Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

"Political career" - text removal and reversion

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

Do you not have any comment, DanielRigal? You did revert my edit and suggest starting this thread. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? I was hoping that you would articulate an arguable reason to remove the content but I don't see anything. You simply assert that it is "not noteworthy". Reliable sources have noted it, therefore it was demonstrably notable. The description of the Free Speech Union as being "anti-LGBT" is literally in the reference. (It's omission from their article strikes me as somewhat odd.) Again, what do you want me to say?

Anybody else want to add anything? DanielRigal (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Even when using a source regarded as reliable, that doesn't mean that everything included in the source should be included in our article, otherwise our articles would become extremely long, bloated with extraneous information. Let's take this one bit at a time, starting with the phrase ""During her livestreamed announcement, she promoted her own merchandise". I do not believe this to be noteworthy information because it is standard practice for youtubers to sell merchandise. It is also standard practice for political campaigns to require funding. Please explain why you believe that readers should be told that the article subject does something that is standard practice and thus unremarkable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not all you removed though, is it? So, is that really all you object to? If it is then, OK, I can see it. If taking out the bit about merch and only the bit about merch will resolve this then I have no objection. If anybody can find valid references to unambiguously support coverage of an allegation of grifting then maybe that's something that can be added later but the source we have doesn't do that and we should avoid anything that can be read as an insinuation. The absolutely key point here is that the parts about her comments condemning the hajib and making supportive comments about far-right media personalities absolutely have to stay. I am at a loss to understand why you removed those and are focussing solely on the merch bit here. So... do we have a satisfactory resolution here? DanielRigal (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. No, that one sentence wasn't all that I removed, but I thought it would be easier to discuss if taken one section at a time. So there's agreement about the merchandising. The next bit I'd like to look at is the line that says the article subject "said she would not boycott PayPal over their removal of service for anti-LGBT group Free Speech Union". Can you please explain, beyond just saying 'it's in the source', why you think this should be included? It doesn't make any sense to me, and looks like bad journalism (i.e. trying to make the article subject appear anti the whole 'rainbow alphabet'). Why is not boycotting Paypal (a service used by millions of people) deemed worthy of comment? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's stop wasting time. Please just say which parts, if any, you would be prepared to include? None of us are getting paid to be here so lets not make this more painful than it needs to be. Are you seriously claiming that the hijab comment is not relevant? DanielRigal (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may interject, doesn't the fact that Keen "said she would not boycott PayPal over their removal of service for anti-LGBT group Free Speech Union" tend to suggest her LACK of support for the allegedly "anti-LGBT group Free Speech Union"? --Blurryman (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Blurryman, yes, that is correct. If the FSU were indeed "anti-LGBT" and Paypal withdrew service because of this, that would make Paypal's action supportive of the LGBT banner, and thus the article subject's decision to not boycott Paypal would align them with Paypal's supportive position. This is a terribly worded sentence to have in the article because, on first reading, the casual use of "anti-LGBT" as an adjective for the FSU can give the impression, via a kind of double negative and general word association, that the article subject is also "anti-LGBT", when in fact the sentence says the opposite. If we wish to state that the article subject is supportive of the LGBT banner, then a clearer source should be found, and we would also need a source prepared to pick out nuances, because it makes no sense to assert that Keen-Minshull is both anti-trans and supportive of everything LGBT.
DanielRigal, your assertion to "stop wasting time" is extremely disappointing and unproductive, not to mention in opposition to the whole principle of discussing disagreements on talk pages. There is agreement that the merchandising bit can be dropped, now I wish to discuss another segment. I see this as making progress, not wasting time. If you do not wish to discuss these sentences then under Wikipedia's editing protocol you surely should not have reverted my removal of them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss this if you are willing to engage with this in a sensible way but this seems like sealioning. I'm not saying that you are doing that intentionally, but that is the effect. We don't have time to go item by item, one at a time, with a separate discussion for each. Please either say which parts you think are and are not acceptable content or just admit that you are unwilling to discuss the mater in it's entirety and that we are just wasting time here. Are you seriously claiming that the hijab comment is not relevant? Are we really going to have to have an RfC on that?

I'll can set out my position in one short paragraph without wasting time:

Remove the merch bit. Keep the Hijab bit and the Carlson bit. Clarify the FSA bit, if we can, and remove it only if it cannot be rendered unambiguously meaningful.

Can you do likewise? DanielRigal (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I boldy edited this part to remove the merch bit, and because I could not figure out a way to clarify the FSU non-boycott part that didn't seem WP:UNDUE (the source quotes Keen-Minshull as explaining "We love money that sounds nice, we love money that rattles, we love money that folds, we love all of it… A lot of people actually get merch on PayPal, so am I boycotting? No I’m not."), I also removed it pending further discussion. I am thinking it is a less relevant detail than the content that has been retained, which seems more relevant to the political campaign and other content in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I support the removal of those two items, and I can see that retention of the hijab reference is consistent with the article subject's 'self-description' as a women's rights activist. However, I think the reference to Carlson should also be removed, unless someone can explain the relevance and significance for this article of a polite and courteous remark about a television presenter she encountered who is not otherwise mentioned in the article. --Blurryman (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Carlson is not just "a television presenter". He is an absolutely key figure in contemporary American far-right popularist ideology. (OK, maybe not quite as key as he was a few days ago, lol, but still very important.) This information serves a role in letting our readers assess where keen-Minshull sits in the political spectrum and what alliances she chooses to make. Unlike competing claims that she is or is not far-right herself, this is just factual coverage of her statements. Carlson is mentioned at one other point in the article. If the quote about Carlson was consolidated into that then I think that would be OK but I don't think we can, or should want to, get rid of it completely. DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Do people have no answer to the comment I made above (11 days ago)? Do people really believe that Wikipedia should quote Pink News as saying Keen-Minshull "called the hijab atrocious" when we can see for ourselves that this is a misquote and misleading? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please separate the Australia and New Zealand content?

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

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

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

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

 Done Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

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

No, see above. --Pokelova (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan refers to the "big lie" (which is wikilinked in the article), notes the concept is described by Hitler, and uses that concept as applied to trans women - I do not think adding more detail makes it more clear, and it may be undue weight in the context of this article - the secondary sources report about this event in the context of Keen-Minshull, e.g. her reaction to this speaker at the rally she organized. Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The way it is currently written caused me to believe that she was saying that Hitler had said "The big lie is that trans women are women" which is not what she said, but perhaps the confusion is only on my end. 47.6.202.252 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing this more, I think I understand - I have updated the text to "speaker Lisa Morgan referred to "the big lie" concept, including that it was...", to try to clarify how she is talking about the general concept, then applying it specifically. Does that seem helpful for addressing the ambiguity? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. There's still some potential for confusion, but it would require misreading rather than closely reading the content. Thanks! 47.6.202.252 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, IP. I agree that adding "concept" is an improvement. The only other tweak that comes to mind to suggest is changing ...and said "The big lie is... to ...and said one "big lie is..., but I don't know if that would perhaps be doing inappropriately much to 'clean up' her quote and make it seem more sensical than it is, like how journalists have said they've sometimes tried to put complete quotations of entire sentences Trump said into articles and editors have insisted they cut the quotes down snippets that make him sound more coherent — even in her full quote, she muddles the issue, she says "trans women are women" is "the big lie", not "a big lie" or "one big lie", so I suppose what we have now is accurate (the incoherency comes from her, not Wikipedia). -sche (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

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