Jump to content

Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

Is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. 2.96.247.135 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

IP comment, 29 November 2022

This isn’t a factual article, it’s a hit piece. Blatant anti-woman propaganda by Wikipedia and the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.97.87 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen

User:TheTranarchist I'm not sure why the Media Matters article makes the claim that Hans is a Hungarian politician. He seems to be active in Norway, and I can't find anywhere that calls him Hungarian except the article we cite. I'm also not sure if we should cite Libcom for factual claims as it's not a mainstream media outlet. LarstonMarston (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

pings don't work if you edit them in afterwards so here you go ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@LarstonMarston: Thank you for pointing that out, and all your copyedits, very much appreciated!
Also thanks @Maddy from Celeste: for fixing the ping!
For reference I permanently watch all articles I write and the vast majority of those I edit, especially frequently, so no need to ping lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson appearance

It's probably worth a mention that Keen appeared on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' Here's the interview: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6301777547001 LarstonMarston (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just added it. LarstonMarston (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Alleged harassment of Susie Green

Keen's questioning by police for her alleged harassment of Susie Green was widely reported on by conservative and Christian media, as well as by WoLF:

https://www.trunews.com/stream/christian-mom-investigated-for-mean-tweet

https://conservativedailypost.com/police-investigate-mom-after-transgender-activist-makes-charge-against-speech/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/chilling-police-investigate-stay-at-home-mom-for-tweets-against-transgender/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/posie-parker-free-speech-warrior/

https://womensliberationfront.org/news/in-solidarity-with-kellie-jay-keen-minshull?rq=kellie%20jay%20keen%20minshull LarstonMarston (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Other notable conservative involvements

Appearance on a podcast for the National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/liberal-women-oppose-gender-ideology-listen-to-why/

The subject of an article for the Spectator: https://spectatorworld.com/topic/terfs-take-america/ (unpaywalled version)

LarstonMarston (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that the Spectator article is mentioned but the citation given is an NBC article mentioning it secondhand, that should probably be changed LarstonMarston (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Awesome Merchandise

Awesome Merchandise, a former manufacturer of t-shirts for Keen's "Standing for Women" campaign, removed service in 2021 and put out this statement LarstonMarston (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Positive reception

Some of the positively-written articles about Keen that we already cite should probably be quoted as reactions to her work. LarstonMarston (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Criticism by gender-critical feminists

Woman's Place UK removed Keen from a speaking event because they "object to her stated views on race and religion." (https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/05/30/changes-to-cornwall-meeting/) probably worth a mention. LarstonMarston (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

they oppose British GRA reforms but don't describe themselves as "gender-critical" as far as I can tell, so maybe the "Criticism by gender-critical feminists" should be changed to just "Criticism." LarstonMarston (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Another statement by Woman's Place:https://womansplaceuk.org/2022/06/22/womans-place-and-posie-parker/ LarstonMarston (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
just added it. LarstonMarston (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Social media

Should Keen's Twitter and Youtube channel be linked somewhere? LarstonMarston (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Biased. Harassment. Incorrect information

This Wiki has, quite obviously, been created by a trans rights activist in an attempt to discredit Kellie-Jay.

She is a women's rights campaigner. She believes,. correctly, that women are adult human females. She believes in the truth, in science and in biology.

When she states that 'transwomen' are men, she is correct. Sex is immutable. Humans can't change sex.

This is a biased and incorrect Wiki and should be removed from the platform. 212.139.147.217 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you believe is "incorrect" or "harassment"? It seems to me that everything is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Can you show that this article meets any of the WP:DEL requirements or is this just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? LarstonMarston (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Describing transgender women as women on Wiki is in accordance with WP:GENDERID. Take this up someplace other than a random talk page. LarstonMarston (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
If an article full of verified information discredits her, that's her fault. Last I checked she believes in sacrificing abortion rights and working with the far-right to attack trans people. That's not women's rights and it takes some serious mental gymnastics to frame it as such. It's amazing how the article is so biased and incorrect you can't point out any specific problems with it. In addition, please refrain from leaving bigoted screeds and misgendering people. If you have any suggestions to actually improve the article instead of shouting you don't like it, feel free to bring them up. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

The statements "expressed support for far-right activist Tommy Robinson" and "Keen has repeatedly expressed support for far-right English activist Tommy Robinson." are not backed up by sources.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/01/24/podcast-posie-parker-standing-for-women/ is attached to one of Melissa Grant's tweets of 30 January 2018. In the podcast Keen discusses Robinson from about 38 mins. She says of him, "probably is a racist and a yob", "opportunist", "insignificant man" and "mouthy yob".

When has Keen expressed support for Robinson at a "Let Women Speak" rally?

When has Keen expressed support for Robinson in a YouTube video?

https://www.youtube.com/@KellieJayKeen Paddykumar (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

1) In regards to the podcast: she says she has a gut feeling about those, but says there is no evidence he's a racist and that she hasn't seen any. Either she refused to look, or looked and pretended she couldn't see anything. She said she wasn't willing to commit to denouncing him because of that, and question who such denunciations serve. She calls him, a man widely acknowledged as the face of the far-right in the U.K., "insignificant" and asks why people care about him. She then says it's the fault of women and the left that he was able to step in, and then says 70% of men grooming girls are Muslim, while the statistic is the opposite and 70% are white. In short, she devils' advocates, refuses to denounce him, and claims there's no evidence he's a racist.
2) In Media Matters for America:
  • 2.1) Tweet 1, when told Robinson highlights a minority of cases to stir up hatred againt muslims, keen says he doesn't and there's no evidence repeatedly, and claims the left media is actually burying these stories. This is despite the original thread containing plenty of evidence he is. The OP says Robinson "has a tendency to only report on the Pakistani guys and claiming they only rape white children. Which is: 1. Lies 2. Shit reporting 3. Inciting racial hatred", to which Keen responds it's more likely white girls were groomed in these gangs and it went under investigated because of fears of being accused of racism". It's a large back and forth between the OP, whose worked with the victims and attests they were majority South Asian/Pakistani, and Keen who insists the majority were actually white despite no evidence or prior experience with them. The whole thread is Keen playing devil's advocate for Robinson and saying he exposed a hidden truth the left failed to.
  • 2.2) Keen posted that May 25th, the same day Robinson was arrested. The CBA stands for Criminal Bar Association, who prosecuted him
3) In regards to the tweet mentioning the podcast and Jean Hatchet's article, the fact that even her own side think she works with the far right too much should be a clue she's no angel in that regard.
4) Despite you trying to remove the fact, Hearts of Oak (founded by Tommy Robinson) was present in the middle of one of her rallies. A real feminist / radical movement of any kind would not permit the far right to be present in their rallies, and if they genuinely didn't know they were present, would denounce them when they learned. Even Helen Joyce speculates Keen may have known they were there, and notes she refuses to condemn them and doesn't care that they were.
In conclusion, the reliable sources seem to cover the issue and describe it pretty accurately. I have much better things to do than subject myself to Keen's awful youtube channel or sit through recordings of her rallies where her fans scream about the need to exterminate trans people solely to check if she mentions Robinson, so I won't bother. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Lia Thomas

@Paddykumar: it is OR to say that that was the purpose of her protest, when the only source you give is an opinion piece that does not mention Keen-Minshull. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The same goes for the paragraph below too, for what it's worth. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Transphobia in United Kingdom Category

I accidentally submitted my revert before the full comment, which would have suggested perhaps redirecting Standing for Women to here and adding the category "Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom"

Keen has no notability outside her anti-trans activism, so I feel the current category applies, especially as it's used for the articles of other anti-trans activists in the UK.

It might be worth it to make "anti-trans activists in the United Kingdom" or "activists that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom" a subcategory of "Transphobia in the United Kingdom" to refer to them instead, since we already have "Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom" as a subcategory there. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Intersectionality Victim

WP:NOTFORUM - This is not a general discussion forum about the article's subject. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



Keen is absolutely a women's rights advocate. Trans activists disagree with her message, and as with all intersectionality debates, women come out on the losing side. Advocating for safe spaces for biological females is pro-woman. If that excludes biological men, that doesn't make the position it anti-male. That the biological male is trans is not the point. It's about the woman's point of view. The position of trans activists seems to be that a biological male can claim to speak for and demand women's things to the detriment of biological women. Some argue she is thus the victim of anti-woman sentiment. LJM184968 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

She has not proved it is to the detriment of women though, and neither do you by merely asserting so. She has also come out against abortion rights, widely regarded by feminist campaigners as a leading women's rights issue. So on that high priority issue, she is against, or willing to sacrifice at minimum, women's hard-won rights. frankly if you asked my opinion it should be changed to anti-trans and anti-women's rights campaigner. That would be much more complete and accurately describing her position on these issues. 2601:601:8782:C5D0:0:0:0:DBB9 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the ultimate oppression of women to have men dictating what can and should happen in women's spaces simply because they identify with what they perceive womanhood to be. Pre-operative trans women in particular can create understandable discomfort in women's changing rooms because they don't have even the approximation of women's bodies. Why should anyone get to impose such discomfort for women in the most traditional women's space? People can and should be able to disagree and debate. This is healthy and important for a free society. The use of slurs to make one side seem automatically less moral is inaccurate and not constructive. By the way, I am a New Yorker w a doctorate degree and I did so at a time when that was much harder for women. I'm a libertarian too. And I absolutely think there should be limits on abortion. It's not an anti-woman position. Broad brush statements rarely hold up. There's context, nuance, and complexity to most things. LJM184968 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wanting the government involved in medical decisions that are between individuals and their doctors, to limit access to types of effective care, particularly when its provably safer than any back-alley stuff is not a libertarian position. You are authoritarian as well as anti-woman. 2601:601:8782:C5D0:0:0:0:DBB9 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

And if trans discomfort is the underpinning of the demand to let them use women's spaces, how can you doubt that the presence of pre-operative trans women in a changing rooms can likewise have a detrimental effect on at least some of the women in there? You ask us to assume the hurt on the trans side but you require scientific evidence for the women? And us the solution then to require the women who might be uncomfortable to leave their own spaces in favor of men who wish to identify as women? This is the ultimate marginalization of women. LJM184968 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias

This a massively biased hit piece which assumes everyone believes in trans activist ideology and the view that woman is someone who says they feel like a woman. 90.255.204.248 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GENDERID trans women are referred to as women. Where is it assumed that the reader believes in "trans activist ideology"? Keen certainly doesn't; this article just describes her activism and views. LarstonMarston (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent Influx of Editors

So for those who don't know, the recent influx of editors on this page is due to Keen's tweet where she states "The defamatory page about me on @Wikipedia @JWalesF has been semi protected and cannot be edited. All edits in the history have been undone. The sad little incels are ensuring the lies remain." Aside from the childish insults, this seems to have been shortly after the inclusion of the detail that a woman at her rally was quoting Hitler, which was widely reported on even featured on her youtube channel.

To clear up any confusion for these incoming editors: screaming the article is full of lies and biased without pointing to any factual inaccuracies is not going to do anything, and only serve to make you look foolish. Additionally, we will not deadname or misgender people, out of human decency and the MOS:GID policy.

If there are any "lies", feel free to specifically point them out and a more experienced editor will see to correcting them. Note, a true and verifiable piece of information you don't happen to like is not the same thing as a lie. For the record, "anti-trans activist" is how the majority of reliable sources describe her, and since we stick to the sources, "women's rights campaigner" is unsupported. Working with the far-right (and under-reported stuff like the whole Nazi Barbie thing) and support for losing abortion rights doesn't exactly convey support of "women's rights" for that matter. The reason the page was locked in the first place was that people kept on trying to add that term, which was completely unsupported by sources, or remove factual statements they didn't happen to like. For reference, if unsure about whether a source is reliable, see WP:RSP.

In terms of accusations of bias, the article contains only what Keen is notable for. It is not the fault of any editor, Wikipedia, or news publication, that the only thing Keen is notable for is vociferously opposing transgender rights, and not much else. You may agree with such views, but to deny that's the only thing she's notable for is ridiculous. The article contains only factual statements supported by sources, and references most if not all of the reliable sources discussing her and her work. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Biased

This is the single most biased article I’ve ever read on Wikipedia. I thought it was a requirement of Wikipedia to provide a balanced view and especially when dealing with individuals. Shame on you. 92.19.133.231 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

we have plenty of citations for our claims, feel free to read them. LarstonMarston (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Claims from biased low quality biased sources are not legitimate. MahdDogg (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Please see my reply below. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Please change 'anti-transgender' to 'women's and children's rights' activist 78.143.204.161 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Feel free to read the article and the sources cited that support our current wording. Cannolis (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Please get in touch with reality and stop holding up falsehoods as legitimate sources. You should not be the arbiter of what is factual and not on this page, as it has a clear and defamatory bias against the subject. MahdDogg (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:V so you can understand what counts as reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. Also possibly WP:RGW and WP:NOTTRUTH, for context. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

I suggest to remove/replace the section title "Harassment of transgender people". The reason I suggest this as she has never been convicted of harassment and there could be a legal issue with Wikipedia allowing this to be stated in this way. ResidentAmerican (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see cited sources. We simply report what reliable sources say. Also see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS Cannolis (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

Kelly-Jay Keen-Minishull is not an Anti-Trans Activist, she is a Woman's Rights Activist. Please make that change. 24.234.170.116 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please see the many cited reliable sources throughout the article that support our current phrasing. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Ask Kellie-Jay. She approves of the change. How can wikipedia insist on keeping wrong information? X10 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Because wikipedia follows reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

This article is a total hatchet job on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshul. This bias of the writers is extreme. This article needs to be withdrawn and a new one commissioned from a fair and balanced view. Kimiko Hiroshige (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an edit request, and Wiki articles aren't "commissioned". Is there anything you believe is wrong or missing, and can you back it up with reliable secondary sources? LarstonMarston (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Change anti-trans to pro-women. She speaks about and on behalf of women, LJM184968 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't what the reliable sources say. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Untrue 87.115.233.67 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide one? Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Kjk is and always has been an advocate for women's rights. Calling her anti trans is just men's way of saying they are mad because she tells them to let women speak. TheLadyBadger (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"anti-trans" activist

Little more explanation here since my revert submitted early. "Women's rights" activist means fighting for women's rights. Not once in reliable sources does Keen actually do that, since harassing transgender women (who are also women), working with the Heritage Foundation, and calling for armed men to enter women's bathrooms to police who can go in (since trans people are the one's saying men should enter women's bathrooms to cause violence...) has less to do with women's rights than transphobia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Trans women are men. Everyone knows it, no matter how loudly you shout it. That's the reason for the "trans" label. 173.217.195.26 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
We disagree, and I could say lots of terribly impolite things in response to this, but it's also not even relevant. This is a pure factual claim. The subject of this article campaigns against trans people, and does not campaign for increased rights for women, even specifically cis women. Therefore, she is an anti-trans activist, and not a women's rights activist. 3mi1y (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Keen is an activist for the rights of women, rights which are being encroached upon by biological males. This has been stated by the subject many times on many platforms and published in many forms of media. To change this to "anti-Trans" activist is vandalism of Wikipedia and opens the platform to defamation claim. TheTranarchist is vandalising an encyclopaedia in order to push their own personal views and not reflect a truly factual portrait of the subject. MahdDogg (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, I single-handedly wrote all of the articles in dozens of reliable sources that describe her as an "anti-trans" activist. Allllll me... Fun fact, page consensus here is that calling Keen - a women who's said its fine to lose abortion rights in order to attack trans people - a "women's rights" activist, is vandalism, not supported by reliable sources, and blatantly untrue. If you want to check out my user page, I actually have the algorithm by which I write articles such as this one outlined. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
100% Agree 87.115.233.67 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Anti-trans activist is simply the most efficient way to describe her. Its abundantly clear that attempts to switch from this description to a "women's rights" description is rooted in bias and an attempt at generating positive PR for the subject, which is not the purpose of this website. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I followed Keen's recent #LetWomenSpeakUSA tour and (although strongly opposed by trans-identified males and self-declared "allies") her clear emphasis was against pediatric medicalization of gender-anxious youth and for the preservation of single-sex spaces such as prisons, sport, rape and domestic-violence shelters. Would "women's rights activist focused on single-sex spaces," work for you, perhaps with accusations of "anti-trans" bias noted elsewhere? That seems more in keeping with Wikipedia:NPV. Rorybowman (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I followed Keen's recent #LetWomenSpeakUSA tour too and it was strongly opposed by trans people and allies because her clear emphasis was in support of forcibly detransitioning transgender minors (which should be met with equal horror as forcing a cisgender child to take cross-sex hormones against their will and mandating every pretend it's ok) and support for the government-mandated exclusion of trans women from spaces such as prisons (to send them to mens' prisons' where its an open secret they'd be raped or beaten by the guards and other prisoners), sports (no matter their stage of transition, times on various hormones, etc), and rape and domestic-violence shelters (since they may face higher rates of rape and domestic violence than cis women at the hands of the very same men but some very loud cis women might be uncomfortable with the mere existence of those icky transgenders). Would "anti-trans" work for you and continue to describe baseline reality? Perhaps with her thin veneer of labeling herself a "women's rights activist focused on single-sex spaces," noted elsewhere? That seems more in keeping with WP:NPOV. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect, this is your biased lens putting falsehoods in the subjects mouth. Her emphasis is, and always has been, on Trans identifying children not being pushed into medical transition before the age of 18. How TheTranarchist is allowed to even come near articles like this and spread fictions and lies in order to demonise a living person is utterly beyond me. MahdDogg (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Nah it's all correct, I just expanded on the euphemisms to describe the facts of the matter. I'm here because unlike you I use reliable sources instead of screaming into the void and casting aspersions, and I've written several articles about anti-trans groups and activists (such as this one). Trans identifying children not being pushed into medical transition before the age of 18 is a thinly veiled euphemism for banning transgender youth from transitioning. I myself transitioned before 18, and anyone who argues trans minors shouldn't have the right to transition is at most charitable an idiot and at least charitable outright cruel and bigoted. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment on the content, not the contributor. See arbitration advice surrounding this. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RoryBowman, I do not mean to be rude, but suggesting you "followed" her USA tour is inaccurate and blatantly dishonest. You were present at her Tacoma stop where children were pepper sprayed and a 14 year old Black girl was called racial slurs. There is video of you there in a green beanie that says "Rory" and you can be seen engaging in physical confrontations as well as getting in the faces of counter protesters. I do think you should step back from editing as striving for neutrality is essential. If I was a man who has engaged in physical violence while acting as security for the subject of an article, I would remove myself from the editing process for the sake of my own credibility on this site. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Just checked to verify this and it indeed seems true based on this (Redacted) of the event. Definitely a WP:COI that should be disclosed. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Collecting references to this subject by reliable sources

I'll be adding to this later, and encourage others to do so as well. Rorybowman (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Before someone points to it and tries to change the article again, please note that the Daily Mail, the only one in this list using the "women's rights" wording, is not considered a reliable source here. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 02:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It should also be noted, the express and star and guernsey press are both just reprints of UK news, not two separate sources. The times, which has a reputation for it's anti-trans line, does not call Keen a feminist, it presents a false dichotomy between being feminist or pro-trans (which are absolutely not mutually exclusive), then also calls her a "gender critic". I've never seen the term "gender critic" before in my life before this (and given my extensive research on the anti-trans movement, I should have seen that euphemism at least once before) and it seems to be the latest rebranding of gender-critical and has only been used to describe Keen in the last two days in only some publications. The only source you listed that provides WP:SIRS coverage of Keen is in fact the National, which describes her as "anti-trans", and also mentions her links to various white supremacists and islamaphobia, which should probably be in the lead. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to add my own tuppence ha'penny, I also don't see the reliable sourcing for "women's rights activist" in the lead. That she's an anti-trans activist is surely not in dispute, is it? Are there sources saying that she's a supporter of trans rights? OsFish (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Of course not, but "anti-trans" sounds bad, and people who agree with her want to make her sound good instead (because who could possibly argue against a women's rights activist?) ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 15:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I've encountered this issue on multiple pages over the years. People seem to confuse Wikipedia's neutrality policy with being some sort of duty to be nice about people, or to be a platform for how that person wants to be known. If someone in the real world behaves in a certain way, resulting in reliable sources describing them in a manner they don't like, it's not for Wikipedia to help them or, what seems much more the case here, their supporters, to manage their PR. By the time Wikipedia gets to treat the subject (ie after RS has appeared), the horse has already bolted.OsFish (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Other sources to consider

  • The socialist newspaper The Militant has reported: A peaceful demonstration by women’s rights campaigners critical of gender ideology was attacked by antifa thugs and so-called trans activists here Nov. 14. Police arrested nine attackers after they surged against police barricades and hurled threats against the women.... Keen had canceled an Oct. 25 tour stop in Portland, Oregon, after threats of violence, including one by an antifa leader who organized a fundraiser to buy weapons. The police refused to offer her any protection. The following day in Tacoma, Washington, a Let Women Speak rally of 30 was disrupted by over 200 thugs. Some wore brass knuckles and attempted to slam female speakers to the ground. “We peaceably assembled for our free speech and we were mobbed,” Amy Sousa told the press. At least one woman had her fingers deliberately broken by an attacker.[1]
  • In 2023 the feminist website Reduxx reported on a trans rights activist "fantasizing about the brutal murder of Posie Parker and her colleagues at an upcoming women's rights demonstration in Glasgow."[2] Brendan O'Neill writing in Spiked reported the activist "wrote despicable violent tweets about someone driving a car into one of Kellie-Jay Keen's gatherings of gender-critical women, so that we might see TERFs 'exploding like bin bags full of baked beans on your windshield'"[3]
  • At least one trans activist was arrested Monday for disrupting a rally featuring a British women's rights campaigner speaking out against what she believes is the erasure of women's rights and the danger of experimental gender medicalization in children.... Kara Dansky, the author of The Abolition of Sex: How the 'Transgender' Agenda Harms Women and Girls and president of the U.S. chapter of Women's Declaration International, secured the permit for the #LetWomenSpeak event. She believes that the silencing tactics of trans activists and the legacy media are part and parcel of the larger strategy to squelch and ignore their voices.[4] --Animalparty! (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    To the Militant, I see no editorial board/policies/guidelines, no WP:USEBYOTHERS, and no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. The language is also glaringly ridiculous, I roll my eyes practically back into my head whenever anyone refers to "antifa" as a cohesive or singular entity, "antifa leader" practically lets me see out the back of my head.
    Reduxxx is so far from a reliable source I don't know why you even included it. They have no known editorial policy/guidelines or corrections policy, no USEBYOTHERS (except in incredibly unreliable sources such as breitbart, the daily mail, and a slew of anti-trans blogs), and reliable sources have described them as an "anti-trans propoganda site" [1], "a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) website with numerous articles opposing trans women’s rights in sports and female prisons" [2], and "an anti-trans blog"[3]. Spiked is also dubiously reliable, and if a tweet were someone says "i would hate it if someone killed KJK" sarcastically is indeed noteworthy, at least source it to here
    The Christian post is dubiously reliable but seems ok. See past RSN discussions [4][5][6] The fact a trans protestor was arrested should be included, not sure if the other statements are especially necessary.
more relevant and reliable sources to include
    • A petition calling for Immigration Minister Andrew Giles to revoke the visa granted to British women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen has been removed by Change.org after they received legal threats. Keen, who appears online using the moniker Posie Parker, is a self-described women’s rights campaigner who argues that transgender people should not be allowed in single-sex spaces, and that transgender youth should not be able to access medical treatments. The petition on the online platform was launched by Melbourne based LGBTIQA+ rights activist Chris Johnson and it had attracted over 11,167 signatories before it was pulled.[7]
    • A rally in Glasgow led by anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen, also known as Posie Parker, was attended by anti-abortion activists, Holocaust deniers and anti-immigration campaigners. ... Sharing details of the day’s events in a thread on Twitter, an activist using the account name Euan Yours outlined the various figures who attended Parker’s demonstration. The account firstly pointed out Alistair McConnachie’s pro-UK Scottish group A Force For Good was at the rally. McConnachie was previously barred from UKIP for questioning the Holocaust. The pro-union group shared several tweets throughout the day about Parker’s rally in which Nicola Sturgeon was referred to as the “destroyer of women’s rights”. Among others, several members of the National Housing Party United Kingdom, which calls for a “complete halt to permanent settlement immigration”, were seen to have attended. The NHP also campaigns for an exit from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the UN Human Rights Convention and the European Court of Human Rights. Representatives from the Scottish Family Party were also photographed at the demonstration and held signs, which read “A man can’t become a woman. Simple” and showed blue and pink symbols representing people with ticks next to them. The Scottish Family Party’s policies include opposing ‘transgender ideology’, abortion and assisted suicide, hate speech legislation and protecting children from “vulgar and corrupting sex education”. Speaking with PinkNews at the counter-protest, attendees said Posie Parker’s rally did not represent Glasgow. “We don’t want to see this imported hate that we’re seeing right now,” Beth Douglas, 29, a co-convener of the LGBTQ+ wing of the Scottish Greens, told PinkNews. Douglas said Parker’s nationwide call for supporters prompted out-of-town travellers to come to Glasgow for Sunday’s rally.[8]
    • Posie Parker, real name Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, hit out at HelloPrint in a Daily Mail article over its refusal to make her merchandise. The company has been making “adult human female” stickers – and other items – for Parker for five years, including a t-shirt calling Nicola Sturgeon a “destroyer of women’s rights”, which was famously modelled by JK Rowling. The company claims it was not fully aware of her beliefs during that time, and says it needs “better processes” to avoid similar situations in the future. CEO of HelloPrint Hans Scheffer told PinkNews that the decision to refuse Parker’s orders was deliberate, commenting that the company has “no room for people who evangelise hate”. The firm’s boss added that if the company had known the context of Parker’s merchandise, they would not have worked with her. “We welcome people from backgrounds, and we’re proud that we are a company that expresses love instead of hate,” Scheffer explained. “Miss Parker frames her standpoint in a way that it seems HelloPrint is ‘anti-women’, but she does this to rationalise the fact that she’s excluding large groups of people who just want to be themselves.” ... The company said it cancelled an order from Parker in which she requested the statement “Are children safe (with these trans rights)? No, it’s being taught in schools” be printed. She also requested merchandise that described trans-inclusive legislation as a “sinister takeover” and “a direct threat to women”. HelloPrint said that it had decided that some of Parker’s slogans may seem harmless in isolation, but in the context of her work and other request, are anti-trans. “If we look at the complete picture, these designs are also meant to be printed as anti-trans material, saying only women (and men) have rights, trans people don’t. “Although two or three designs were not inherently offensive, viewing the content of the other designs and understanding the context, we can perceive all designs that were canceled as anti-trans/harmful.” ... Protest-goers were intent that Posie Parker’s rally was not representative of Glasgow’s values. Provocatively, in a lengthy online declamation on 2 February ahead of the rally, she stated that women who stand in her way will be “annihilated”.[9]
    • Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill was passed by a majority of MSPs in December with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon hailing it a ‘historic day for equality’. Yet it was blocked weeks later in an unprecedented intervention by the UK government who argued the Bill impeded on the UK Equality Act. Anti-transgender rights protesters Standing For Women gathered at George’s Square calling for a repeal of the Gender Recognition Act, telling crowds ‘the state is gaslighting’ them. ... Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill would lower the age people can apply to change their gender to 16, remove the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria for a gender recognition certificate (GRC), and reduce the time an applicant needs to live in their acquired gender. While it was welcomed by equality campaigners and the LBBT community, many opposed the reform, with the UK government arguing it could lead to gender tourism, and a disjointed law across the rest of the UK. In the 25 years since devolution, not British government has taken the step to stop legislation from Holyrood passing Royal Assent by laying a section 35 order of the Scotland Act 1998.[10]
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sahner, Vivian (December 5, 2022). "Antifa assault is blow to fight for women's emancipation". The Militant.
  2. ^ "Scottish Trans Activist Issues Chilling Death Threats to Women Critical of Gender Ideology". Reduxx. 21 January 2023.
  3. ^ O'Neill, Brendan (January 23, 2023). "The gender jihadists are out of control". Spiked.
  4. ^ Showalter, Brandon (8 November 2022). "Let Women Speak rally drowned out by trans activists before police intervention; 1 arrested". The Christian Post.

UK Government Misogyny Hate Crime Bill 2022

kjk opposed the proposed passing of The Misogyny Hate Crime Bill 2022, together with a number of other GC groups & anti Trans activists. The bill was not passed even though it was specifically aimed at protecting women & girls from harassment of any kind. Their reason for oppsing the Bill was entirely due to it giving the same protections transgender women as cisgender women. This goes to show that many GC individuals & groups are not fighting for for women's rights. kjk made a number of YouTube videos outlining her opposition to this bill 80.3.115.218 (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources discussing her opposition? Unless you have some then it's not something we can cover. Likewise if you have reliable secondary sources discussing the opposition but which do not mention a contradiction between her opposition and her claimed support for women's rights, then maybe we could mention her opposition but we could not mention any apparent contradiction. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Let me preface that I haven't yet dived deep into the references, and thank you @Beccaynr: for working on tightening up this article. The first paragraph of the lead states Keen-Minshull is: a member of Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, and a special advisor to the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF). Comparing the current and previous versions (e.g. [11]) Hands Across the Aisle doesn't appear to have ever been mentioned in the body, so its significance with respect to Keen should be examined. Similarly, WoLF is currently mentioned briefly. Other elements in the lead do not appear to be touched upon in the body, e.g. issues of puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and sports. Assuming these are what she is most prominently known for, the body of the article should reflect this. I'm glad the article is now less a laundry list of scandal and gossip and local events, as excess focus on details can easily obscure the big picture. If certain lead elements need to be given greater emphasis, they should be expanded in the body. If certain lead elements appear to be given undue prominence, they should be removed and/or relegated to the body. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree about the lead - I am still in the midst of an initial sweep through the article and sources, so I haven't fully focused on the lead yet. My general sense is some editing of the lead is needed based on the article content and sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Animalparty, I made some revisions to the lead, and I think there is still work to be done on the article, but I am done for the day. Beccaynr (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Section heading: "Biography" or "Activism"

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.


Hi LarstonMarston, with regard to your recent change to the section heading [12], I added the term "Biography" as a section title because "Activism" does not appear to be an appropriate title, per WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. I think "Biography" is a neutral description, due to the range of content in the section and the lack of sources describing all of the various activities as "activism". I would appreciate it if you could restore the "Biography" title of the section heading while we continue to discuss this issue. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll set it back for now. LarstonMarston (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much - I spent a fair amount of time reviewing sources and considering how to organize the article, and it was my attempt at presenting the available information neutrally and without original research; but I am open to continuing to discuss the structure and organization, as well as how to name sections, etc., and how these choices relate to our core content policies. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 19:53, 27 February 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.

"Relations with conservatives and the far-right" & "Criticism from gender-critical feminists" sections removed?

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.


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull&oldid=1141439658#Relations_with_conservatives_and_the_far-right

I am gonna be honest: This stinks.

And honestly, I wouldn't wonder if anything was going on. All of a sudden, critique of Posie Parker suddenly vanishing from wikipedia? Suspicious.

If the sources have not been adequate - is the normal behaviour on wikipedia not to first put a warning block about sources in that section first? Right now quite a lot of information is missing. 77.20.46.10 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the content has not vanished - when I made revisions to this article, I incorporated what appears to be verifiable and due content from those sections into other sections of the article. Per WP:BLP policy, we do not maintain unsupported or poorly-sourced allegations about living people and only add a warning about sources to the article or the section.
From my view, it also seemed contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies to have the specific separate sections, particularly after I reviewed the sources cited as support for the content. I also think having a more chronological biography is a more appropriate presentation of this particular content according to the core content policies. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The criticism of Parker by Julie Bindel has gone. The sourcing is fine for that, surely. Shouldn't that go back in? OsFish (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The source [13] is still in the article at ref. 33. Beccaynr (talk) 13:16, 6 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.

COI Concerns

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.


Another editor has noted that I was present at KJK's Tacoma event on 26 October 2022, where I was perimeter security and helped cover the retreat during which one woman's hand was broken, concerned this is WP:COI. I don't believe it is, but I would suggest that any editors with potential conflicts of interest disclose those here. Rorybowman (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rorybowman, I reviewed the discussion on your Talk page that you may be referring to, and I think it could be helpful to ask the COI Noticeboard for guidance on whether your connection is a COI according to the guideline. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 7 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.

Referencing Documentary of US Tour

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.


Plans for a documentary were referenced, so I added a link to the completed documentary at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLkUQH81Tts. These were reverted and current rules seem to indicate that any reversion must be discussed before substantive return. How can one reference that the documentary is complete? Its completion is mentioned at https://www.feministcurrent.com/2023/02/28/whats-current-kellie-jay-keen-releases-documentary-of-us-tour-let-women-speak/ and https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/kellie-jay-in-the-usa-let-women-speak, but how can this be added without similar reversion? Rorybowman (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If the documentary is of any significance, it will be discussed in independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I had removed the YouTube link per the WP:SELFSOURCE guideline; independent and reliable sources about the documentary would help support including content about it - but not blogs or other sources that lack indications of reliability. Beccaynr (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked at the sources Rorybowman cited above, and wasn't impressed. The feministcurrent.com piece is a single paragraph, and wouldn't justify inclusion even without questions as to its suitability as a source. The thedistancemag.com source is an anonymous blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Rory Bowman has a major COI as an associate of Minshull (he appears to have been present at some of her events) and really shouldn't be editing the article directly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but does attending an event create a relationship between the editor and subject? It seems wp:coi requires more than having been in the same building as someone. Are religious articles only the domain of atheists, and atheism articles the domain of Christians? I edit articles about food... And I eat every day :/ - read the wikipediocracy post about this and changed my mind Very Average Editor (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That is a discussion that wold be better placed at the COI Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Rorybowman is continuing to edit this article and recently removed pertinent content cited to an independent RS [14] - the reference to WP:SELFSOURCE in the edit summary does not appear to apply to this edit. Beccaynr (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, discussions regarding a CoI belong on the relevant noticeboard. As for the documentary, unless and until it gets significant coverage in WP:RS, I don't see why it needs mentioning at all. A passing mention of plans in the Los Angeles Blade don't seem sufficient to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed as to both, and we typically have multiple RS with greater depth discussing upcoming films to support inclusion, so I have no qualms about the removal on that basis. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 8 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.

Nazi barbie as a profile image - accusation or statement?

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.


Might be a bit controversial so bringing it up here. The article currently states Keen has been accused of using a Barbie doll in a Nazi uniform as her profile image on the social media site Spinster. This is based on the source using the word "accused" and sticking to the source. However, a quick verification with archive.ph shows that Keen has verifiably used the image as her profile picture. Would it be WP:OR to state it as a fact rather than an accusation? Failing that, to include the archive link as a reference? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we can only go as far as the source goes, which unfortunately links to a tweet, breaking the chain of reliable sources. That the accusation is clearly accurate is not for us to confirm. I'm also uncomfortable with linking to the archive. Again, although it shows the accusation is true, it's not really our business as Wikipedians to do journalism.OsFish (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
We don't do journalism but we do edit. It seems like a pretty trivial and flimsy thing to include, even if it turns out to be true. Wikipedia isn't a place to dump all the dirt that people fling on the internet, even if RS give a nod to it. Do any other sources substantiate it or make a deal about it (beyond saying "someone tweeted an accusation")? Mere verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The phrases "has been called" or "has been accused", when used on Wikipedia often warrant scrutiny of WP:PROPORTION: "Well, okay that's true. X did said Y. Why does it belong in an encyclopedia?" --Animalparty! (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
For a start, both the fact that she was accused of it and that she very obviously did it are true. Considering one of Keen's main criticisms has been her support for the far-right and constantly appearing with white-supremacists and saying "oops" as a defense when called out about it, the fact that she willingly chose to use a nazi barbie as a profile picture, which was covered in a reliable source, seems pretty due. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a difference between true and appropriate. Per WP:PROPORTION (policy) An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING (another policy): Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. There appears to be currently one reliable source, published only 2 days ago, the mentions the Nazi Barbie accusation. Thus, that accusation currently has rather little weight compared to other actions that have received wider and more sustained coverage (see also WP:RECENTISM). And even if several sources state "she was accused of X", the question remains of "why should Wikipedia include this?". Even innocuous statements can be used to imply or suggest more controversial things if placed carelessly or without context. Did X lead to significant controversy or impacts to to the subject, or is X just one of many things thing that happened? If we can't explain to readers why something is important to a biography without WP:OR, it's best omitted unless or until reliable sources allow for such. If a reliable sources confirm someone ate a peanut butter sandwich, that fact alone doesn't warrant inclusion. If the result from said sandwich was dying of a peanut allergy, then it becomes much more significant. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
If we can't explain to readers why something is important to a biography without WP:OR, it's best omitted unless or until reliable sources allow for such. - You don't need OR for anybody to get the significance, just stating it is enough. Anybody publicly dressing as a nazi or representing themselves online as one is due and relevant information, especially if noted in a reliable source. Even if the reliable source uses the newspaper speak of "accused", we simply use that too, and there is anyways no doubt that she did as it is publicly available information. In terms of proportion, a reliable source wrote a section on her links to white supremacists and noted she had a nazi uniform in her profile picture at one point. That is vital context, and the difference is clearly palpable. To your sandwich analogy, "this person's profile picture had a blue shirt on" does not provide anything and is verifiable but doesn't warrant inclusion, "this person has links to white supremacists, for example her profile picture was reportedly a barbie doll in a nazi uniform" is a verifiable piece of information that is extremely relevant and it's significance is expanded upon in the article so it very much warrants inclusion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Even in the one RS source that mentions the Barbie doll, it reads to me as almost an afterthought, an "oh and one more thing". The sentence is currently placed in a section "Relations with conservatives and the far-right". From reliable sourcing we don't know anything more than "someone on Twitter made this accusation". Do we know the context? Was the Nazi Barbie a long-standing part of her profile, or just a brief, perhaps poorly executed stunt, response, joke, or political statement (something like "here's what my critics think of me!")? Posting a dressed up doll does not on its own signify adherence to white supremacy, no more than dressing as Hitler at a costume party, tasteless as it may be, signify the wearer is an antisemite. Our job is not to record every shocking 2 day old controversy in stone: sometimes it takes some time to discern which outrageous incidents are just drops in a sea of scandal. Do you agree with the premise that not everything printed in RS must automatically be added to an encyclopedia? There are many problems with this article, and I am by no means a supporter or sympathetic to Keen (though controversial people as a rule need more WP:BLP scrutiny, which sometimes means defending an article, not a person). It is not surprising that supporters, or dispassionate observers, may find it objectionable. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I read it as more of the final nail in the coffin or the cream on the cake, best evidence saved for last. If it helps, we can include that Alejandra Caraballo, who is a public figure known for reporting on anti-LGBT legislation and rhetoric, was the one who made the accusation. There's literally no good reason to have a nazi uniform in your profile picture, and as evidenced by my archive link above this was not a one-off but remained her picture for 1-2 years. I do agree that not everything in a RS should be added, but having a nazi figurine as your profile picture seems due. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Your readings are different than mine, which is understandable. We should certanly not stretch to include Caraballo by name, since the source does not (although it links to her tweet), and too many extraneous names already clutter this article. What reliable sources claim the profile was up for 2 years? Be wary of reading too much into things because of unpublished sentiment. Note that there is currently no consensus for this sentence (which you took pleasure in adding). The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus and justify its inclusion is on you. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I had thought that linking to the tweet would mean we could just say she was the source without being too much of a stretch but I stand corrected. No reliable sources note that, a quick verification on archive.ph (it won't let me link to all the snapshots for some reason, but click history on the snapshot mentioned above) shows it was definitely present from at least July 2020 to February 2021, and with Caraballo's tweet being in October 2022 I estimated the range it had been up as approximately 1-2 years. I thought it's placement in the National article was giving it more weight, you thought less, regardless a WP:SIRS thought it was noteworthy and due for inclusion and we take the lead from them. While there is not consensus to include, there is not consensus not to, and in this discussion 2 for inclusion and 1 against. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Just a point about mentioning Caraballo: the RS news article links to her tweet. So I'm not sure it would be OR to mention Caraballo's name, if the material is included. Is there a general rule about this sort of thing? It feels like we're treading on eggshells when in a less controversial article, we wouldn't have a problem disclosing the source the RS was openly relying on.OsFish (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It might not technically cross the OR line, but it would be undue and disproportionate: giving more emphasis on Wikipedia to a point that wasn't stressed in the RS. Wikipedia articles should summarize sources rather than present or analyze them: the primary sources underlying a story or the font used or the section editor or the photographer credited may be verifiable to a reader, and perhaps significant for subsequent writers to make note of, but are generally not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
It's a blond Barbie in a black uniform, with no readable insignia. Over and above all the other 'doubts' raised above (which I agree with), anyone who knows this to be a Nazi uniform, knows them better than I do! Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There's a swastika armband and medal in the image. 74.14.50.64 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent removal of properly sourced information

The content removed was Keen has been accused of using a Barbie doll in a Nazi uniform as her profile image on the social media site Spinster. This was sourced to The National, which provided WP:SIRS coverage of Keen. They state she has faced criticism relating to allegations of racism, white supremacy, and ties to far-right anti-LGBT groups. In a section titled White supremacy allegations, they stated Parker was also accused of using a Barbie doll wearing a Nazi uniform as her profile picture on the social media site Spinster.

WP:BLPGOSSIP states Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The source is reliable, the information is verifiable (not just the allegation but that it's true for that matter), and it seems especially relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The removed text meets none of the requirements for WP:BLPREMOVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I can plan on replying more after I get some sleep, but in the meantime, I concur with WP:ONUS noted above, and per WP:BLPGOSSIP, we need to Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources, so this seems to be poorly sourced contentious material per WP:BLPREMOVE. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Beccaynr, to preface this, thank you for your work cleaning up the article and cutting down the overly detailed parts! It's already looking much better!
In regards to this accusation, I want to add that it wasn't an anonymous source - me and other editors above floated the idea it may be worth it to explicitly state Alejandra Caraballo was the one who made the accusation, as it links to her tweet.
In regards to the removal of It's Going Down, could you let me know your thoughts on its reliability in the section below? I published a breakdown of it's editorial policy and use by others there. I think there was also some more discussion about it at my ANI case. Also with regards to the Byline Times, it seems to have been concluded to be reliable with certain considerations in other areas/with other writers, some past discussions are referenced here [15][16][17]. They are signed up to IMPRESS, have shown use-by-others, and have are opiniated but don't seem to be factually unreliable.
For the Blasting News piece, while it listed as an opinion piece, it was also an interview with Keen and only used for some minor non-controversial biographical details that seem to not be covered in any actual RS. Not sure if that's includable as an edge case but I'll defer to your expertise on that.
With regards to In January 2021, Keen was criticised for calling for armed men to enter women's public bathrooms to "protect" cis women from the entrance of trans women. - this was reliably sourced to PinkNews, but is also mentioned in the National, and seems very due. Not sure if it belongs in the personal views section but it should probably be somewhere.
Finally, with regards to the Australian visa revocation campaign, at the bottom of this talk page I listed some sources including one that mentions it that I'd appreciate it if you could include: details about the cancellation of a printing company contract, some current information on the petition (it reached ~11,000 signatures but it was taken down due to legal threats), and information on the attendees at her Glasgow rally. I'd include those myself but if there's been one take-away from the ANI case it's that I shouldn't be involved directly editing this article so I'm just sticking to the sidelines and offering only thoughts on sourcing considerations. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi TheTranarchist, I am trying to carefully review sources and the article content in accordance with core content policies, and I appreciate your patience with the process. From a discussion organization standpoint, I would appreciate it if separate sections or subsections could be opened for each issue, to help prevent discussion from becoming difficult to follow, and so we can mark sections as closed when there is a resolution.
With regard to the content sourced to The National - this source states "Parker was also accused of using a Barbie doll wearing a Nazi uniform as her profile picture on the social media site Spinster." To follow up on the potential WP:BLPGOSSIP issue noted above, in MOS:WEASEL, it states, A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis, and that seems to be what is happening with how The National presents this "accusation", which per MOS:ACCUSED is another word to watch, and we should ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.
There is a link to a Twitter account, but it is not attributed by The National. The Twitter account is blue-checked, but my understanding is this no longer verifiably identifies the owner of an individual account, and regardless, per WP:BLPSPS, we should Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. The Twitter account also appears to compare the smaller image of a profile picture (that does not include a Nazi armband) with a larger image (that includes a Nazi armband) that is not displayed in profile picture.
Overall, WP:BLPSOURCES notes When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources, and I think this also relates to whether this material is WP:DUE to include. The National briefly mentions an accusation but does not verify the accuser nor the content of the accusation, and we have other core content policies to consider, including WP:NPOV and WP:OR (e.g. our own analysis of the tweet, the tweet author, whether the Spinster profile is controlled by Keen, etc), that also seem to weigh against inclusion of this content at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Beccaynr above, who has phrased my thoughs on ONUS more eloquently than I would have. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I do not concur with Beccaynr. As already noted above, this is easily confirmed information. Hardly contentious when she herself did it. Nor is it weasel words to report what the article itself states.Frond Dishlock (talk) 01:56, 21 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.

This article is not factual or objective

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.


Wikipedia has a history of presenting factual and objective information as much as possible. It is sad to see that Wikipedia has abandoned the policy of objectivity by taking one side in the transgender debate. Kellie-Jay argues that the rights that transgender people demand conflict with womens rights. I would expect there to be a fair discussion on this topic, and wikipedia showing pro's an con's. Instead, Wikipedia calls Kelly-Jay an anti-transgender rights activist. She is not. She is a women's rights activist. Please, let's go back to when Wikipedia was a platform for factual and unbiased information instead of a platform where decent people who fight for a cause are defamed. X10 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

My change in the article was reverted because "it does not meet BLP requirements". The change I made is what Kelly-Jay herself wants the text to be. How can wikipedia say the text should be opposite to what the subject of the article wants it to be? X10 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
What Keen wants the text to be has absolutely no bearing on what it should be. I am aware of no wikipedia policy that says a public figure has the final say on how they should be described on Wikipedia. Instead we stick to the reliable sources, which in this case tend to overwhelmingly use "anti-trans activist", please see the past talk page discussions and archives. Also, I just want to note the irony in the idea that Keen, who has vociferously opposed self-identification for the past few years, should be described as a "women's rights" activist just because she identifies as one. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I've made some edits to remove some material that appears solely cited unreliable sources, and I've added tags where source reliability is unclear to me (e.g. Byline Times) or other places where (potentially) unreliable sources are cited in-text. There are very real sourcing issues with this article, and cleanup is going to be needed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I would not border login. However I would like to state that this is a bibliography of a person, where the self image should always have a place. Therefore, if the article only quoting the MSM's opinion on her, without quoting her own description, it can hardly claim to be fair and objective. 2403:5814:B2E6:0:F56C:C7F8:4FB9:2EE (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a history of presenting factual and objective information as much as possible
Is any information here not factual?
Kellie-Jay argues that the rights that transgender people demand conflict with womens rights. I would expect there to be a fair discussion on this topic, and wikipedia showing pro's an con's
This falls under WP:FRINGE. What exactly are the pros and cons of, for some quick examples: saying all trans people should be sterilized, minors should be forcibly banned from transitioning, trans people should be legally excluded from using public spaces, and abortion rights should be sacrificed to get all that done?
Instead, Wikipedia calls Kelly-Jay an anti-transgender rights activist. She is not. She is a women's rights activist.
That's not how sources describe her. More than that, she is not a women's rights activist by any stretch of the imagination. Even other gender-criticals have criticized her for repeatedly working with the far right and her insistence that attacking trans people is more important than having the right to an abortion.
Please, let's go back to when Wikipedia was a platform for factual and unbiased information instead of a platform where decent people who fight for a cause are defamed.
All information in the article is factual and unbiased, if a list of things you've done makes you look bad that's on you not anyone else. Also, decent people is a bit of a stretch when you consider her repeated support of working with the far-right, her calls to sterilize all trans men, the unreported but easily verifiable calls to eradicate all trans people at some of her rallies, and her literally choosing a nazi barbie as a profile picture.
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
"sterilize all trans men". What does that mean? A man cannot give birth, if a person can, they're not a man. If by "sterilizing" you mean vasectomy, I'm sure no one asks for men to have a vasectomy. X10 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
In a stretch of WP:AGF, I will assume you truly have no idea who trans men are, so I just linked it for you. A man cannot give birth, if a person can, they're not a man - we do not misgender people on wikipedia and there are discretionary sanctions for that, you are entitled to your opinion but not to loudly insist that trans people shouldn't be respected as their gender. In that case Keen was indeed referring to trans men, though misgendering them, and called for their sterilization, stating women who call themselves men should be sterilized. But if she was calling for the sterilization of trans women that would still be horrendous. Generally, calling for the sterilization of a minority you don't like is, most charitably, not a good thing to do, but on the other hand it does explain her choice of profile picture. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I have very specific objections to the use of a self-published statement from Freedom News and from Anarchist Federation. Neither of these are reliable enough for BLPs, and WP:BLPSPS is very strict about the use of self-published sources. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
First of all, Freedom News is a publisher organized as a collective; that source is not SPS, Anarchist Federation is an SPS, but nothing in the section I restored is a claim covered by WP:BLP sourcing requirements - these do not operate at the article level but rather in relation to specific statements for which these sources are used. All this material is part of the stable version of the article, and none of it consists of contentious material about a living person. (We have an essay, WP:CRYBLP, concerning attempts to exclude material on the pretext if BLP concerns that do not actually apply to the material removed.) Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If the content is not related to the article subject, which is this BLP, then it should not be in this article. I understand that we have that essay—you have linked to it before when reverting my edits—but that doesn't change the fact that we either have a BLP violation or we're including content in the article that does not verifiably relate to the article subject. Up to you as to which poison you'd like to pick, but the content sourced to the SPS has to come out in either, and should not be re-introduced until there is consensus to do so. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, please. The incident relates to the article's subject, and the SPS adds useful detail about the incident - and is attributed appropriately in the article text. The idea certain editors invoke that we can only use sources in an article for statements they make directly concerning the subject of that article is IMO simply a technique editors have of winning arguments against lazy or inexperienced editors; there is nothing in policy to suggest that our articles cannot add detail clarifying aspects of relevant topics using sources that address the incident or subtopic in particular rather than the topic in general. We are not, for example, forbidden from mentioning when an organization was founded, in an article about an activist or leader in that organization, just because we may have difficulty finding a source that gives SIGCOV to the leader while also mentioning the founding date. Even a SPS could be used for such information.
I believe it is customary to leave text that has been stable to the article in place, while its inclusion is discussed, with the exception of contentious statements about living people - which these are not. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Aside from this being a clear WP:BLPSPS issue, you're re-inserting text here sourced to a self-described agitprop group. Do you genuinely believe that the source is (1) a WP:RS and (2) WP:DUE in the text? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The anarchist source is reliable as an account of events according to people who attended, and is appropriately attributed. Since the event is DUE, I don't see why the additional detail is not also DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If I attended an event and then Tweeted about it, would those tweets be WP:RS and WP:DUE? There's a correct answer here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a track record of attending and blogging about political demonstrations? The answer depends on that, per policy, except for sensitive BLP material (which I excluded from what I restored). Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Newimpartial, Animalparty, and TheTranarchist: To RSN we go. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Newimpartial there's currently an ANI discussion related to this where it's been discussed a bit more in-depth. But summarizing here, for the Anarchist Federation source, there are I think valid concerns about self-published statements, since even though they were by an organization that protested her and may be reliable for their own statement, only the daily mail and breitbart corroborate them protesting her so it's iffy. For Freedom News, though you're right it's not a self-published source, and frankly I think the information is due and relevant, the bigger issue is it's a commentary piece, which they say includes opinion, so it may not be reliable even attributed. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Since I did not restore the text characterizing the article 's subject that was sourced to the Anarchist Federation source, I don't think the concerns expressed at ANI are relevant to my edit. In any case, ANI is not an appropriate venue to litigate content issues, as I hope we can all agree. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This article which originates from the Anarchist Federation, a direct action, agitational and propaganda organisation, is not appropriate, as as a WP:SPS: BLP or not, it's a terrible source. One of many problems in this article with WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION: this article unduly elevates fringe views, as if anarchy blogs carry the same weight and significance as ProPublica. This person has done many controversial things well covered in reliable sources: we don't need to scrape the barrel bottoms of extremist content to find another scrap of mud to throw. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why anarchist sources are stigmatized as extremist in a way that other BIASed sources are not. I don't see anyone treating right-wing think tanks or socialist publications in that way, particularly not ones with the long and respected publication history of Freedom News.
As far as the Anarchist Federation report is concerned, it is included in the article using appropriately attributed statements as an account of what happened. Nobody is using it the way a ProPublica report would be used. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
What distinguishes the use of the self-published statement from the Anarchist Federation from a random Tweet in terms of reliability here? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You are clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability. It carries at least the standing of a blog entry by someone who is known and who has a track record of self-publication on related issues over time. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
And would you also support including the views of the English Defence League if one of their members blogged about it? Or David Duke's newsletter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Generally speaking, fascists and white supremacists publish lies. Generally speaking, anarchists don't. So I'm not seeing a valid parallel here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
What I'm hearing is basically "this source is good because I like it". Where is the evidence this anonymous blog post is a WP:RS, when it screams highly questionable? Where is the evidence AF has a reputation for accurately reporting news, and/or is taken seriously by others (outside of AF)? Is it not simply user-generated content? It can't be a self-publshed subject matter expert, since we don't even know who authored it. It really carries no more weight or reliability than a guy walking by, taking notes, and posting his experience on Facebook. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it simply doesn't come from a reliable source. This is how rumors and falsehoods spread. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing anonymity with collective responsibility - the anarchist collective is exercising the latter.
The fact is, if someone regardless of gender identity walks by, takes notes about the demonstration, posts their notes, and continues to do the same thing for decades and is recognised for it in their community, then that souce is a usable SPS outside of sensitive biographical material (which this isn't). The fact that the material in question is authored by a collective simply means that the reputational question is collective, not individual. By no means does this situation imply that the material is unreliable, or that the collective publishes inaccurate reports. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Notating here that I've removed content sourced to this link, which is an inherently unreliable source. Anarchist blog that has no attribution, reputation for fact checking, etc is unreliable for this. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    First, commenting on how the source is used in the article: Keen has been involved with several conservative organisations, including the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, which aims to connect anti-trans radical feminists with conservative Christian anti-LGBT groups.
    • Her role in HATAC is also covered in the Byline Times, and other sources that cover Keen tend to use the same description when mentioning HATAC even when not explicitly linking them.
    She has advised American Republican Party strategists to focus on anti-trans agitation as a campaign issue, and has called on cisgender women to put aside divisions on issues like abortion rights and left-wing politics in favour of an alliance against transgender rights.
    • Her involvement advising Republican strategists and calls for putting aside abortion rights are also commented on by Worker's liberty, who IGD cite, and who provide a link corroborating the claim.
    It is also used for ...as well as an interview with Sebastian Gorka, previously Deputy Assistant to the President for Donald Trump.
    • This is sourced to photographic evidence of Keen appearing on his show.
    Second, commenting on how IGD is used by others:
    • The NYT cites them [18]
    • The Guardian cites them [19]
    • Vice cites them [20]
    • The SPLC cites them to report statements by other people [21]
    • The Los Angeles Blade cites them [22]
    • Buzzfeed cites them [23]
    • Media Matters for America cites them [24]
    • The Intercept covers them and describes them as an anticapitalist and antifascist collective that has covered the far right since its founding in 2015 in an article about how the far-right and Elon Musk have targeted them [25]
    • Snopes describes them as a left-leaning, anarchist media hub[26]
    • The Rolling Stone states An anti-fascist who goes by James Anderson – and is the administrator of the website It’s Going Down, which serves as both the chief news outlet and a digital town hall for antifa[27]
    Third, speaking to their editorial policy and submissions policy
    • They state they publish original content (such as the article in question) as well as boosting/republishing from smaller sources
    • Content may be reviewed and edited by the editorial collective at It’s Going Down.
    • They state Copyright and/or abuse claims can be made to: info [at] itsgoingdown [dot] org
    • They state Please proofread, edit, and fact check your piece. You can do this by linking to supporting facts or citing sources.
    In short, It's Going Down is an established anarchist news outlet with editorial guidelines that has been cited in reliable sources. The content they are used for in the article is all verifiable. As far as I can tell, they have received no criticisms for their coverage or been noted as unreliable or publishing false info by reliable sources, though I may be wrong and welcome others to double check that. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    My main takeaway from this discussion is an inclination from multiple editors towards a shitty, deconrextualized treatment of Anarchist sources, honestly. Each should be assessed on its merits, not based on whether it has "Anarchist" or "unicorn" in its url. Newimpartial (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Does assessing sources on their merits include not taking self-serving BS about anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability into account? It probably should... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Generally when assessing if a news publication is reliable, we look for its use by others, and reputation for fact checking and making corrections. How a publication describes itself is pretty low on the assessment criteria. How the publication describes itself is only marginally helpful in assessing for bias, but biased sources are not inherently unreliable on account of their bias. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Andy, at least I voice my prior assumptions out loud, instead of assuming with no evidence that a source with effective editorial oversight has none (as you did recently and The Wordsmith, even more recently). SMH. Newimpartial (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Please stop making crap up. It isn't going to convince anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Notwithstanding comments elsewhere in this discussion (I've not read everything on this talk page in the last couple of hours), Newimpartial is correct that The Wordsmith recently removed two reliable sources; Unicorn Riot, and People's World. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Andy, you said in this edit summary that you felt the source wasn't reliable. But there isn't any problem with the source except that it is a commentary piece and therefore WP:RSOPINION. You didn't make that (valid) objection at all. Newimpartial (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    I stated that it was "clearly not RS". It isn't, because it is an opinion piece, and we don't cite opinion pieces for assertions of fact concerning negative content in BLPs (or elsewhere, for that matter). If you really need this explained in detail in an edit summary, you clearly lack the competence to edit such articles. And no, I didn't feel the need to explain this further, given that Levivich had already done so. [28] Unlike some contributors, I am not of the opinion that disputes are best won by repeating things that have already been said ad infinitum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    You based your revert on a comment Levivich made 20 minutes after your performed it? I salute your acumen. Newimpartial (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    No. I based my edit summary on my assessment of the source and content. Given that it was obvious to anyone who even looked at the title ("some thoughts..."), I had assumed that no further explanation was necessary. Evidently I was wrong in this assumption, as it took Levivich stating the obvious later for you to acknowledge that the source should not have been used. For the same reason I determined that it should not have been used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    That's great. So you support restoring the non-RSOPINION content sourced to the reliable Anarchist sources, then? Newimpartial (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Too fucking stupid to merit further response... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Aren't editors supposed to focus on content? That's what I was told... Newimpartial (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with X10. Perhaps if there's some disagreement here we can say she is a "self-described women's rights activist" because that at least is factual. What is there currently - that's she an anti-transgender rights activist is not factual.
Then the second sentence - "Keen has used posters, billboards, stickers, and social media to promote anti-trans messages" would be more accurate as "Keen has used posters, billboards, stickers, and social media to promote language that describes women as females and which some groups find offensive." Maryewe (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a variety of reliable sources in the article that appear to support the description of 'anti-transgender rights activist', including recently, The New York Times, e.g. "a protest against transgender rights that was led by the British anti-trans rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull" [29]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Other recent sources: News.com.au describes her as "anti-transgender activist, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull" and states, "She describes herself as a women’s rights activist, but she is mostly known for her anti-transgender opinions,"; The Age describes her as "British anti-trans rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull"; The New Zealand Herald also describes her as "Anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull" and "the self-described women’s rights activist". I think it may be WP:DUE to include her self-description in beginning of the Biography section, near the part that states she is the founder of Standing for Women, because her self-description is occasionally mentioned in reliable sources, but I would appreciate input from more editors on this. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Are the three sources cited after the first sentence on this article the reliable sources you're referring to? Because these are just news articles: Vox, NBC News, and The National. They probably got their information from Wikipedia and so it is circular.
Kellie-Jay campaigns for female-only spaces. It's permitted to exclude members of the opposite sex from female-only spaces in many countries including the UK under the Equality Act. If this is anti-trans then the Equality Act is also anti-trans.
Another option is to change the first sentence to -
"Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, is a British mother to four children and the founder of the group Standing for Women."
This is at least more accurate than what is there now and not anything anyone would object to. Maryewe (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry that I do not have more time right now to identify every source in the article that appears to support the description of "anti-transgender activist", but please note this article was created on 19 October 2022‎, so it would not be possible for sources published before then to be based on this Wikipedia article, and sources in the article do not otherwise appear to fit within the WP:CIRCULAR guideline.
Also, please note per MOS:LEAD, the beginning of the article is based on the most important points in the article, as supported by reliable sources, so it does not appear there is support for an edit to change the beginning to describe her as "a British mother to four children and the founder of the group Standing for Women", because this is not how she appears to be routinely described in the preponderance of reliable sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
As regards your first paragraph, you might want to read WP:RS. As regards the accusation of circular sourcing, that can happen but exceptionally rarely with reputable news outlets covering actual news. When it happens it's normally relatively trivial things like the place of birth of a minor celebrity. You would have to show some actual evidence that this was the case here before we could even begin to take the claim seriously. That isn't possible without accusing the sources of possession of a working time machine because, as Beccaynr points out, we have sources predating this article's creation. As regards the suggestion to describe her as a "a British mother to four children" that is almost comically inappropriate. Is that all women are to you? Mothers? Anyway, that suggestion will be accepted on the same day that we describe Hannibal as a "Carthaginian elephant enthusiast". As regards all the rest you might want to read WP:FORUM and stop using this page as a soapbox. DanielRigal (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to suggest a change that is not biased. What is there currently is biased and disputed.
The BBC is the most non-political source and they do not describe her as anti-transgender. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45650462 from 2018.
It is more accurate to say she is a self-described women's rights campaigner who some people view as anti-transgender. Maryewe (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I would love to know where you got the idea that BBC is "the most non-political source". They're considered generally reliable in spite of their issues, but there is no quantification for what you claim. It's also telling that even though the source you give doesn't specifically describe her as anti-transgender, it is entirely about her campaign being accused of being transphobic. It also doesn't specifically describe her as a women's rights campaigner. Finally, newer sources tend to outweigh older ones, and newer sources overwhelming describe her as anti-transgender. --Pokelova (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It's based on those political bias graphs. The BBC tends to be in the centre. It's not perfect I agree but it's pretty good and one of the better sources.
And that's exactly the point - the BBC chose not to describe her with any language and given there's dispute about this then I think that is the fairest most unbiased approach. Just describe as the organiser and founder of Let Women Speak. Remove other descriptors that are open to bias and misinterpretation. Maryewe (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
"Political bias graphs" are not how we do things here, and you are attempting WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Pokelova (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I just answering your question as to why I think the BBC is one of the least biased sources politically.
How is it false balance to remove words that are biased, disputed, and inflammatory? Maryewe (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
They are none of those things. The vast majority of sources are in agreement. --Pokelova (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I personally find anti-trans to be one of the more neutral descriptors for such a thing. I'm not sure we should deviate from how RS overwhelmingly describes her because of some editor's views on the connotations of a word. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Whether something is or isn't anti-trans is a matter of perspective not fact. Sugarcoma (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
If Wikipedia really wants to be impartial the she's a women's rights activist and the opposing side are trans rights activists. Otherwise she's an anti-trans activist and the opposing side are anti-woman activists. 84.69.134.40 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
curious what part of being a "Women's rights activist" involved all the islamophobic comments she used to grift off before she focused on transphobia Little Miss Desu (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Why? Because the media parrots activists who consider her anti-trans? Describing her as having been accused or viewed as being anti-trans but being described as a women's rights campaigner is more neutral. There are other articles of women who hold similar views who are not described in that fashion. Sugarcoma (talk) 04:49, 27 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 20 March 2023

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.


This page has false information on it and is defamatory. 2A02:8084:D6C4:AC00:88E5:B5E1:1DCE:7D3C (talk) 07:35, 20 March 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. --Pokelova (talk) 07:40, 20 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.

Clarification of gender

Proposer retired, proposal outfired. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

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.


"...opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to be legally recognised as their gender" Proposed edit to insert one of the additional terms- opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to be legally recognised as their new/adopted/self identified gender. Similarly- "the use of public bathrooms by transgender people according to their gender" amended to- the use of public bathrooms by transgender people according to their new/adopted/self identified gender Peckanpoo (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The proposed language reads like a heavy handed way to call into question the validity of trans people's gender, something that has no place on wikipedia. Additionally, RS supports the statement without qualifiers. Please read WP:GENDERID Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not even remotely heavy handed to insert a single word twice amongst several thousands. Heavy handed would be something entirely different and biased. As per your linked document it's 'neutrality, verifiability and human dignity'. There is no misgendering at any stage.
But it's also just correct grammar to define the terms clearly so that any reader understands the sentence without the need for background context.
It is in no way diminishing or undermining towards trans people.
It could be as simple as "transitioned gender". Which is correct and without bias. It's fully respectful.
I would have thought a world wide resource had higher standards than a social media post.
"opposes laws and policies that allow transgender people to be legally recognised as their transitioned gender"
"the use of public bathrooms by transgender people according to their transitioned gender" Peckanpoo (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
"Transitioned gender" is not particularly common as an adjective instead of a verb. I agree with Filiforme1312, it feels a little weaselly. --Pokelova (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This suggestion appears to be original research, which is contrary to core content policies. As Filiforme1312 said, we use reliable sources to develop the content. Beccaynr (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
LOL. What a joke. Stay in your fake world where impartiality is dismissed by the loudest zealots.
Leaving this farce. Peckanpoo (talk) 06:32, 21 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 26 March 2023

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.


Changed “ Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, is a British anti-transgender rights activist” to “ Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, is a British women’s rights activist.” Microflights (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The sources and the article show she is both an anti-transgender rights activist and a women’s rights activist. Neither is particularly noteworthy without the other. The intro should include both. E James Bowman (talk) 06:57, 27 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 26 March 2023 (2)

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.


She is not an anti-trans activist but a women's rights campaigner. Gzdet (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
She is both, as covered in the article. E James Bowman (talk) 06:58, 27 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 26 March 2023 (3)

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.


Please stop smearing her name and what she stands for, Kelly-Jay Keen is a Woman's Rights activist, not an 'Anti-trans Activist'. I find it completely abhorrent what has been done to tarnish her image by the media. Please stop this. Stop trying to silence women. 92.237.77.2 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
She is both. If you want to strengthen the woman's rights part of her activism in the article, find notable sources that support that, and add to the article. E James Bowman (talk) 07:00, 27 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

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.


Kellie-Jay Keen is a woman's rights activist, not anti trans. CordyChase (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, there is ongoing discussion on this and related points above.-gadfium 19:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I have added an {{faq}} since this is brought up so much, modelled on the one here. -sche (talk) 22:44, 28 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.

Article becoming overly long - potential to split?

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.


I wonder if it's possible to create a "Let Women Speak" wiki page where some of the detail regarding numbers/political affiliations of those attending the rallies, etc. could be migrated. This could also potentially cool some of the intensity around editing on this specific page itself, which could focus solely on KJK and her own statements & media appearances (Gariépy etc) rather than those which are not necessarily under her control. Butheremails (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently 2,124 words, so per WP:SIZERULE, this "Length alone does not justify division". This article is also currently semi-protected, which is described as "useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest" and has hopefully helped cool some of the intensity. Also, not all of her rallies, speaker events, and protests have been reported as 'Let Women Speak' events (I had checked the sources before changing the subheading to a broader/more generic description), so this seems to be an additional challenge. I think it seems best for now to focus editing efforts on this article, especially given the recent flurry of news. Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I thought they were all "Let Women Speak" events, they're called that in the NZ Herald, Pink News etc. (also Daily Mail, but I know that's not considered a reliable source). It's also not just the length - it's also just a lot of detail re: attendance etc about specific events for the page of one individual. Butheremails (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The article has been extensively trimmed of excessive detail, with consideration of WP:NPOV policy and the weight of reliable sources, but specific concerns can still be discussed. Overall, I think the narrative of the article could become disjointed if there is an attempt to split out some rallies at this time. From my view, it does not seem to be a benefit to readers to have to navigate between two smaller-sized articles. However, this may be worthwhile to reconsider after the Australia/New Zealand phase of the tour concludes, because then we can assess all of the content and sources that have developed. At this point, it is not clear how much more content will be added. Beccaynr (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe. I doubt this will be the last event though. Butheremails (talk) 01:04, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull/Archive_1&oldid=1148129372"