Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally

this discussion has been split from the discussion above to help organize and focus discussion about whether to include the following content:

After the rally, the Government of Victoria raised the transgender flag outside its offices, and Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews tweeted "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back," with a video. Andrews also said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes.

as this discussion has progressed, the proposed text has evolved somewhat to:

The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes, and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back."

---

Thank you, Sweet6970, I have self-reverted the partial restoration and move of the content [1]; from my view, this content appears to be relevant and not a WP:COATRACK due to the focus on the rally and the similarity to other content already included in the article, i.e. the reaction from the PM in the preceding sentence. The content is reliably-sourced, and inclusion appears supported by NPOV policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. I still don’t see the relevance of the material to this article. As I said in my edit summary: this is about the Govt of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, and the Tasmanian Govt. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article, which is Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. The text tells me nothing about K-J K-M – it is information about the attitude and behaviour of the various govts. It might be relevant if the article was about the particular rally, or the views of the Australian govts on transgender matters, but this is BLP about K-J K-M. And I can’t see how NPOV has anything to do with this. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

From my view, the content is WP:DUE because this article has a graf that begins with "Regarding neo-Nazi presence at the 18 March Melbourne event, following the event Keen-Minshull said" and includes her statement, followed by the Australia PM's statement about "an anti-trans rally, which is really disrespectful of who people are, and then it was joined by a bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes". Melbourne is located in the Australian state of Victoria, so the reaction of the Victorian government in response to the rally, and the statement of the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews about the rally and the Nazi salutes seems directly related, relevant, and WP:DUE as part of that paragraph, based on prominence of this government official and government action in the jurisdiction where the rally occurred, and the reliable source for the reactions.

I did not restore all of the content that you had removed, e.g. actions by the Tasmanian government; I restored only the part that seems to match with the content already included and directly responding to the anti-trans rally and the Nazi salutes. This is a recognition that yes, now that you mention it, getting into details of what various governments may be planning to do about neo-Nazi displays could be considered a WP:COATRACK in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I see something in your point about the comment by the premier of Victoria. How about just mentioning that Daniel Andrews said the rally was ‘nasty, hateful’? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As I continue to do research, it appears there is further support for including the flag-raising, e.g.

• Transgender pride flag flies at Victorian Parliament (news.com.au, Mar. 21, 2023) ("Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has revealed his government will fly the transgender flag outside its offices in response to rallies against members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Counter protesters clashed with the demonstrators who had gathered to see British anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who goes by the moniker Posie Parker.")
• What Treasury Place’s new LGBTQ flags mean – and why it’s impossible to fly one upside down (The Age, Mar. 22, 2023) ("We saw symbols of hate on the steps of the parliament … We thought it was the right thing to do to have some symbols of love, respect, inclusion and safety now at the front of the centre of government,” Andrews said on Wednesday. [...] Andrews said the trans flag will fly at Treasury Place until March 31, the International Transgender Day of Visibility.")

The Herald Sun also appears to cover this, but is subscription blocked for me. I think with this much coverage, the content about the flags seems supported, as well as the brief commentary highlighted by the original source, which seems relevant because of the prominence of the government official making the statement and the content already in that part of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree. The material about the flags is not about K-J K-M – it is about the actions of the govts. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources seem to report the flag-raising as a response to her rally, so from my view, this seems similar to statements made by the PM of Australia and Premier of Victoria; it is a response by a government entity to the same event. With multiple sources discussing the connection to the rally and the significance of the government response (the available sources are in-depth), inclusion of the summary that was in the article seems reasonably supported. Perhaps it could help to add the news.com.au and The Age cites for that part, because these sources seem to help verify the connection and significance. Beccaynr (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter how many sources you have, the flags are not relevant to this BLP. Note – it’s late where I am, and I shall not be responding further tonight.Sweet6970 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

clarification of discussion topic, explanation of section split and addition of disputed content to top of this discussion section

Minshull has made her view on the far right protesters clear. “Nazis are abhorrent, no right-minded person sides with Nazis, they have absolutely nothing to do with Let Women Speak.” See Pink News [2]https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/24/lilah-lilahrpg-posie-parker-kellie-jay-keen-minshull/ Associating her with the far right protesters here is inappropriate. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) According to WP:NPOV, we work with the independent and reliable sources; Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED based on what editors might consider inappropriate - this has been discussed so frequently it is a FAQ at the top of this Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Also, the content being discussed is not related to Nazis or attempting to associate Keen-Minshull with Nazis - this content is about her anti-trans rally, and the statement made by the Premier and the Victorian government in response to her anti-trans rally, similar to the statement in the article from the Australian PM, in response to her anti-trans rally. Beccaynr (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) I have to ask then why Nazi salutes were raised by one of the editors in this discussion. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Content about government actions being planned in response to Nazi displays had also been added to the article by another editor that I had copyedited; after it was added, I had mentally processed it as routine addition for activists, demonstrating impact, but Sweet6970 objected to it as a WP:COATRACK, and after thinking on it more, I agree. I have now split this discussion and added the disputed content currently being discussed here at the top of this section; I am sorry that I did not do this earlier and for not realizing that this discussion was already becoming a bit sprawling, but hopefully this refactoring will help organize and focus ongoing discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sweet6970, I am considering either seeking a 3O or posting a notice to the NPOV noticeboard to seek additional participation in this discussion. For the benefit of anyone arriving here, is it a fair description to say we currently agree on inclusion of the statement by Victorian Premier Andrews ("the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes") but there is a dispute over inclusion of the response by Premier Andrews/the Victorian government (the flag-raising and related statement by Andrews)? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support just saying that Victorian Premier Andrews described the rally as “nasty, hateful”, but I don’t think it is appropriate to refer to the Nazi salutes, because this implies that K-J K-M supported the Nazi attendance. As I have previously said, I think the material about the flags is irrelevant to this article, and should not be included. What is the NPOV issue which concerns you? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the phrase "even without the use of Nazi salutes" makes it clear that Andrews is distinguishing the rally from the neo-Nazi presence, and focusing only on the Keen-Minshull rally. And the nature of the response by the Andrews/Victorian government seems to make it more clear that the focus is on what is widely-reported as an anti-trans rally. We are also discussing adding content to the following paragraph:

Regarding neo-Nazi presence at the 18 March Melbourne event, following the event Keen-Minshull said "They're absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It's preposterous they even exist in 2023." The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, later made a statement that included, "In Melbourne on the weekend we saw an anti-trans rally, which is really disrespectful of who people are, and then it was joined by a bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes and slogans ... That of course should be condemned by all Australians".

Keen-Minshull denies association with neo-Nazis, states she abhors anything to do with them, and finds their existence preposterous. The Australian PM later says that in Melbourne an "anti-trans rally" happened, refers to it as "really disrespectful" to trans people, and appears to distinguish the rally from the "bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes and slogans." Similarly, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes. And he announced the Victorian government raised trans flags in response to the rally. Perhaps this slight rewrite proposal with further sourcing could help with the NPOV issue:

Regarding neo-Nazi presence at the 18 March Melbourne event, following the event Keen-Minshull said "They're absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It's preposterous they even exist in 2023." The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, later made a statement that included, "In Melbourne on the weekend we saw an anti-trans rally, which is really disrespectful of who people are, and then it was joined by a bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes and slogans ... That of course should be condemned by all Australians". After the rally, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes, and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back."

I also think there is a risk of misrepresenting sources if we exclude the qualification noting Andrews is specifically not talking about Nazis and specifically distinguishing Keen-Minshull from the neo-Nazis; we would seem to be doing something similar if we selectively quoted PM Albanese to remove the parts of his comment about the anti-trans aspect of the rally. Based on the available sources, Andrews appears to be distinguishing the rally from the neo-Nazis, similar to the statement by Keen-Minshull and PM Albanese, and responding as a prominent government official, similar to PM Albanese (as noted above, Melborne is in Victoria).

NPOV tells us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The statements and action by Victorian Premier Andrews/the Victorian government appear to have received coverage in multiple sources, including some in-depth coverage by The Age. So adding one line summarizing the statement of Premier Andrews distinguishing the rally from the neo-Nazi presence, and noting the action by the Victorian government led and announced by Andrews in response to the anti-trans aspect of the rally seems WP:DUE and proportional, based on the available sources and the content already included in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would accept expanding the sentence about Andrews to After the rally, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes.

But I still don’t see why and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back. should be in this article. This bit tells us nothing about K-J K-M, who is the subject of this article. It is about the Victorian govt. Beccaynr is concerned about NPOV, but has not explained how excluding this bit breaches NPOV. Beccaynr has quoted NPOV, referring to all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. But this text is not a significant view…. on a topic. The topic of this article is K-J K-M, not the Victorian govt. This has always been my point: this text does not have a place in this article because it is not relevant, and this has nothing to do with NPOV. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources appear focused on the topic of Keen-Minshull and her rally, and various significant views, including a response from Keen-Minshull, the Australian PM, and Victorian Premier Andrews/the Victorian government (which includes the flag-raising). The Keen-Minshull rally is widely-reported as an anti-trans rally, and the specific pro-trans Victorian government response to the rally is reported by multiple sources, and announced by Premier Andrews, so it appears to be a significant view on the topic of Keen-Minshull and her rally. This appears to be an NPOV issue because of the available sources, the proportion of the proposed text to be added, and the content already in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr, please explain (1) what information about K-J K-M is given in the ‘flag’ text; (2) how is the article not neutral if the ‘flag’ text is not included? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Unlike other content removed as a WP:COATRACK and contrary to WP:NPOV (about planned government actions to enact laws to address neo-Nazi displays, which did not appear to make a direct connection with Keen-Minshull), the sources cited appear to make connections directly to her rally (keeping in mind that this article has a large focus on her rallies), e.g.

• 'We'll always have your back': Victoria raises trans flag after 'hateful' protest (SBS, 21 Mar 2023, "In a tweet on Tuesday he said there was "a new flag flying outside the offices of the Victorian government", in a show of solidarity with the LGBTIQ+ community. [...] The gesture follows widespread outrage sparked by an anti-transgender rights rally in the capital Melbourne on Saturday on the steps of the parliament, where around 30 men dressed in black performed Nazi salutes. Mr Andrews said the rally - where UK anti-transgender activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull spoke - was "nasty, hateful" before anyone used the Nazi salute.")
• Transgender pride flag flies at Victorian Parliament (news.com.au, 21 Mar. 2023, "Counter protesters clashed with the demonstrators who had gathered to see British anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who goes by the moniker Posie Parker. It is not suggested she had any link with Saturday’s violence. The Victorian Premier slammed the protests and said his government would “always support” the trans community in Victoria. Now Mr Andrews has revealed the trans pride flag will be flown outside government offices as a sign of support.")
• What Treasury Place’s new LGBTQ flags mean – and why it’s impossible to fly one upside down (The Age, 22 Mar 2023, "Premier Daniel Andrews revealed that a transgender flag was raised on Tuesday in support of the trans community after an anti-trans-rights rally was held on the steps of Parliament House on Saturday and attended by neo-Nazis. “We saw symbols of hate on the steps of the parliament … We thought it was the right thing to do to have some symbols of love, respect, inclusion and safety now at the front of the centre of government,” Andrews said on Wednesday.")

I appreciate your engagement with this - I have been understanding your relevance objection as essentially part of the WP:COATRACK / WP:NPOV objection initially raised to remove the larger amount of text, so I have been attempting to demonstrate with sources and suggestions to move, modify, and further source the text as a possible way to incorporate a fair and proportionate summary that reflects what sources have reported about the Andrews response, as it relates to what is already included in the article, to address what I understand as your NPOV objection. If we didn't have sources that appear to make the connection, I would agree with you; I just think this one piece is supported and presents the more complete response from Andrews, because he/the Victorian government made more than a verbal statement, and this received notice from multiple sources (including several I cannot access). Beccaynr (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr, I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on this. You did once suggest asking for a Third Opinion, and I think this is now a good idea to resolve this matter. I propose that the text The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes. be added to the article, in the place you have suggested, and that the question of whether the following text should be added should be referred for a Third Opinion:After the rally, the Government of Victoria raised the transgender flag outside its offices, and Andrews tweeted "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back," with a video. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Sweet6970; I think this has been a productive discussion, and we should be taking particular care with a BLP. I am not sure if we still qualify for a 3O because Lukewarmbeer appears to have agreed to the revised proposal above (After the rally, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes, and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back.") but I will look into our options for increasing participation in this discussion. In the meantime, it looks like we have a consensus for the first part to be added to the article after the line with the statement by PM Albanese. I can add it (without what seems to be an excessive "after the rally" part of the sentence). Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sweet6970; this article is about Keen-Minshull, not the Government of Victoria nor its Premier. -- Blurryman (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The article scope is outlined in the lead; this article is about Keen-Minshull, including what she does, and reactions to what she does; the responses are secondary context and commentary that help develop the article. If this was at AfD, the multiple sources reporting reactions with a focus on her part of the rally (the anti-trans part) could help support keeping the article, because this appears relevant to her basic notability.

There also may be a risk of promotion if the article includes e.g. a statement from Keen-Minshull about her rally, but excludes e.g. widely-reported responses to her rally. This article is based on independent and reliable sources about her, which includes her activism, and responses to her activism, based on reliable sources and according to NPOV, e.g. what is due and proportional. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr, the 2nd para above could be misleading: I have never suggested that reactions to the rally should be excluded. There is already quite a long statement by Albanese in the article, and I am in favour of including a short statement about Andrews’ reaction, as I have said above. What I object to is the irrelevant material about the flags, which tells readers about the govts’ attitude to transgender matters, and which tells readers nothing about K-J K-M, who is the subject of this article. So the risk is about promoting the views of the Australian govts, not the views of K-J K-M. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Sweet6970, and I appreciate the clarification - I was trying to respond to Blurryman and did not want to speak on your behalf, and also wanted to add other perspectives that might help resolve this particular dispute over this specific content, based on my experience at AfD and the use of secondary sources about subjects of articles. From my view, when reliable sources offer secondary context and commentary, this can help develop the article, and help avoid creating articles that read like press releases created on behalf of the subject. We have discussed our perspectives on whether the sources support content that relates to the topic of Keen-Minshull, and I appreciate how this discussion creates an opportunity to review the sources for this particular dispute about this specific content. Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have posted a request for additional participation in this discussion at the Neutral point of view Noticeboard. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Coming from the NPOV Board. My overall impression is that this article is your typical WP:Recent article - any time the subject does something, it's immediately stuffed into the article, like the discussion here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Dan_Patrick, where a news story was incorrectly put on the biographies of anyone even slightly involved, breaing WP:Due

  One thing I notice - as I'm reading "United Kingdom" it's less about her and more about people's response to her. First rally, only coverage is someone speaking against her. Second rally, only talking about the counter protest. Third rally, only coverage is counter protestors. 4th, only coverage is one speaker that said something we can construe to "discredit someone through association". Is no one covering anything about these rallys other than the counter protests? Right now, all the coverage and details look cherry-picked, where none of the coverage is about what she did, what she said, or what she represents - but either people speaking against her or protesting against her.

  Separate note: I also noticed "Keen-Minshull is credited for popularizing the term "adult human female" to define a woman" - the sources connected to that sentence don't have the word "popular" in them, and Slate says it went Viral on twitter in 2017 [3]. Evidently this page is under special protection not to change anything without discussion so I didn't change it, otherwise I'd change it.

  Overall - I think this article needs a lot of re-work to meet WP:NPOV guidelines.

  On this specific topic, per WP:BLP, we should beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. News reports that say "someone held a rally, someone unsavory attended that rally" is guilt by association; including it is clearly meant to show a bias against the speaker. Denaar (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Denaar, in the discussion above, there appears to be a general recognition that the statement by Andrews is specifically not associating Keen-Minshull with the neo-Nazi presence at the Melborne rally, and instead making a comment about the anti-trans aspect of her rally (and also raising trans flags outside of government offices as a response). The article already includes responses by Keen-Minshull and PM Albanese, both distinguishing Keen-Minshull/her rally from the neo-Nazi presence. Premier Andrews' statement directly distinguishes Keen-Minshull/her rally from the neo-Nazi presence, and appears to be made in the context of the flag-raising response.

  And for the sake of orderly discussion, I request that other issues related to this article be raised in separate sections; this discussion is designed to focus on a specific content dispute - if it becomes a forum on other parts of the article, I am concerned that it will become more challenging to resolve the specific topic of this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would remove all reference to Nazi's attending the event - this is a biography. It has nothing to do with the subject. Denaar (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would instead move both pieces of feedback to National Socialist Network since they have their own page - it's been added there and associated with Keen-Minshull without any feedback at all. Denaar (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think that is a larger discussion, and outside the scope of "Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally" - there is wide coverage of the presence of neo-Nazis at Keen-Minshull's rally (and Keen-Minshull comments on the neo-Nazi presence), and I do not think NPOV nor BLP policy supports excluding the wide coverage of the presence of neo-Nazis at the Keen-Minshull rally; however, this discussion section is designed to focus on one line of disputed content related to responses to the Keen-Minshull rally.

  From my view, we seem to have a general agreement here about inclusion of a verbal statement from Andrews, including the part distinguishing Keen-Minshull from the neo-Nazi presence, but an ongoing dispute about whether the widely-reported response by the Andrews-led Victorian government to the Keen-Minshull rally (raising trans flags outside offices) should be included. Beccaynr (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, the presence of Nazis at her rally seems to be given such significant weight in sources about her as to certainly be due. The original topic, of the flag, I'll respond to below. -sche (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The government raising a trans flag in response to her anti-trans activism is verified by the sources, and is verified as having been done in response to her (V); to me, the main question is whether it's significant enough to be worth including (DUE), and I'm unsure. Her anti-trans activism is established as one of the most notable things about her, so the trans-flag-raising response to her is plausibly inclusion-worthy, but it doesn't seem vital... I don't see a problem with leaving it out for now and re-assessing later if it proves to have enduring significance outliving its immediate news cycle. -sche (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

TBH, I think a major government official responding to the article subject is pretty much automatically WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Loki, please can you clarify: the question is – do you agree to the inclusion of the sentence: :After the rally, the Government of Victoria raised the transgender flag outside its offices, and Andrews tweeted "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back," with a video. I think there is already agreement to include: The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes.Sweet6970 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Hmm... The idea did cross my mind to wonder if we could include the "The Premier..." sentence we seem to be in agreement on and the first part of the flag sentence, but cut the second Andrews quote (resulting in "The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes, and after the rally, the Government of Victoria raised the transgender flag outside its offices in response.")? On one hand, the second Andrews quote is more directed at the trans community; on the other hand, it is (per the sources) directly responding to KJKM's rally, so I'm on the fence about what would be best. I would be fine with including the full "After the rally [...] video" sentence. The flipside of my earlier comment is that we can always [include it and] re-assess later if in time it doesn't seem to be as significant an aspect. -sche (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think in the context of the existing paragraph, the 'respect' quote is balanced with the Australian PM's statement about 'disrespect'. In the revised proposal posted above, I also suggest dropping the details of the video and tweeting, which do not seem to be critical context, and the exclusion could help address concerns about promotional content. I also think the reporting after the initial news cycle (on the following day) helps support the encyclopedic significance and noteworthiness of the flag-raising; so to clarify (with apologies for repeating the revised proposal - this has been a lengthy discussion, and my hope is the context of the content with further reasoning helps support discussion), we could end up with a graf like this:

Regarding neo-Nazi presence at the 18 March Melbourne event, following the event Keen-Minshull said "They're absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It's preposterous they even exist in 2023." The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, later made a statement that included, "In Melbourne on the weekend we saw an anti-trans rally, which is really disrespectful of who people are, and then it was joined by a bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes and slogans ... That of course should be condemned by all Australians". After the rally, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes, and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back."

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this proposal, with one small suggestion on grammar. Change and announced the Victorian government had raised to and announced that the Victorian government had raised (addition in italics). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. ;) I have a tendency to seek out and remove thats as a matter of habit from a different type of formal writing. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed addition of the and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back." for all the reasons I have given before. And I do not accept that there is any ‘balance’ in having the words ‘respect’ and disrespect’ in the same paragraph. I also disagree with the proposed deletion of the material about the tweet and the video. It is significant that K-J K-M was subjected to a police investigation as a result of a complaint by Susie Green, which was found not be substantiated. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that'd be a fine addition. -sche (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

-sche and Sweet6970, content related to Susie Green is already in the article, and based on the sources, including a statement by Keen-Minshull; the text states Keen-Minshull was interviewed by police and the 2018 case was "closed with no further action." However, this discussion section is focused on the Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally, and I think it is important to stay focused on that issue in this section so we can resolve the issue of that text constructively. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your desire not to let this unravel into an unfocused general discussion and I agree.

In the context of the article as it currently stands the Victorian Government's flag raising is appropriately included - that was my initial take.

You make a good point and yes - the wider question that has arisen (do we really need all of the 'what Parker has done wrong and how bad she is' stuff to make the same point?) needs to be dealt with separately. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - this discussion section was opened to discuss one paragraph of text in the article. From my view, it appears disruptive to this discussion to make this section a forum for other issues. New discussion sections can be opened on this Talk page to discuss other parts of the article. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of any of the presently suggested text. Although the comments from Denaar, “from the NPOV Board”, were generalised about the entire article, they are still directly relevant to this discussion: e.g. “none of the coverage is about what she [Keen-Minshull] did, what she said, or what she represents - but either people speaking against her or protesting against her.” This fairly accurately describes the “Australia” section, which already breaks down as approximately 110 words about Keen-Minshull or her events, as against approximately 260 words about counter-protests and criticisms of her or the events. Despite this existing lack of balance, there has been this absurdly extensive discussion about adding even more critical material. And yet there is nothing proposed to be added about, for example, what Keen-Minshull actually said at those events which prompted the "nasty, hateful" comment, so a reader of the article is not able to make their own judgement on the matter.

Denaar also stated that “we should beware of claims that rely on guilt by association”, and I agree with their suggestion that, in an article which is supposedly about Keen-Minshull, all mention of the Nazi presence, from which she vehemently disassociated herself, should be removed. And, to move further towards some kind of balance in the article, other parts of the existing text should also be removed, such as the lengthy mention of the police response to the behaviour of senator Lidia Thorpe, where Keen-Minshull had no involvement. --Blurryman (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See my comment below in the new section Lidia Thorpe. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have had a good read through this now and I totally agree. Looking at individual parts of this article each mention on non directly Minshall 'stuff' seems 'innocent' enough - but when you read it all together it's a hatchet job.

So YES lets get it back to being an article about her. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Blurryman, I found this report about the Melborne rally:

“We’re going to say ‘hello boys’,” Parker told a crowd in Melbourne last Saturday. She was referring to around two dozen men dressed in black. They carried a huge banner with the words “Destroy Paedo Freaks” and threw Nazi salutes at trans supporters protesting her rally. After the rally, Keen claimed in a video posted on YouTube that the men who gave Nazi salutes might not have been neo-Nazis.

What’s behind the ‘terrifying’ backlash against Australia’s queer community? (Guardian, Mar. 24, 2023)

Beccaynr (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Keen is a single topic activist, which she describes as the protection of women's rights and the safeguarding of children. Associating her with neo-Nazis who gatecrashed a public meeting encourages readers to indulge in an association fallacy. --Blurryman (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Blurryman, I added the 24 March Guardian source above in response to the part of your comment that seems relevant to this discussion section - specifically the request for what Keen-Minshull actually said that could potentially add context to the statement by Andrews. I have otherwise found sources describing the 18 March rally outside of the Victorian Parliament and Keen-Minshull's connection to that rally, e.g.:

Sources

"British anti-trans rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull had organised to speak to her supporters at Parliament House on Saturday afternoon, prompting a counter-demonstration protesting against her views. About 30 people from neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Network, dressed in black and most with their faces covered, attended the protests on Spring Street supporting Keen-Minshull, repeatedly performing the salute and holding up a sign using offensive anti-trans language." (The Age, Mar. 19, 2023) "The 30 or so people, who later identified themselves as members of the Australian neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Network, appeared on Saturday amid a crowd of about 300 people at a protest against transgender rights that was led by the British anti-trans rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull." (New York Times, Mar. 20, 2023) "A group of protesters who attended UK anti-trans rights activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's event performed Nazi salutes outside Victoria's parliament, sparking calls for her Tasmanian event to be called off." (abc.net.au, Mar. 20, 2023) "an anti-transgender rights rally where protesters from another group performed a Nazi salute in support" [...] "the British anti-transgender activist at the centre of the protest has had her plans of a “world tour” thrown up in the air after the neo-Nazis attended the Melbourne rally." (news.com.au, Mar. 21, 2023) "The incident comes days after clashes between pro- and anti-transgender groups in Melbourne. [...] Tuesday's incident follows last Saturday's clashes outside the Victorian state parliament in Melbourne between rival protest groups at a "Let Women Speak" event being staged by British activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. The presence of neo-Nazis at that event, in apparent support of Ms Keen-Minshull, has triggered a huge backlash" (BBC, Mar. 22, 2023) "Anti-transgender campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull has been given the green light to continue her speaking tour after neo-Nazis attended one of her events in Australia." (news.com.au, Mar. 22, 2023) "Ms Keen-Minshull - who describes herself as a women's rights activist, but is also widely known for her opposition to transgender rights" [...] "Last weekend, Ms Keen-Minshull's rally in Melbourne sparked outrage after a neo-Nazi group appeared outside Victoria's state parliament in apparent support. She has denied any links to the group, describing them to The Australian newspaper as "sad and pathetic"." (BBC, Mar. 24, 2023) "Victorian MP Moira Deeming has tweeted support for the organisers of an anti-trans rally that was crashed by neo-Nazis, only hours after she was suspended for attending the demonstration. [...] the upper house MP sent a tweet to anti-trans activists Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull and Angie Jones saying she never condemned them." (7news.com.au, Mar. 27, 2023) "In March, a group of neo-Nazis appeared at a rally in Melbourne hosted by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull - who is known for her opposition to transgender rights - and performed Nazi salutes on the steps of the Victorian Parliament. Ms Keen-Minshull denied any connection to the group, but the event triggered a political backlash with calls for greater efforts to tackle displays of Nazi regalia." (BBC, Jun. 8, 2023)

The issue of association has been discussed in this Talk section with regard to the proposed/disputed specific text; the context of Andrews' quote is reported as "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes; a statement by Keen-Minshull about the neo-Nazi presence at the Melbourne event is included in the full paragraph already in the article that is related to the text being discussed; this paragraph in the article also includes a statement by PM Albanese that appears to distinguish the Keen-Minshull rally from the neo-Nazi presence. Overall, there appears to be wide coverage about the presence of neo-Nazis at the event, and WP:BLPSTYLE states,

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

Please note I have posted these sources and section from BLP policy for the purpose of discussing the topic of the specific text at issue in this Talk section. Other discussion sections can be opened on this Talk page to discuss other parts of the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References

• An RfC has been started at: RfC about Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally. Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC about Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally

Should the response by the Premier of Victoria and Victorian government to the Keen-Minshull rally outside of the Victoria Parliament House in Melbourne be added to the Australia subsection of this article? Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE discussion is available at Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally (permalink).

For this RfC, comment is requested about adding content to the following paragraph, in the Australia subsection (permalink)

Regarding the neo-Nazi presence at the 18 March Melbourne event, following the event Keen-Minshull said "They're absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It's preposterous they even exist in 2023." The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, later made a statement that included, "In Melbourne on the weekend we saw an anti-trans rally, which is really disrespectful of who people are, and then it was joined by a bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes and slogans ... That of course should be condemned by all Australians".

Options:

A. Add the following content and sources, to create the following paragraph (with underline distinguishing the new content differences between A and B):

Regarding neo-Nazi presence at the 18 March Melbourne event, following the event Keen-Minshull said "They're absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It's preposterous they even exist in 2023." The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, later made a statement that included, "In Melbourne on the weekend we saw an anti-trans rally, which is really disrespectful of who people are, and then it was joined by a bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes and slogans ... That of course should be condemned by all Australians". After the rally, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes, and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back."

B. Add the following content and source, to create the following paragraph:

Regarding neo-Nazi presence at the 18 March Melbourne event, following the event Keen-Minshull said "They're absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It's preposterous they even exist in 2023." The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, later made a statement that included, "In Melbourne on the weekend we saw an anti-trans rally, which is really disrespectful of who people are, and then it was joined by a bunch of people who were essentially doing Nazi salutes and slogans ... That of course should be condemned by all Australians". After the rally, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was "nasty, hateful" even without the use of Nazi salutes.

C. Leave the paragraph as is, and do not add the proposed content or sources to this paragraph.

References

Beccaynr (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Support option A

• Support. The only difference here is the inclusion of and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices, "Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back."[4][5], which adds context to the Victorian Premier's condemnation of the rally (rather than being about the nazi presence). Given the rally is the most-relevant aspect for Keen-Minshull's biography, with the nazis being an additional detail, it seems curious to omit the local government's reaction to the rally. To be honest my gut-reaction is that omitting this detail feels like a POV attempt to minimise the way in which the rally was widely perceived as hateful. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a pretty minor change that wouldn't normally require an RfC but I guess everything is "The Culture War" now. (Sigh...) This change adds a small amount of worthwhile additional information about the event and the responses. If the event was covered in more detail in any other article then there would be a reasonable argument for keeping this there and just linking to it from here but, as it isn't, it makes sense to have it here. I can't see any reasonable claim that it is over-coverage or off-topic as this was Minshull's own event and the fall-out from it is directly relevant to her. It is very far from being overblown or non-neutral. Had the event gone more successfully for her, I am pretty sure that her supporters would want us to write about it in far more detail than this. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support. The additional information is in scope because it describes official government reactions to an event hosted by the subject. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support The overall paragraph obviously ought to go in because it's about one of her rallies, so it's directly relevant. The extra line about the trans flag I think is relevant because it shows that her rallies are (correctly) seen as anti-trans. Loki (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, slight amendment: I think both proposed paragraphs overly rely on quotes. I'd rather say that Keen-Minshull disavowed the Nazis without giving her exact wording, and similarly summarizing the quotes by the prime minister and the premier. But of the three options I still prefer A. Loki (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Loki, I think this comment might be better placed in the discussion section below, because I could respond about why I think readers are well-served by the quotes in this instance instead of attempts to summarize these statements, but this could become a more substantial discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support The What is not a coatrack section of the WP:COATRACK essay includes, Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack, and reliable sources offered to support the proposed text (SBS News and The Age) seem to help show how the response by Premier Andrews and the Victorian government are directly related to the article topic, i.e. Keen-Minshull and her activism, and specifically her anti-trans rights rally in Melbourne. This proposed text is also one sentence, supported by two reliable sources, and therefore appears to be balanced and treated with appropriate weight within the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• A, but without the final quote (“Because we’ll always respect you. And we’ll always have your back.”). — HTGS (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• A - What we have with what happened in Victoria is a causal nexus. On 18 March 2023, Keen-Minshull held an anti-trans rally, as part of her then current tour of Australia and New Zealand. Among the supporters of Keen-Minshull at the rally were a group of neo-Nazis, who did typical neo-Nazi things. As a result of the rally, the Premier of Victoria put out a statement and raised the transgender flag outside government offices. Why is this a causal nexus? Well, in a different timeline, where Keen-Minshull's event did not take place, the Victorian Premier would have had no reason to release a statement or arrange for the government to raise the trans flag at that time. The response by Andrews and the government is directly attributable to Keen-Minshull's actions, as well as those neo-Nazi supporters who were present. As such, this is not a coatrack piece of content, and shows directly the response to some of Keen-Minshull's activism outside of the UK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support option B

• Support Option B: the statement about the transgender flag, and Because we'll always respect you. And we'll always have your back is a statement about the Victorian government, not about K-J K-M, who is the subject of this article. See WP:COATRACK. It says nothing about how the rally was perceived – it is solely about political action by the Victorian govt. I would also be content with Option C. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (options)

WP:RFCBRIEF discussion

@Beccaynr: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 8,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Hi Redrose64, thank you for the question and feedback; this is the first RfC I have ever created, and I crafted this based on how the WP:RFCBEFORE discussion (Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally (permalink)) seemed to develop. My goal was to present this RfC in a way that could help provide sufficient context and focus comment on the proposed options. Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies (WP:RFC/BIO). Several RfCs are listed here, each one has a boldfaced link to the actual RfC. In most cases this link is followed by the RfC statement, a signature and a timestamp, but this one is not. This is because Legobot (which builds the RfC listings such as WP:RFC/BIO) cannot identify where the statement ends, so does not copy any of it. The reason that Legobot cannot identify where the statement ends is because of its sheer length: if you look at those others at WP:RFC/BIO, none of them are more than 1,950 bytes, and most are considerably shorter. Consider e.g. the Clint Eastwood one: this statement is just six words plus the signature and timestamp, for a total of 150 bytes. I'm not saying that all RfC statements should be that short; but if you can be reasonably brief, people are more likely to visit and contribute. But for the RfC to be listed properly, the statement must be less than about 2,000 bytes, ideally significantly less. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC) I realize now it would have been helpful to follow the guidance at WP:RFCBRIEF, e.g. If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp. I appreciate you calling attention to the technical aspects of effective RfC writing, and I feel I have a more clear understanding of what I did wrong and how I can do better in the future. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Is this fixable by editing it here? The template is not substituted. Does the bot update existing entries? If so what is needed? A signature to be added one the first part of the statement in order to separate it from the rests which then becomes a second statement in its own right? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) I think a brief statement could be added manually to each place where the bot only added the title, e.g. "Should the response by the Premier of Victoria and Victorian government to the Keen-Minshull rally in Melbourne be added to the Australia subsection of this article?" but my general sense is the bot will not update an existing entry if a signature is re-added to the first part of the statement here. Beccaynr (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC) As noted at WP:RFCST, If you amend the RfC statement ..., Legobot will copy the amended version to the RfC listings the next time that it runs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Thank you, I will do this when I can, and collapse this section after this comment, because it appears to be off-topic for this section and the RfC. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: As it's intended to be an amendment to my vote, I'm not going to move my statement above about overquoting down here, but I do want to give you a chance to respond. Loki (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Loki, and as I mentioned in my comment below, the intersection of two contentious topic areas contributes to my thinking, as does the discussion preceding this RfC, which had concerns raised about the neo-Nazi article content. So I am tending to favor including Keen-Minshull's statement instead of paraphrasing in this instance, both in accordance with WP:BLPSTYLE and also as a way to maintain WP:WIKIVOICE, i.e. "Do not editorialize."

However, I do think some of the beginning of PM Albanese's quote could be trimmed to remove "In Melbourne on the weekend" because this seems repetitive and unnecessary in context. Premier Andrews' quotes are the most balanced with prose, which is in part thanks to content that seems more easily rendered in prose (the action by the government) and the source. Overall, from my view, it seems helpful to readers to have a response as a quote from Keen-Minshull, and the quotes from the PM and Premier seem well-balanced with her response in this particular context. Beccaynr (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I simply do not see anything in either WP:BLPSTYLE or WP:WIKIVOICE that encourages using this many quotations. And in contrast, I see quite a lot in WP:OVERQUOTING that discourages using this many quotations. Keen-Minshull's statement is simply a denial, so we should just say she denied the accusation. And then if we're not quoting her, there's not a lot of reason to quote anyone else involved either. There's no need for any quotations in this paragraph, in my opinion. I would rewrite it as:

Following the event, Keen-Minshull condemned the Nazis and said they were not associated with her in any way. The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, later made a statement condemning both the Nazi presence at the rally and the anti-trans rally itself. After the rally, the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews said the rally was hateful even without the use of Nazi salutes, and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices. Loki (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The WP:OVERQUOTING essay recognizes quotes are "indispensible", and seems especially aimed at long quotes. I raise the BLP issue because this has been a particularly fraught part of the article with the neo-Nazi issue being particularly sensitive. So I am concerned by a proposal to remove by paraphrasing what the subject of contentious BLP says about this particularly contentious issue (see e.g. WP:QUOTEUSE); and per NPOV to paraphrase and remove what Albanese said about all Australians; and what Andrews said to the trans community. I am also not sure if we have to wordsmith all of this now - I tried to write this RfC about whether content and sources from Andrews and the Victorian government in response to the Keen-Minshull rally should be included in the article, as a follow up to the preceding discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It and MOS:QUOTE also say that Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and that It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words.

WP:QUOTEUSE doesn't apply here because the paraphrase already attributes the statement. Removing the quote doesn't endorse Keen-Minshull's statement that the Nazis had nothing to do with her, because we still say it's only what she said, not (necessarily) the truth. Loki (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to say I’m a tad disappointed with the structure of the RfC. First, I don’t like the forced division into sections between !votes and discussion, as it’s just not conducive to consensus coming from collaboration or compromise. And second, the RfC itself is a bit misleading. The paragraph of Option B is (apparently) already the status quo, so it’s not something to “add”. The real question is whether to add the final line of Option A, not whether to add this new paragraph. Option C should be removed, as the rest of the paragraph does not appear to have been in dispute (and if it is, then this RfC should just be scrapped and discussion begun anew), and A vs B should be made clearer that they regard only the final part-sentence in question.
Like Loki, I think the quotes from the rest of the paragraph should be pared down, but that is a decision that should be made independent to this discussion and !vote. It’s worth being as simple and clear as possible with your RfCs because we don’t want to entrench more of the article than we have to (as it theoretically makes it harder to change or remove content that has been added by RfC). However, I also think the final quotation from Andrews should just be cut, and that’s a discussion that a good RfC should allow for. — HTGS (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback HTGS - I had developed the structure based on what I read in the RfC guidance and on my experience from past RfCs, where discussion was moved to its own section. I was hoping to make things clear, so I opted to include the full paragraphs - based on the RFCBEFORE, the context seems important. But I have updated the underlining to make it more clear that B is not the current text in the article; it is an option for how the paragraph could appear with the addition of text and one source.

As to wordsmithing, one of the reasons I have favored quotes here is because of the intersection of contentious topics, the need for particular care and some of the issues raised in the discussion before this RfC. The final Andrews quote also appears to be a direct response to the Keen-Minshull rally, and seems parallel to PM's comment about disrespect; the significance of the quote also seems supported by one of the reliable sources (with most of it included in the headline). Beccaynr (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah thank you! I had read the current and the proposed paras, but obviously missed that added bit in between—that makes more sense! You are right that the context is important, and it seems I was just a bit off on the exact question being posed. It might be that C being blank gave me the impression that the entire para was up for debate.

As for the inclusion of the quote, I just don’t see it as adding information about the event (or the subject of the bio); governmental support for trans people is already laid out by the raising of the flag. It aIso just feels a bit too self-congratulatory, so if people prefer, it could easily be replaced with something like: and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices and confirmed the office’s support for trans people. — HTGS (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, HTGS - my perspective while crafting this RfC was shaped by experience developing, researching, and discussing the article, including the preceding discussion, which made it more challenging to figure out how it might appear to anyone arriving here without such a background. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the wording suggested above by HTGS to the wording of Option A. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the SBS source highlighting the Andrews quote, the NCA Newswire [4] source also highlights the quote, so it appears to have some WP:WEIGHT per WP:NPOV policy. No source appears to use language similar to 'confirmed', so I think we should be careful to avoid inadvertantly editorializing, particularly with such a contentious topic. However, the flag-raising is reported as "a show of solidarity with the LGBTIQ+ community" (SBS), "in support of the trans community" (The Age) and a "sign of support" for the trans community (NCA Newswire), so there are sources to work with for wordsmithing purposes if the flag-raising is included in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you personally feel like the word “confirmed” is misrepresentative or editorializing for the context? Personally, I don’t. I appreciate the desire for neutrality, but at a certain point we aren’t here to just copy and paste quotes. I also think we’re getting away from the point here; if we use “confirmed” for now, and then later someone corrects that to something better, that’s the best outcome (and in some ways, the entire point of this Project of ours; “something something perfect is enemy of good”). — HTGS (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can work with sources I mentioned to develop prose; there is one interpreting the response as 'a show of solidarity', and two as 'support', so I think it would be better to stick closer to the sources and not add what could be interpreted as more than that, e.g. as if this is confirming support that already existed. My suggestion would be different if the sources described the response differently. I think based on the sources, we could write, e.g. and announced the Victorian government had raised the transgender flag outside its offices to show support for the trans community. and perhaps add the NCAWire source. Beccaynr (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Praised Tommy Robinson

I've listened to the podcast which is used as a reference for the claim that KJK praised Tommy Robinson. In fact she says in the podcast that Robinson is "probably a racist yob". I'm not sure how that amounts to praise. Deepsoulstarfish (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is referenced to The National not to the podcast itself and it is not for us to reinterpret it as that would be original research. That said, I think it is reasonable to assume that The National was almost certainly referring to something other than that one phrase you quoted. DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Then it would be useful to reference what The National was quoting. Or is that against Wikipedia's current ethos? 78.145.97.215 (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction

Kelly Jay Keen is not anti trans. She is pro women. 86.4.155.90 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the FAQ. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a poor response. The choices aren't 'anti trans' or 'feminist'. KJK has indeed stated that she is NOT a feminist, but she has stated she is pro-women. It is conceivable to be 'pro-women' and NOT a feminist. Instead, because she is not a self-identified feminist, it has been determined that she is therefore 'anti trans'. That is a deliberate conflating of the issue and it simply looks ridiculous. 78.145.97.215 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are mistaking the cause and affect here. Nobody is extrapolating from her saying that she is not a feminist to her being anti-trans. The description of her as anti-trans comes from all the campaigning against trans people that she does. She makes no secret of this. This is widely covered and well supported by Reliable Sources beyond any rational dispute, which is why it was put in the FAQ. (Just imagine if anybody were to describe her as "pro-trans". She would no doubt be mortally offended at them misrepresenting her views.) The discussion about her not being a feminist is completely separate from this. Even if she were a feminist, which she isn't, then she would still be anti-trans. There is a very small strand on the very fringes of feminism which is anti-trans but she is not a part of that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ideology

More accurate to define kellie Jay Keen as a feminist involved in gender activism 2407:7000:A2D1:3900:80C9:465E:F14C:28B0 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done She explicitly denies being a feminist and this is one of the few uncontroversial things that she says. Were we to describe her as "a feminist" that would enrage both the actual feminists and also Minshull's anti-feminist supporters. If it were true then we would have to risk that wrath but it isn't and so we won't. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Although I recognize that the sentence The term is associated with gender-critical feminism has been carefully phrased for accuracy, it does still appear to imply a direct connection (or "association") between KJKM and the larger feminist movement. A reader who is not deeply engaged in these conversations online might reasonably, but erroneously, conclude that KJKM's views are being described here as 'feminist'. May I suggest a slight addition to draw out this distinction:

The term is associated with gender-critical feminism, although Keen-Minshull herself has clarified that she is "not a feminist". [5]

I think that this is a reasonable way to distinguish between KJKM's views and those that may be held by other "gender-critical feminis[ts]", and that this distinction is especially important to make since she herself has explicitly disavowed the term.

I'm not changing anything right now, but I'll check back in a day or two and do so if there are no objections. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a very good suggestion, so I've added it to the article. Loki (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ at the top of this Talk page outlines applicable guidelines and policies that explains the basis for and limitations on how Keen-Minshull is described in this article: "Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, according to the neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia is also not a means of promotion, e.g. Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the relevance to my point. I am asserting that the sentence The term is associated with gender-critical feminism can wrongly be interpreted to associate KJKM with "feminism", although she disclaims that association herself. It's hardly neutral to imply that she's a feminist if she clearly says she's not. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I was trying to note how the article is built from reliable sources; we also should be careful to avoid original research. I have reverted the attempt to add content based on Keen-Minshull's tweet [6] for several reasons. The section where the content based on her tweet was added is not about her ideology, it is about her billboards, posters, stickers. This content was added after existing content related to an advertising campaign, including how the campaign (not her ideology) is reported by an independent, reliable, secondary source. Adding her tweet about feminism after this does not seem appropriate according to sourcing guidelines and core content policies. Beccaynr (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's reasonable but I think that this coverage would be OK if it was placed more appropriately within the article and, even better, if we had a secondary source for it. It might also be worth adding to the FAQ seeing as so many people turn up here and seem to be confused on this point. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree this would be different if there was coverage, and particularly secondary coverage for a topic as complex as feminism; but per the WP:SELFSOURCE section of the Reliable sources guideline (also part of the verifiability policy), this tweet by Keen-Minshull appears to be unduly self-serving - the tweet is presented as a response to an unsubstantiated event, i.e. the tweet seems to suggest unidentified others said she is a feminist, and the tweet includes her own definition of feminism. If an independent, reliable, and secondary source finds her definition of feminism noteworthy, then there would be some support for inclusion in a related part of the article.

In the meantime, adding original research to a specific part of the article based on a general self-promotional statement she made on social media does not seem appropriate according to core content policies, and in this context also seems contrary to the policy against promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with Daniel's point about "placed more appropriately within the article". In this case, I find it very strange that the first section of her "Biography" is called "Billboards, posters, stickers" -- as though KJKM were a print shop! This is not an appropriate heading for biographical information. Essentially all the rest of the article from this point is about her views, and on the ways that she has expressed them. "Billboards, posters, stickers", "Social media", and "Rallies, speaker events, and protests" are not biographical categories. It also has, as we see here, the effect of burying the idea of "gender-critical feminism" in a paragraph that's ostensibly about... stickers?

Reorganizing this information would much improve the page. For example, after the brief Biography section, the next section could be Views, with some of her statements and claims represented there. If the distinction between "Billboards, posters, stickers", "Social media", and "Rallies, speaker events, and protests" is really important, these could be in a separate "Activities" section. However, not all these activities, stickers, etc are necessarily notable. They are important not in themselves, but because they express her views in ways that have gotten public attention. 74.74.196.97 (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not not about her ideology, though. The slogan is ideological.

And I strongly dispute that it's "unduly self-serving" to disclaim a label usually considered positive in this context. Loki (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The attempt to add her tweet seems to be the kind of good-faith variation of original research described in the Don't build the Frankenstein essay. The tweet sounds somewhat similar because the word 'feminism' is used, but the BBC discusses 'gender-critical feminism' as it relates to a specific aspect of an advertising campaign, while the tweet seems to create a straw man to promote her definition of feminism (which is part of why the tweet seems 'unduly self-serving').

In this context, it does not seem to benefit readers to add content based on a self-published tweet promoting Keen-Minshull's definition of feminism as a caveat to article content supported by an independent, reliable, secondary source discussing the "adult human female" advertising campaign and 'gender-critical feminism.' The tweet does not appear to be about the advertising campaign, nor the BBC context/commentary about the slogan, nor 'gender critical feminism.' Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

She says the words "I'm not a feminist." in that order. More than once, in fact. There's even more sources below from the IP.

The Frankenstein essay is about cases of mistaken identity. This is not a case of mistaken identity, as there are not two unrelated movements called "feminism". There is one movement that Keen-Minshull clearly dislikes strongly. But she's obviously talking about the same movement, just pejoratively.

It appears that between me, the IP, DanielRigal, and you, there's a consensus for inclusion that only you oppose. So I'm adding this back to the article. Loki (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

---

After a couple of reversions, I want to restate my concern: that this page, as written, has significant potential to lead readers to misunderstand the nature of the subject's identity. Although the page does not explicitly call KJKM a feminist, it repeatedly associates her with other movements or WP pages associated with the word "feminist". This may be confusing to the reader, and equally importantly, it is unfair to the subject because it implies a category label that she has explicitly rejected. I will ignore other broader issues with the page and address these points.

• KJKM identifies as a "woman's rights activist" but also as "not a feminist". There is an extremely close nexus between "woman's rights" and "feminism", and if this is not handled clearly, a casual reader might reasonably confuse the two.

- For example, the second sentence of the article is, She describes herself as a woman's rights activist, and links to Women's rights. The second sentence of that page reads, ...formed the basis for the women's rights movement in the 19th century and the feminist movements during the 20th and 21st centuries. This clearly suggests that the modern women's rights movement is closely aligned with, or even synonymous with, the feminist movement.

- Feminism is widely understood to be rooted in the struggle for women's rights. The default google definition for "feminism" (provided by Oxford Languages) reads, the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes, and other dictionaries have similar definitions including an emphasis on "rights".[7]

- List of women's rights activists is listed within the WP categories Category:Women's_rights_activists, Category:Feminists and Category:Feminism-related_lists.

- I am not suggesting that "WRA" is the same as "feminist". However, I conclude that it would be natural for a reader familiar with feminism to conclude (wrongly, in this case) that a "woman's rights activist" is also a feminist. If we are going to identify KJKM in one of these categories, we have a responsibility to the reader to clarify the other.

• KJKM has been very clear that she is not a feminist, and obviously does not want the term applied to her. She has made this point repeatedly on Twitter and elsewhere. [8] [9] When an interviewer referred to her as a feminist, KJKM quickly corrected him. [10] It would be inappropriate if this page inadvertently led readers to conclude that she is a feminist.
• The second sentence of the article reads, She describes herself as a woman's rights activist. While this is clearly true, it is obviously incomplete. KJKM's repeated disavowal of the "feminist" label is evidently an important part of her identity.

Given the obvious potential for confusion, and in light of the repeated denial of the "feminist" label by KJKM, I now think this should be addressed early in the article, before confusion can set in.

I propose changing the second sentence,

She describes herself as a woman's rights activist.[3][4]

to

She describes herself as a woman's rights activist, [3][4] although she has repeatedly stated that she is "not a feminist". [11] [12]

I think this addition best meets the intentions of WP:BLP, and especially the "Tone" parts of Wikipedia:BLPSTYLE. I also think MOS:LABEL provides useful guidance on situations in which a label may be contentious or disputed, and I think that WP:NPOV requires us not to confuse the reader. I do not believe that any of the above is original research.

I welcome other thoughts on these points. Thanks for reading. 74.74.196.97 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Independent and reliable sources report she describes herself as a woman's rights activist, so inclusion of this content is supported. By contrast, we do not have similar sources suggesting she is a feminist:

- Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so the use of "feminist" at the wikilink in the article is not reliable

- GB News is listed as a generally unreliable source at the List of repeatedly-discussed sources, so this source also does not support including a description of her as a feminist to support then including a tweet with her saying she is "not a feminist".

- The tweet itself also does not appear to be a usable source because it appears contrary to WP:BLPSELFPUB (unduly self-serving and discussing others), and therefore not suitable to include per WP:BLPSTYLE.

According to both BLPSTYLE and MOS:LABEL, descriptions are developed with independent and reliable sources, and identifying these types of sources could help support content in the article. Developing content for the lead of the article only cited to a self-published tweet and based on inferring her self-description as a women's rights activist might be misunderstood does seem to be original research, because this appears to make a connection that independent and reliable sources have not made or found noteworthy. Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure I get some of these points. When you say, we do not have similar sources suggesting she is a feminist, are you saying that we need sources that both say she is a feminist, as well as those that say she is not? KJKM of course says with great clarity that she is not. Similarly, I cannot parse the sentence about GB News.

The tweets (multiple) and interviews (multiple) in which KJKM states that she is not a feminist are absolutely within the bounds of WP:BLPSELFPUB. The claim is clearly not "self-serving" -- I would say quite the contrary. It's clearly not puffery or braggadocio. None of the other critiques of WP:BLPSELFPUB appear to apply.

The fact that KJKM identifies as "not a feminist" has indeed the subject of reporting by numerous sources [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], as well as a subject of discussion among both pro-KJKM and con-KJKM sources [18] [19] [20] [21]. (The journalistic reliability of sources like the Daily Mail and random substack newsletters is not an issue here, since KJKM's non-feminist identity is not in question. The point is rather that this identification is the subject of widespread reportage and discussion.)

The confusion that I describe, in which KJKM is assumed to be "feminist" based on association with "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" or "gender-critical feminism", is exemplified by numerous articles. [22] [23] [24] Oddly enough, other articles quote people who claim that KJKM is not a feminist, which would appear to be exactly KJKM's own position. [25] [26]

I can't see any way in which the "not a feminist" claim is less well supported, or less relevant to the conversation, than the "women's rights activist" claim. Indeed, the broader discussion around KJKM, TERFism, and the GC movement more generally is often about the meaning and future of feminism itself. [27] [28]

74.76.229.168 (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I view Beccanyr's arguments as obviously ridiculous and see no particular need to attempt to WP:SATISFY them here. The idea a basic self-description is self-serving is just silly, as is the idea that we'd be citing her discussing others. (I agree that if we cited her claiming all those negative things about feminism that'd be a violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB, but we're not citing her for that.)

And the idea that any of this is anywhere near WP:OR is the most ridiculous claim of all. I don't think that any of this makes even enough sense to parse and so I'm not going to bother arguing against it. Loki (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I admit I'm confused by their argument. Adding my own two cents, I don't think the description is overly promotional or exceptional for ABOUTSELF, especially if attributed, so I would support the proposal by 74.74.196.97 unlike the one from 2407(?::.{4}){7}. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the rest of the tweet would be excluded by both #2 and #1, but I don't think we would necessarily exclude an entire source on that basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I like the proposed text although I'm not too keen on referencing it to a YouTube video. It's not too bad but if there are any secondary sources then that would be better. I think we should find a way to include this somewhere as it is an important clarification that actually seems to serve everybody's interests. She wants to distance herself from feminism. That's fine. Feminism mostly wants to distance itself from her. Her fans may mistakenly believe that she is a feminist. Her detractors may mistakenly believe that she is, or thinks she is, or is presenting herself as, a feminist.Random readers may see phrases like "women's rights activist" and assume that this is just an odd way of saying "feminist". We are are happy to explain otherwise. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Well and succinctly described, Daniel, thank you. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just throwing my name in in support of describing KJKM as not a feminist - I don't know the precise number of times a person has to explicitly distance themselves from an ideological label before it becomes notable, but that number is less than the number of times she's described herself as "not a feminist". AntiDionysius (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• The "she describes herself as a women's right's activist" content is supported by reliable sources and has been discussed on this article Talk page; per MOS:LEADREL, According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. [...] Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations.... So the "she describes herself as a women's right's activist" content was included, based on multiple sources, even though not all available sources that have stated this are included in the lead. By contrast, the self-published tweet-quote is not supported by reliable sources.

The reason I discuss original research and the Don't build the Frankenstein essay is based on how I understand the basic reasoning in support of including the self-published tweet-quote by Keen-Minshull in the lead. From my view, this has led to a good-faith connection being made between unrelated sources that no single source supports, which is an unencyclopedic synthesis.

As to additional sources offered by IP 74, the WP:DAILYMAIL is not considered a reliable source; opinion pieces, to the extent The Critic is an RS, [29] are per WP:RSOPINION reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact (it is also not clear that this piece attributes "not a feminist" to Keen-Minshull); to the extent QNews is an RS, this source attributes the "not a feminist" claim to a third party, not the reporter; the Star Observer does the same [30]; we also do not use blogs or self-published substacks; and what is reported by Vice does not seem sufficient to support inclusion in the lead, because this is not a response to her self-description as a woman's rights activist, it is a statement she reportedly shouted at a rally:

“Why do you stand with Nazis though?” someone asked Keen-Minshull at the Hobart rally. A video showed her response: “Why don’t you go away?” Keen-Minshull shouted, crossing her arms. “I’m not a feminist! Go away.”

Ultimately, from my view, the issue is whether there are independent and reliable sources supporting the inclusion of content, and whether this content fits within our core content policies and related guidelines. From an encylopedic standpoint, the risk of including the tweet-quote appears to be promotion; we have a FAQ at the top of this article Talk page to address attempts to add poorly-supported content to the article, and the answer to the question of why we describe Keen-Minshull as we currently do seems to continue to apply to this question. Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

To take just one of these issues: It is baffling to me that you are arguing that we don't have reliable sources indicating that KJKM is "not a feminist". She has said those words many times, she has tweeted them, she has said them on video, they have been extensively discussed. We don't need the Daily Mail to confirm this for us, since the subject has repeatedly confirmed it herself.

I want to step through and see where there is disagreement -- sorry for another long list. I maintain:

1. KJKM has repeatedly and verifiably said that she is "not a feminist". There appears to be no basis to question that she has said so truthfully and repeatedly.
2. Of the five criteria at WP:BLPSELFPUB, #4 "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" is obviously fulfilled, unless you have some reason to believe that her repeated tweets are hacked, and that multiple videos of her making this statement are deepfakes. Is anyone saying that we truly don't know whether KJKM considers herself a feminist?
3. Criteria 2, 3, 5 at WP:BLPSELFPUB are obviously fulfilled.
4. User:Beccaynr has argued that KJKM's own statements are not reliable sources, because of criteria #1, "it is not unduly self-serving". I don't see anyone else agreeing with this point; as I have said, the statement is clearly intentional and factual, not puffery or braggadocio.
5. Thus, the "self-serving" objection appears to be the only factor that stands in the way of using her own statements about her non-feminism. Unless there is broad agreement that these statements are "self-serving", I see no reason to doubt that her own statements are WP:V and WP:RELY, as per WP:BLPSELFPUB.
6. Just because the statements are true doesn't mean they must be added to the article. Is KJKM's non-feminism WP:NOTABLE? There are many, many sources cited above that discuss KJKM, TERFism/GC ideology, and feminism, together, including the New York Times. This is clearly a notable topic of debate in the public sphere, in trans discourse, and in feminist discourse. Does anyone deny that this broader discussion is a notable one, or that we have reliable and verifiable sources about it?
7. If KJKM and feminism are discussed together in the public sphere, it is obvious that clarifying her own thinking about her own feminism is an important part of the conversation. I don't see how it can be otherwise. It is in no way WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS to say that her statements are related to the topic.
8. We do not need reliable/verifiable sources that claim that (either) KJKM is or is not a feminist, beyond her own tweets. We are not limited only to responding to such a claim. The statements clearly provide important context about KJKM's role in the highly notable public conversation, and no reason has been given why they should not be added.

With the exception of the "self-serving" issue, I don't see that any of these points are remotely contestable, and all of them have been demonstrated (where necessary) by reliable and verifiable sources. If there are specific objections to this line of reasoning, I am open to hearing it. General comments about WP:OR or WP:V are not specific enough to counter any of these points, in my opinion. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

To take up a second issue: User:Beccaynr, you say, From my view, this has led to a good-faith connection being made between unrelated sources that no single source supports, which is an unencyclopedic synthesis. Can you please clarify what synthesis you think is being made? I don't see it at all. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH section of WP:OR policy includes, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Combining the content based on multiple reliable sources stating she describes herself as a woman's rights activist with a (non-RS) self-published tweet (or other tweets, videos, public statements) on a distinct topic appears to make an analysis that has not been published by any reliable source.

No reliable source appears to have indicated that Keen-Minshull has responded to reports of her self-description as a woman's rights activist with a statement that she is "not a feminist", so it does not appear to be permissible for us, as a tertiary source, to join these statements together as if this content is related. According to the WP:SECONDARY section of WP:OR policy, Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. Beccaynr (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

See, this assertion I can at least understand, however SYNTH is not juxtaposition. Just having two facts in the same sentence does not constitute SYNTH, there has to be some specific insinuation created by the juxtaposition of those two facts for it to be SYNTH.

So, what is the insinuation you think the sentence is making? I'm fine with rewording it if you can come up with something plausible. Loki (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misreading WP:SYNTH. If I take from one article, "All men are mortal", and from another, "Socrates is a man", and generate the never-before-stated conclusion, "Therefore, Socrates is mortal" -- a conclusion that I just synthesized and is uncitable -- that is WP:SYNTH.

In this case, I am taking one fact (KJKM is a WRA) and a second (KJKM is not a feminist) and using them to decide what information to present in the article, because I know that this conclusion may not be obvious to the reader. I am not generating a new fact or new idea in any way. I am merely presenting two facts, both sourced. The only way in which I am using the logic you describe is to guess that this information might be useful to the reader -- not to tell the reader a new, synthesized fact. This is clearly not WP:SYNTH; it is just good informative writing. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've posted a notice of this discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. However, I believe that "add content to the lead of this article based on a tweet" is misleading, since we are not discussing a single tweet but a long series of many tweets, public statements, and videos in which KJKM uses these same words. To imply that this discussion is about a single tweet is disingenuous. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  My intention was to refer to what had been added to the article while this discussion was underway, and what appeared to be proposed when I posted at BLPN. Beccaynr (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have also posted a notice about this discussion at the No original research Noticeboard. Beccaynr (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  BLPN I get, but this is starting to feel like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Loki (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Loki, I encourage you to revert your recent addition of the disputed content to the article; this discussion has only recently opened, relates to several core content policy issues, and per dispute resolution policy, additional input from other editors has been requested. There are multiple policy issues being discussed, and notices were placed at two relevant noticeboards about a pending discussion and requesting participation in the discussion here, not to start discussions in multiple forums. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  No. There is a clear consensus to include the material in this discussion right now. And I highly doubt that will change because, again, your arguments for not including this are very bad. Merely having many very bad arguments does not make any of them worth considering. Loki (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Beccaynr that any description of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull needs a reliable secondary source rather than just a WP:BLPSPS since any self-description is also inherently self-serving. Otherwise we would be adding self-descriptions which in reality no one will agree with. Additionally we have sources which include her saying she is a women's right activist. If none of these sources think her clarification that she is "not a feminist" was important additional context, then we don't either per WP:UNDUE. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  any self-description is also inherently self-serving: That just can't be true; if it were, WP:BLPSPS

  would prohibit us from using self descriptions. The criterion given is, not unduly self-serving. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I've looked into this further. I've found sources like [31] [32] which talk about how someone else has said she has admitted she isn't a feminist, without actually something that view in their editorial voice. Then there is this, which talks about a feminist insulting her including saying she isn't a feminist [33], yet even this source doesn't comment that Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is in agreement on that point. The only sources I can find which mention her saying she isn't a feminist is this [34] although only in the context of something she yelled at a protestor, and [35] which isn't really a great source since it's a discussion programme although does go a little more into the not a feminist thing. I'm unconvinced that those two sources are enough, we do not add random crap someone yells at a protestor one day even if it's covered in a secondary source or two. And while the other one is a little better, I'm unconvinced that a discussion programme is the sort of source we should use for a BLP. It does seem to me that for whatever reason, sources have chosen not to pay attention to this statement of hers. Why, I don't know and don't really care. Perhaps there is some additional context to the "not a feminist" label that we're missing, perhaps they just didn't think it was important (although it's a little weird that those 3 earlier sources didn't), perhaps they disagree with her labeling herself so and feel it's not worth commenting on (although again a little weird the earlier 3 didn't), perhaps they just missed it. Ultimately per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we're not here to right great wrongs and if for whatever reasons other sources have not paid attention to her self description then we'll be doing the same. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  We've already discussed these points to some extent, but I will recap. First, it appears to me that there are two very separate issues: (1) Whether we can use WP:V and WP:RELY sources to back up the claim that KJKM is not a feminist, and (2) Whether that fact is important enough that we should include it. (1) is satisfied by her own repeated statements and tweets, unless we dismiss all of them as "self-serving". But for (2), we don't require WP:V and WP:RELY sources to demonstrate that each specific fact is important enough to report! As encyclopedia editors, we have is wide latitude about what facts get reported, as long as the fact itself is WP:V and WP:RELY, and as long as we are not violating WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR or WP:NPOV.

  I think it is clear that (2) is easily satisfied -- the fact that KJKM's non-feminism is notable and worth including -- given the very extensive discussion of KJKM and feminism in many spheres. Here are just a few of the sources that demonstrate that discussion:

  • On ABC, an interview with Dr Kaz Ross, a researcher studying far-right extremism: So, yeah, it's a bit of a mouthful, but she she calls herself a women's rights activist. But not a feminist. [36]
  • The Daily Express literally says, Ms Keen, from Wiltshire, who says she is a “women's rights activist but not a feminist”, believes... [37]
  • There are other legit and semi-legit news organizations that report the same: [38] [39] [40]

  There are many, many more. None of these are top-tier news organizations, but then, we don't have to cite the New York Times when discussing debates between physicists or linguists in order to prove that the debates are worthy of inclusion. Very few sources make the specific claim you seem to be seeking -- that some people might think that KJKM is a feminist, but we can prove that she isn't. But that's not what we're trying to do. We are simply reporting on a well-documented (WP:V and WP:RELY) fact that has clear importance to the broader discussion, and therefore may be of use to the reader. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think "not a feminist" is the sort of claim that can be self-sourced per WP:BLPSELFPUB. That said, I don't think a self-sourced claim like that belongs in the lead, as the weight afforded to this aspect of the subject by reliable, secondary sources is slim to none. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure exactly what you need discussed by reliable secondary sources. But here are a few examples that discuss KJKM's beliefs either explicitly in terms of feminism, or explicitly in terms of "not a feminist".

  The Daily Telegraph (AU) refers to KJKM first as a feminist and then as a WRA: ...outspoken UK feminist Kellie-Jay Keen. Ms Keen, a women’s rights campaigner ... [41]

  KJKM on Tucker Carlson, probably the biggest name on Fox News -- the video (on KJKM's channel) has 131,000 views. In only her second answer to Carlson's questions, KJKM says, Well I think it helps [that] I'm not actually a feminist, okay um, and I'm not a feminist for a multitude of reasons... [42]

  KJKM interviewed on "This Morning", a video with 2.1 million views titled Feminist Blogger Believes Trans-Women Aren't Real Women [43]

  The Post (NZ): [44] The activist... has accrued a significant online following with supporters calling her a feminist while detractors say she is transphobic.​

  Spectator (AU): More than anybody else, Keen is emblematic of British feminism’s current direction of travel away from the academic left. [45]

  In sum, the use or non-use of the "feminist" label is a huge part of the discussion around KJKM and her activism. If you move away from journalistic sources and look at discussions in feminist (or anti-feminist) spaces, it's an even bigger part. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree: there's plenty of discussion of this in reliable sources. The issue is that the reliable sources that discuss this subject are often incorrect. When asked directly, Keen-Minshull has said over and over that she's not a feminist (but that she is a "women's rights activist").

  It's also not fully self-sourced: you linked this interview above, which is a reliable source that actually does document all this. (Unfortunately a lot of the other sourcing you've found is either cagey about it, like the Star Observer, or isn't reliable, like the Daily Mail or Daily Express.) Loki (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't care about the self-sourcing: WP:BLPSPS clearly allows us to accept her own (many) statements at face value. And given that, we do not require top-tier sources to demonstrate that the fact is important enough to include -- note that WP:NNC explicitly says that Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE still apply, but KJKM's own repeated statement about her own identity can hardly be considered a "minority view".

  Anyway, you're right about the ABC interview, and I would add the Tucker Carlson one as well: Tucker is a key figure of the American right, and until recently, his show was perhaps the most influential on FOX. The version I linked is on KJKM's youtube channel, but it also appears to be available through Apple TV (which I don't have) [46] and it's on a TC fan channel as well [47]. At 130,000+ views on KJKM's page alone, it's hard to imagine that it's not notable enough. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  I meant secondary sources that discuss "not a feminist". The interview sources help, but it's still not much, and KJKM says so much in interviews that it's hard to know what is lead-worthy. I recognize the issue with leaving "describes herself as a woman's rights activist" on its own. I think we could consider removing it, adding quotation marks, or removing the link to women's rights. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I stick by my earlier view on using Keen-Minshull tweets as the sole source for the claim, as a violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB first criterion. I'm also not keen on using the ABC source, while ABC is normally reliable, I don't think their discussion programs should be except perhaps for statements made by a narrator or similar since I"m not convinced statements made by commentators/experts have the same degree of fact-checking we'd expect. But I'm lazy to debate it further as I consider it a moot point.

I've found a source which I consider sufficient to add the claim in the article if editors feel it's important. (I'm still surprised at how hard it has been to find this given that Keen-Minshull isn't someone who has avoided the interest of RS, but whatever I don't care enough to argue it's WP:UNDUE.)

The source is Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars: The Politics of Sex, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021 by Finn Mackay. While Mackay is someone who's views seem to be the opposite of Keen-Minshull in key areas, they are an academic and subject matter expert. (I mean to be honest Keen-Minshull views seem to be so extreme that, the number of people writing for RS who aren't at least slightly opposed to her views is likely quite small. But Mackay opposition seems more fundamental which did give me some pause but the other considerations are enough to override that IMO.)

Also the book seems to be published under the I.B. Tauris imprint suggesting it probably has some degree of editorial oversight, enough that I feel it's fine for making a claim about a living person. (The book is used in two other articles but only with in text attribution for Mackay's views and it doesn't seem to have been otherwise discussed.)

The part which would support an addition is on page 97 [48]

campaigner Mrs Kellie Jay Keen-Minshull, known on social media as Posie Parker, who is a founder of the organization Standing for Women, which created and funded black-and-white street billboards and tee shirts with the slogan 'woman = adult human female'. Mrs Keen-Minshull is not a Radical Feminist and has said several times that she does not identify as a feminist either.

If editors also want to add Keen-Minshull tweets as additional sources, I'm fine with that. I've long believed that most of the time such additions are harmless. (I apply this standard even to the addition of most court documents etc.) A key point is that such additional citations should not used to support any details not coming from secondary sources.

But in this case, while technically the precise term "not a feminist" may not be in the book, I'm fine with it being used in the article whether from the tweets or from ABC or whatever, provided the book is also provided as a source. I don't feel it productive to quibble over the wording, whatever other editors feel is best is fine now that we IMO have a source sufficient to establish that others have noticed her rejection of the feminist label.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Others might feel differently, but I didn't mean literally the exact phrase "not a feminist" needs to be present. Good source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BTW, given the comment that started this thread, I should note that I was always opposed to any suggestion that she is a feminist in the article. Since we do have some SPS on her rejecting the label, we definitely should not have called her a feminist anywhere, including categories or anything like that, but otherwise we could just leave the women's right activist without further clarification. IMO it was and frankly is fine to just offer no commentary on the issue since no sources seem to really care whether she's a feminist or not. But as others feel it's important to mention, and with at least one source, I'm fine with mentioning her rejection of being a feminist. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed some stuff which I didn't pay much attention to since it wasn't RS suggesting she didn't always reject the label. I did come across [49] from 2018 which includes a quote where she explicitly calls herself a feminist. Her change from embracing to rejecting the label may be an additional reason why sources haven't paid much attention. (Sometimes such changes can get more attention but other times they can be a case of can't be bothered keeping up with it.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that the source by Finn Mackay above is sufficient to say that she does not identify as a feminist, rather than that she is not a feminist. ‘Feminist’ covers a broad range of opinions, and K-J K-M seems to object to being identified with some manifestations of feminism, e.g. the tweet [11] above. But some people might say that anyone who is in favour of women’s rights is, in fact, a feminist, even if they don’t like the label. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless she actually said "identify", I think it is best to avoid saying "identify". She says that she is not a feminist. If readers want to misinterpret that as "yes, but she totally is really, but only the good type, not like those stinky ones" then that's between them and the worms in their brains. It is not for us to aid in such misinterpretation. Besides, if we say "identify", we will have an army of her supporters complaining that we are making snide comparisons to the "self-ID" that she so vehemently opposes and, while that would be a bad and wrong argument, I think it would be better for everybody's sanity not to invite that drama. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggested the wording that ‘she does not identify as a feminist’ because that is what is in the Finn Mackay source. I’ve no idea why you think that would make readers think about ‘stinky’ feminists, nor why you think readers have ‘worms in their brains’. [50] Sweet6970 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to imagine the cognitive dissonance that would be required to believe that she is a feminist despite her very obviously not being one and her denying it. I'm not sure whether anybody actually would. I was surprised that you raised it as a possibility. Anyway, I still think we should try to avoid "identify" unless it is part of a quote. It seems to cause some people to fly into a rage and some people read it as implying "not really". We don't want to have a statement that could be read as meaning the exact opposite by two different readers. On several occasions I have improved articles by changing "(person) identifies as (LGBT identifier)" to "person is (LGBT identifier)" and I feel that we should extend the same courtesy to whoever we write about. DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree we should say that she says she's not a feminist, rather than objectively state she is not a feminist. It wouldn't be hard to argue that saying one is a women's rights activist but not a feminist is a contradiction, for instance. And for another, we do have sources saying she's a feminist, and we don't know for 100% certain those sources don't know about the specifics of her self-identification.

I'm not a big fan of the specific "identifies as" language for roughly the same reason you're not. I liked the wording I had before: She describes herself as a woman's rights activist, but says that she is "not a feminist". Loki (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. The old wording is fine. It is clear, concise, neutral and accurate. DanielRigal (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

74.76.229.168 here, logged into a decades-old account since the page is semiprotected. I've been traveling and unable to engage for a while now, but I'm checking back in.

This discussion seems to have settled and there is a clear consensus. Consequently, I am going to add but says that she is "not a feminist" to the second sentence of the article. Before reverting or editing, please notes the points below.

• The addition is backed up with two strong sources (the Finn MacKay book and the ABC interview).
• The addition is backed up by two tweets (with more available) from KJKM herself. [WP:BLPSELFPUB] would prohibit us from using this self source if it were "unduly self-serving", but only one editor has argued that this is the case, and others have dismissed this idea. As such, these tweets give very direct and clear support for the addition.
• Although I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, I see broad agreement for this addition from Nil Einne, Firefangledfeathers, Loki, DanielRigal, Alpha3031, AntiDionysius, and myself (74.76.229). I see objections from Beccaynr.
• Despite posts on [WP:BLPN] and [WP:NORN], I see no influx of editors opposing this change.
• Note that we have discussed and rejected the idea of using the language she does not identify as a feminist.
• We have discussed at length the objection that the addition is [WP:OR] or [WP:SYNTH]. I see little support for this point of view on the Talk page.

I think we have covered this topic in sufficient detail and reached consensus, so I am making the change now. If you have other thoughts or objections, please discuss them here first. Thanks. bikeable (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)