deletion, so I could have legitimately deleted the material at that point. As I said in my post of 16:50, 14 August 2023, it looked to me as if there was not a consensus to include the text which I have specifically disputed, and therefore it should be deleted. But I suggested waiting a little longer in case other editors wished to comment. Since then, Black Kite has commented, and is in favour of retention. But even so, you do not have consensus to include the material, and it is for those who are in favour of inclusion to gain consensus for this. Sweet6970 (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The restriction on this article is "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." Beccaynr (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, indeed: if I delete the material, those in favour of reinstating it will have to get an affirmative consensus to include it. See also WP:ONUS : The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Good point Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
So, RfC? DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
If we have to. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the "changes" part in the CR restriction is designed to prevent the kind of disruption Sweet6970 seems to be describing - one user changes the article e.g deletes any stable portion (why not blank the entire article and write "Kelly-Jay Keen-Minshull is a woman's right's activist"?) and demands affirmative consensus be developed (that they assess) before restoration can occur. The entire article could be held hostage like this. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The CR restriction also appears subject to the usual exceptions, e.g. obvious vandalism, copyvio, BLP policy as described in the linked section. But unlike the change discussed in the above section (a user made a change by adding content, it was reverted, and we have been discussing whether, what, and how to include the disputed content), changes that remove stable content that is not subject to the usual exceptions appear to need affirmative consensus to support removal. To that end, I have read this discussion as an effort to skip the delete-revert part of the cycle, and as a way to constructively focus on the consensus-seeking part of the discussion about whether to remove the content. Beccaynr (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition of The Spinoff reference

Latest comment: 8 months ago19 comments5 people in discussion

I added a reference from The Spinoff (What you need to know about the anti-trans campaigner heading to New Zealand (March 21, 2023) [8]) that was reverted [9] with the edit summary "Not a WP:RS + no attribution, possibly second-hand." This source is not listed at WP:RS/P. At WP:RSN, I found noticeboard discussions [10], [11] which do not appear to indicate this is not a RS. The About us page for the The Spinoff includes e.g. "The Spinoff is subject to NZ Media Council procedures." I think this source should be restored as a secondary source; the "possibly second-hand" but verifiable content appears to help indicate the source is a secondary evaluation of Keen-Minshull. Beccaynr (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason for reversion is very obviously invalid. The source is plausibly Reliable. It is attributed to Stewart Sowman-Lund, "live updates editor and a reporter for The Spinoff". The claim that it is "possibly second-hand" is not substantiated at all and is of dubious relevance anyway. Where does that even come from? What actually is the problem? Where would we even start discussing that? I am at a loss to understand this reversion with that edit summary. I don't want to ascribe ill intention to it, as we all make bad calls sometimes in good faith, but that was not a good revert. I would reinstate it were it not that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". I understand why we have such rules but it seems that this could be making more trouble than it solves. If anybody was minded to game the system, and I'm not saying that anybody was in this case, then this restriction makes it a bit too easy to do so. So, what do we need for "affirmative consensus"? Does my affirming count? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I think edit summaries are not always a great way to fully explain an edit, so it would be good if there is a reasonable opportunity for Blurryman to further explain the removal, and for other editors to discuss whether the source should be included. Beccaynr (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
It is nearly two days now. I see that Blurryman doesn't edit very frequently, and I'm not inferring anything from him not replying yet, but I think the fact that it is currently 2-0 for inclusion should be enough to justify reinstating it in the meantime. I'm going to do that now. Obviously, if discussion picks up and the eventual consensus is otherwise then it can be removed again. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All I did was restore the article to its state before the recent removal of text, after which the new reference was added during the process of reverting that removal. The already referenced Pink News article clearly sets out the definitive evidence of the comment by Keen about Tucker Carlson, and adding more references doesn’t make it ‘more true’. In any case, that source is not mentioned in The Spinoff article (that’s what I meant in my edit summary by “no attribution”, sorry for any confusion); that article is a potted history of Keen’s campaigning career (“What you need to know about the anti-trans campaigner heading to New Zealand”), written six months after Pink News reported the quote, so, with nothing to indicate otherwise, it seems quite likely it was sourced from Pink News or even this Wikipedia article during research for The Spinoff article. Therefore, I don’t see what this new reference is supposed to add to this article, other than that The Spinoff article is yet another opinion piece critical of Keen. In the light of the recent requests, in the two discussions above, by Denaar, myself and others for a move to a better balanced article, the timing of such an unnecessary addition seems particularly inappropriate. And if it is okay to add this one, how many more reference links can be added simply because they include this quote?

@DanielRigal Really no need for your dismissive and derogatory ad hominem remarks. Not what one expects from a Master Editor. --Blurryman (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Add me to the list of ‘others.
On a separate note can I ask that, even if anyone feels aggrieved by a comment, just ignore it. Assume goof faith and even if you can’t - rise above. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Having read Blurryman’s comments above, I think that they have a point, and that this reference adds nothing of value and should be removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I've seen several people complain (on various articles) when something is sourced only to PinkNews. I don't think that that complaint is generally valid but when an additional good reference is available then it definitely makes sense to use it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • From a policy standpoint, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources, so particularly after the content about Carlson was disputed [12], the addition of a secondary source that finds the quote important to include in an evaluation of Keen-Minshull several months later seems to help support inclusion of the quote in this article. And as a general matter, as challenges continue to happen to article content, it may continue to be appropriate to add further sources to help demonstrate encyclopedic significance. The additional research conducted in other discussions recently opened on this Talk page seem to have created potential opportunities to further develop this article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
That's 3-2 in favour of removing The Spinoff reference, so I've done that. --Blurryman (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Blurryman, this is a discussion, not a vote, and according to WP:INVOLVED policy, Non-administrators [...] assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes.. I encourage you to revert your removal of the secondary source, so discussion can continue and perhaps other dispute resolution options can be pursued.
From my view, there has been no direct response to the value of secondary sources to the encyclopedia. In the above two talk sections, there has been advocacy to remove content from the article, so secondary sources have been offered to help support inclusion. In this section, it seems as if there is advocacy to exclude a secondary source because one contemporaneous source is sufficient to maintain disputed content? I think some additional time for further participation by other editors could be helpful. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Beccaynr: I realise this is an article with an editing restriction, but I don’t think that this means that an ordinary discussion has to be treated like an RFC, and only closed by a non-involved editor. Also, the page you linked to constitutes an essay – it is not a policy or a guideline, and I think it is completely irrelevant. There is a majority to delete the reference concerned. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED is part of a page that "documents an English Wikipedia policy" and is not labeled an essay; Blurryman appears to be counting participants ("3-2") and assessing consensus on an article with a consensus-required restriction, after participating in the discussion. Consensus is also policy, and is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority). So not only does it appear that according to policy, Blurryman should not be assessing consensus under these circumstances, it also appears the method used for suggesting a consensus exists to remove the secondary source is contrary to policy. Beccaynr (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Beccaynr: Your link on INVOLVED relates to admin actions. And the link on consensus says ‘A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached.’. The agreement which is ‘as wide an agreement as can be reached’ is that this reference is not to be included in the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
INVOLVED also applies to Non-administrators, as noted above. And this limited discussion here, with two participants discussing policy and guidelines in support of inclusion, with PAG discussion in support of inclusion continuing after there had been an decision by another editor to restore the reference, apparently based on an absence of objections (with a caveat comment that affirmative consensus might later be obtained to remove it), does not appear to be "as wide an agreement as can be reached", and also appears to be a decision that an involved participant in the discussion should not be so quickly making based on a headcount.
Blurryman had initially suggested the source is not an RS, but there appears to be no basis for this; Blurryman then suggests this news source is an opinion piece, but there also appears to be no basis for this; Blurryman then removed the source from the article after objections were responded to by other participants in the discussion. This just does not seem to be an appropriate exercise of determining consensus, based on the timing and involvement of the determination, and based on the further dispute resolution options we have as a regular course of editing. Beccaynr (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Re secondary sources, it was the INCLUSION of the quote about Tucker Carlson that was disputed in the edit by Zilch-nada as implying “guilt-by-association”, not the VALIDITY of the quote, the source of which in an audio recording is clearly identified in the Pink News article, so a second source is superfluous. In any case, as I pointed out previously, The Spinoff article makes no mention of its source, so its value in supporting the validity of the quote it uses is zero, and the content of that article is a far-from neutral report about Keen, with its references to her associations with “far-right figures” and her appearances on unspecified “far-right media networks”, with the obvious implications, but not a mention of the considerable body of opinion of left wing figures, academics, and mental health care professionals in the UK who support Keen’s position.
Re WP:TALKDONTREVERT, this did not appear to be an issue when DanielRigal, who had previously posted a comment, reinstated the link only two days after the issue was first raised, on the basis that “it is currently 2-0 for inclusion”. Indeed, this discussion was started as a proposal to restore the deleted additional reference, so with the rule that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", The Spinoff link should not have been added back before a discussion, as DanielRigal initially conceded before later doing just that.
Re “some additional time for further participation by other editors”, how long should we wait for further comments? --Blurryman (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I see that I am being trash talked by the guy who gave me a lecture on civility. I don't think this is going to get anybody anywhere. We need to get some more eyes on this. Maybe we should notify a few WikiProjects? DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
From my view, when DanielRigal restored the source, this was after a PAG-based discussion on the Talk page, waiting about two days, an absence of further objections, and DR included the comment, Obviously, if discussion picks up and the eventual consensus is otherwise then it can be removed again. The approach by DanielRigal seems different than what happened after discussion started again, including after my further explanation and PAG-based support for inclusion, to which no responses were made, and instead the source was removed about nine days later by Blurryman citing a headcount. I have previously added a notice to a noticeboard to try to widen participation; Wikiprojects listed at the top of this Talk page could be relevant place to post a neutral notice about current discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've notified all three with the exact same wording. DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition of The Spinoff reference

Latest comment: 8 months ago19 comments5 people in discussion

I added a reference from The Spinoff (What you need to know about the anti-trans campaigner heading to New Zealand (March 21, 2023) [13]) that was reverted [14] with the edit summary "Not a WP:RS + no attribution, possibly second-hand." This source is not listed at WP:RS/P. At WP:RSN, I found noticeboard discussions [15], [16] which do not appear to indicate this is not a RS. The About us page for the The Spinoff includes e.g. "The Spinoff is subject to NZ Media Council procedures." I think this source should be restored as a secondary source; the "possibly second-hand" but verifiable content appears to help indicate the source is a secondary evaluation of Keen-Minshull. Beccaynr (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason for reversion is very obviously invalid. The source is plausibly Reliable. It is attributed to Stewart Sowman-Lund, "live updates editor and a reporter for The Spinoff". The claim that it is "possibly second-hand" is not substantiated at all and is of dubious relevance anyway. Where does that even come from? What actually is the problem? Where would we even start discussing that? I am at a loss to understand this reversion with that edit summary. I don't want to ascribe ill intention to it, as we all make bad calls sometimes in good faith, but that was not a good revert. I would reinstate it were it not that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page". I understand why we have such rules but it seems that this could be making more trouble than it solves. If anybody was minded to game the system, and I'm not saying that anybody was in this case, then this restriction makes it a bit too easy to do so. So, what do we need for "affirmative consensus"? Does my affirming count? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I think edit summaries are not always a great way to fully explain an edit, so it would be good if there is a reasonable opportunity for Blurryman to further explain the removal, and for other editors to discuss whether the source should be included. Beccaynr (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
It is nearly two days now. I see that Blurryman doesn't edit very frequently, and I'm not inferring anything from him not replying yet, but I think the fact that it is currently 2-0 for inclusion should be enough to justify reinstating it in the meantime. I'm going to do that now. Obviously, if discussion picks up and the eventual consensus is otherwise then it can be removed again. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All I did was restore the article to its state before the recent removal of text, after which the new reference was added during the process of reverting that removal. The already referenced Pink News article clearly sets out the definitive evidence of the comment by Keen about Tucker Carlson, and adding more references doesn’t make it ‘more true’. In any case, that source is not mentioned in The Spinoff article (that’s what I meant in my edit summary by “no attribution”, sorry for any confusion); that article is a potted history of Keen’s campaigning career (“What you need to know about the anti-trans campaigner heading to New Zealand”), written six months after Pink News reported the quote, so, with nothing to indicate otherwise, it seems quite likely it was sourced from Pink News or even this Wikipedia article during research for The Spinoff article. Therefore, I don’t see what this new reference is supposed to add to this article, other than that The Spinoff article is yet another opinion piece critical of Keen. In the light of the recent requests, in the two discussions above, by Denaar, myself and others for a move to a better balanced article, the timing of such an unnecessary addition seems particularly inappropriate. And if it is okay to add this one, how many more reference links can be added simply because they include this quote?

@DanielRigal Really no need for your dismissive and derogatory ad hominem remarks. Not what one expects from a Master Editor. --Blurryman (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Add me to the list of ‘others.
On a separate note can I ask that, even if anyone feels aggrieved by a comment, just ignore it. Assume goof faith and even if you can’t - rise above. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Having read Blurryman’s comments above, I think that they have a point, and that this reference adds nothing of value and should be removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I've seen several people complain (on various articles) when something is sourced only to PinkNews. I don't think that that complaint is generally valid but when an additional good reference is available then it definitely makes sense to use it. DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • From a policy standpoint, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources, so particularly after the content about Carlson was disputed [17], the addition of a secondary source that finds the quote important to include in an evaluation of Keen-Minshull several months later seems to help support inclusion of the quote in this article. And as a general matter, as challenges continue to happen to article content, it may continue to be appropriate to add further sources to help demonstrate encyclopedic significance. The additional research conducted in other discussions recently opened on this Talk page seem to have created potential opportunities to further develop this article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
That's 3-2 in favour of removing The Spinoff reference, so I've done that. --Blurryman (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Blurryman, this is a discussion, not a vote, and according to WP:INVOLVED policy, Non-administrators [...] assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes.. I encourage you to revert your removal of the secondary source, so discussion can continue and perhaps other dispute resolution options can be pursued.
From my view, there has been no direct response to the value of secondary sources to the encyclopedia. In the above two talk sections, there has been advocacy to remove content from the article, so secondary sources have been offered to help support inclusion. In this section, it seems as if there is advocacy to exclude a secondary source because one contemporaneous source is sufficient to maintain disputed content? I think some additional time for further participation by other editors could be helpful. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Beccaynr: I realise this is an article with an editing restriction, but I don’t think that this means that an ordinary discussion has to be treated like an RFC, and only closed by a non-involved editor. Also, the page you linked to constitutes an essay – it is not a policy or a guideline, and I think it is completely irrelevant. There is a majority to delete the reference concerned. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED is part of a page that "documents an English Wikipedia policy" and is not labeled an essay; Blurryman appears to be counting participants ("3-2") and assessing consensus on an article with a consensus-required restriction, after participating in the discussion. Consensus is also policy, and is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority). So not only does it appear that according to policy, Blurryman should not be assessing consensus under these circumstances, it also appears the method used for suggesting a consensus exists to remove the secondary source is contrary to policy. Beccaynr (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Beccaynr: Your link on INVOLVED relates to admin actions. And the link on consensus says ‘A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached.’. The agreement which is ‘as wide an agreement as can be reached’ is that this reference is not to be included in the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
INVOLVED also applies to Non-administrators, as noted above. And this limited discussion here, with two participants discussing policy and guidelines in support of inclusion, with PAG discussion in support of inclusion continuing after there had been an decision by another editor to restore the reference, apparently based on an absence of objections (with a caveat comment that affirmative consensus might later be obtained to remove it), does not appear to be "as wide an agreement as can be reached", and also appears to be a decision that an involved participant in the discussion should not be so quickly making based on a headcount.
Blurryman had initially suggested the source is not an RS, but there appears to be no basis for this; Blurryman then suggests this news source is an opinion piece, but there also appears to be no basis for this; Blurryman then removed the source from the article after objections were responded to by other participants in the discussion. This just does not seem to be an appropriate exercise of determining consensus, based on the timing and involvement of the determination, and based on the further dispute resolution options we have as a regular course of editing. Beccaynr (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Re secondary sources, it was the INCLUSION of the quote about Tucker Carlson that was disputed in the edit by Zilch-nada as implying “guilt-by-association”, not the VALIDITY of the quote, the source of which in an audio recording is clearly identified in the Pink News article, so a second source is superfluous. In any case, as I pointed out previously, The Spinoff article makes no mention of its source, so its value in supporting the validity of the quote it uses is zero, and the content of that article is a far-from neutral report about Keen, with its references to her associations with “far-right figures” and her appearances on unspecified “far-right media networks”, with the obvious implications, but not a mention of the considerable body of opinion of left wing figures, academics, and mental health care professionals in the UK who support Keen’s position.
Re WP:TALKDONTREVERT, this did not appear to be an issue when DanielRigal, who had previously posted a comment, reinstated the link only two days after the issue was first raised, on the basis that “it is currently 2-0 for inclusion”. Indeed, this discussion was started as a proposal to restore the deleted additional reference, so with the rule that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page", The Spinoff link should not have been added back before a discussion, as DanielRigal initially conceded before later doing just that.
Re “some additional time for further participation by other editors”, how long should we wait for further comments? --Blurryman (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I see that I am being trash talked by the guy who gave me a lecture on civility. I don't think this is going to get anybody anywhere. We need to get some more eyes on this. Maybe we should notify a few WikiProjects? DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
From my view, when DanielRigal restored the source, this was after a PAG-based discussion on the Talk page, waiting about two days, an absence of further objections, and DR included the comment, Obviously, if discussion picks up and the eventual consensus is otherwise then it can be removed again. The approach by DanielRigal seems different than what happened after discussion started again, including after my further explanation and PAG-based support for inclusion, to which no responses were made, and instead the source was removed about nine days later by Blurryman citing a headcount. I have previously added a notice to a noticeboard to try to widen participation; Wikiprojects listed at the top of this Talk page could be relevant place to post a neutral notice about current discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've notified all three with the exact same wording. DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull/Archive_3&oldid=1175762148"