Talk:Michael Knowles (political commentator)

AfD Nomination - October 10, 2019

WP:BIO and its subset WP:JOURNALIST require for a journalist's minimum notability threshold that they are "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" as backed by sufficient third party source reporting as required by WP:NRV. While Knowles has scattered mentions through various news events he has been through over the years it isn't clear that he, in fact it doesn't seem like he, meets the third-party sourced notability requirements that were not "not a mere short-term interest" as described in WP:NRV and WP:NTEMP. - 2601:5C2:4380:6380:FDCD:863B:69D2:EBF1 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This article should be kept. The Daily Wire has him doing "The Michael Knowles Show," so that cuts the mustard for me. YoPienso (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO, this should be kept. There is a decent amount of RS coverage of this guy, indicating notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Obviously fails the notability requirements.Avocats (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Anti-transgender speech

When he was sprayed with lavender oil, he was giving an "anti-transgender" speech per RS, and the article should reflect that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

2 out of the 3 sources provided do not say 'anti-transgender'. Loksmythe (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That some of the sources do not describe the contents of the speech (possibly because they don't know them), does not mean we shouldn't we stick with the language provided by the RS which actually described the contents of the speech. That he's giving an anti-transgender speech seems relevant context, as that appears to be the reason why he was attacked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added information, and an additional source [1], on how the protesters deemed his talk transphobic. Loksmythe (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are we attributing the description to the protesters when the RS is the one using the 'anti-transgender' description? This makes it appear as if it's in dispute that the speech is anti-transgender when there is no such conflict in the cited sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Three out of four sources don't describe it as anti-transgender. Loksmythe (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That does not mean that there is a conflict among the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe you're incorrect in your assessment. Loksmythe (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please present a source then that disputes that the speech was anti-transgender. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessary. 3 out of 4 don't characterize it as anti-transgender. A negative does not need to be proven. Loksmythe (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources that characterize the speech as "anti-transgender":

• AP[2]
• Kansas City Star[3]: "The event, called “Men Are not Women,” at Royall Hall was open to the public and billed on social media as an anti-transgender speech... Knowles’ speech, laced with disparaging comments about transgender people... "
• The Hill[4]
• The Columbia Missourian[5]

Given that multiple sources characterize the speech as anti-transgender, with the Kansas City Star providing a description of the way in which the speech was billed and the contents of the actual speech, we ought to follow RS in this description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the body should note that lavender is a LGBT symbol for transgender solidarity.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I failed to locate in these sources where a neutral party directly linked to the incident is quoted stating this event was advertised as being “anti-transgender” or that the content of the speaking event was, generally speaking, “anti-transgender.” The Hill started the headline honestly, and then injected their own personal take on the event, that of which the author clearly did not attend. I admit I am basing that solely on the fact that The Hill provided only second-hand reporting of events, and significantly less information than others referenced overall. The KC Star, which had the most biased reporting, did not cite a single instance of Mr. Knowles, or YAF as promoting the event as anti-transgender. They too lead with the term in the headline and the first paragraph, failing to address it elsewhere.

The AP and Columbia Missourian appear to have re-used the same introduction as the aforementioned media outlets with regards to the leading paragraphs. It should also be mentioned that the reason for this is because it was absolutely not the point of any of these articles. Instead, the story for all of them is the fact that a student had assaulted an invited guest to the campus, and was arrested and charged for said crime. One article furthers the discussion with a university official within the scope of free speech on their campus. I’m pleased to see that this wiki entry has not been vandalized with biased ideology, and would recommend a brief review of the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial to users who find themselves inserting an ideology into objective discussion such as, “Men Are Not Women.” Just as Snooganssnoogans disagrees here, and others with them, it does not mean—nor should it be implied—that anyone is “anti-anything” unless explicitly declared otherwise. Psyburr (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Well put PsyburrMaximusEditor (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

quotations

why is the word genocidal not in quotations? it is a word she used verbatim. no use of the quotations gives the impression that the description is objectively accurate. 2001:1970:5117:3200:0:0:0:39BD (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Consensus is that there remains no primary topic. Hadal (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Michael Knowles (political commentator) → Michael Knowles
• Michael Knowles → Michael Knowles (disambiguation)

– Safe to say that this Michael Knowles is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Crusader1096 (message) 22:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: pages with content, like Michael Knowles, are ineligible as new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. Michael Knowles → Michael Knowles (disambiguation) was added to this request to satisfy that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. No evidence provided that Michael Knowles (political commentator) is the primary topic, as opposed to the well-established actor or the former MP. :3 F4U (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose per RECENTISM. I don't think he has been established as a primary topic enough to trump all the other Michael Knowles'. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing safe in it. There is very definitely no primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Agree that he is the primary topic for "Michael Knowles." BlueShirtz (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • And your justification for this is? He may well be the primary topic for Michael Knowles in America, but this is not American Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 17 March 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 28 March 2023

remove the line "Knowles is also known to hate trans people and has previously called for a genocide against them" -reason being defamation of character. 64.56.11.249 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's properly sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The source linked has even since changed the wording as it is libelous. 64.56.11.249 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Transgenderism

The Wikipedia entry uses the term “transgenderism” which is not a neutral term. It makes it into an ideology. I would use “trans persons” if possible. Otherwise, it elides the people involved behind a recent, polemical neologism 104.138.241.114 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. The issue is that the -ism in "transgenderism" isn't explained in the article, and as the clarifying quote "transgenderism as an ideology" does nothing but leave it open for guessing what is meant by "transgenderism".

As I go to the Daily Beast article quoting Knowles, his belief of what "transgenderism" seems to simply means the recognition of transgender people (or at least I struggle to see any other possible interpretation),

“Nobody’s calling to exterminate anybody because the other problem with that statement is that transgender people is not a real ontological category,” he added. “It’s not a legitimate category of being.”[7]

Kameloso (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. “Transgenderism” is not a word and it is something only right-wing people with a clear anti-trans bias use to describe trans individuals. It should be removed from this page. 2603:6011:4243:2000:AC9A:2B46:94D4:747C (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "anti-trans" bias, it is simply just their opinion of what they believe is reality and what is not. They just don't believe it is possible for a human to be inherently transgender (and to be clear, they believe it is possible for someone to believe they are trans which is why they refer to it as a mental illness). Just because you don't like that opinion doesn't mean they actually hate people who identify as trans. 142.116.121.165 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

But is "transgenderism" a state of being, or an ideology? Feels a bit odd to suddenly call for the abolition of "depressionism" just because it is a mental illness. Kameloso (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@142.116.121.165:

They just don't believe it is possible for a human to be inherently transgender (and to be clear, they believe it is possible for someone to believe they are trans which is why they refer to it as a mental illness).

That itself is almost a textbook definition of transphobia. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The current text reads

Knowles made legal threats to media outlets which reported that he was calling for the eradication of transgender people or the transgender community, stating that the outlets were being were libelous, and that he was referring to "transgenderism" as an ideology; critics considered the distinction to be meaningless.

with "transgenderism" in quotes. We are quoting him as using the meaningless transphobic neologism. I would suggest we expand the quote, to make it clearer what he said, then expand the critics considered the distinction to be meaningless into a sentence (with quotes from named critics) to make it clearer that what he said is meaningless transphobia. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If the critique is worded as something to the effect of "transgenderism" being doublespeak, then I think ought to make it agreeable to everyone as it will leave the Knowles quotes intact, and will be a lot easier to understand for anyone just skimming the article. - Kameloso (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove content form primary sources

A large part of this article is based Knowles’s own YouTube videos which are primary sources. This violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. Should we remove this content and replace it with reliable secondary sources? SKAG123 (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

Original 2021 photo used in the article (left) and the 2024 photo used since April (right).

The featured image of Michael Knowles in 2024 is obviously AI generated. If you compare the image to the 2021 one featured only months ago, it's not even the same person.

I suggest either reverting back to the 2021 picture, or taking a screenshot from his show or YAF speech. Voxelized Prismatic (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done for now, I've reverted to the 2021 image for now but I'll keep this edit request open so another editor can give their input. The image looks AI generated to me and at least one website is giving me a 58% likelihood. 〜 Askarion ✉ 00:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)