Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

Disgraceful management of this topic

It is beyond clear that whomever is in charge of managing this page is biased. This page is not informative—it is the pet project of someone who cannot engage with views that oppose their own. This page is why we decided to stop donating to Wikipedia. 71.168.164.239 (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No one manages this, or any other, page on Wikipedia. It is an agglomeration of contributions from a variety of editors

I doubt if any of those editors thinks themselves biased - which is part of the many problems with the way it all works - but until someone comes up with a better way (I can't) this is what we've got to work with. It's not bad overall.

One of the basic prinsiples is assuming good faith. People often don't but the 'better' editors try. Keep your money - we will manage without - but if you feel like contributing editorially try and be one of the 'better' editors. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

unfortunately i agree with this sentiment Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This is not biography. It is also not neutral or balanced. It omits much relevant data and cherry-picks material that reflects adversely on the subject and promotes a particular view of her. For instance, it selectively mentions instances of her being approved of or in company with persons of a particular political persuasion, while not including a single instance of other quotes or associations. It attributes motives to the subject and her associates which are not evidenced and which are one-sided. The most conspicuous example is describing Keen and her organisation as 'anti-transgender rights' rather than 'women's rights'. It suppresses mention of her lead organisation that runs rallies etc, which is Let Women Speak. It also omits to mention Keen's considerable international following among women and approval of her activities by multiple women's organisations and others. Invaluable22 (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

agreed! Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

However calling her "anti trans rights" is very much NPOV. Does she describe herself this way? Is this something that is universally agreed upon? Or just the opinion of some random editor that doesn't like her? 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The joke here is that the people arguing that we should not call her anti-trans must know full well that she would have an absolute apoplectic fit if anybody were to describe her as "pro-trans". Comedy aside, we have the sources required to describe her as "anti-trans" and I doubt that she would object to the substance of that statement. I'm not aware of her ever denying it, despite it being the main thing that she is known for. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Links to far-right

Given there is adequate sourcing from reliable sources and that it seems to be one of the main reasons for her notability (at least where I'm from), should we describe Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull as having links to the far-right in the lede? An example would perhaps look like:
Current - Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (née Keen; born 1974 or 1975), also known as Posie Parker, is a British [gender-critical and anti–transgender rights activist and the leader of the political party, Party of Women.
Updated - Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (née Keen; born 1974 or 1975), also known as Posie Parker, is a British gender-critical, anti–transgender rights activist who has been described as having links to the far-right. Keen-Minshull is the leader of the political party, Party of Women.

Sample sources

References

TarnishedPath^talk 05:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a short mention, but I would probably suggest expanding on it more in the body as well. Lead feels pretty short in general tbh, though I suppose it is within the guidance of MOS:LEADLENGTH. Maybe it's just that the 2 paragraphs are pretty short ones. E: Just to be clear, I mean both expanding the stuff about links to the far-right in the body and (for the second part of my comment) expanding the other stuff as well in the lead and adding the mention as a part of that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC) E 06:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The first 3 sources set out above are basically PinkNews reporting the Hope not Hate mention. So the fact that there are 3 sources is just repetition – these are not to be treated as independently signifying importance. The 4th source is not accessible to me. The Hope not Hate report is included in the article under ‘Biography’. I don’t see any reason to consider this is important enough to be included in the lead.

And if we are to mention the alleged links to the far-right in the lead, we should also mention that K-J K-M has said that she abhors anything to do with Nazis, as stated in the article in the ‘Australia’ section.

She has also recently settled a defamation claim against John Pesutto concerning the alleged association with Nazis. I don’t think this is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, but I think it goes against the idea that links to the far-right are one of the main reasons for her notability.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd add, "She is unequivocally a Neo-Nazi based on the presence of Neo-Nazis at her speeches and the fact that they tend to agree with her values overall. 109.152.82.120 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't have Reliable Sources to support that but I'm sure that future historical writing will note that she was generally unconcerned by the regular presence of neo-Nazis at her events and, if/when they do, we can mention that in the article. in the meantime, we need to focus on what Reliable Sources say about her. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources contradict any suggestion that K-J K-M was ‘unconcerned’ about the presence of Neo-Nazis at her rallies. As stated in the article:… Keen-Minshull said "They're absolutely not associated with me whatsoever. I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis." and it is bizarre to suggest that the Nazis supported women’s rights. Also, as stated in the article, she has recently settled a defamation case against John Pesutto, who issued an apology in which he said that he had never intended to assert that Keen-Minshull was a Neo-Nazi.

And you both need to read WP:BLP. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It is mischievous and incorrect to describe Keen as 'unequivocally a Neo-Nazi'. No evidence is adduced for this allegation. The presence of a small group of uninvited neo-Nazis who were in no way part of the official event or management at ONE of her events is no evidence at all that Keen approved of or desired their attendance.

There were in fact four separate groups at this event, in addition to general members of the public. The same event was also attended by an organised group of Victorian Socialists who marched there from Trades Hall. It is far more likely that the neo-Nazi group was there in opposition to the Socialists than to support the organisers, Let Women Speak. There was also a large contingent of pro-trans rights demonstrators. Why not infer that Keen was aligned with them?

Victorian LNP leader John Pesutto referred to Keen as neo-Nazi or approving of neo-Nazis. Keen sued him for defamation and the case was settled with Pesutto apologising and an award of damages being made.

Keen has consistently expressed her abhorrence of Nazi ideology.

Finally: the extraordinary suggestion that neo-Nazis 'tend to agree with her values overall'. Keen is a women's rights campaigner. That is not in doubt. A list of her activities etc makes that clear. On what occasion have any Nazis expressed their enthusiasm for women's rights? Does support of women's rights form any part of their platform or literature? Do they engage in any activities promoting women or women's rights? Are there even any women in the neo-Nazi group referred to, or any neo-Nazi group world-wide? The answer to all of these is no. In fact, Nazi ideology is vigorously opposed to anything remotely resembling women's rights. It is a masculinist and patriarchal ideology that relegates women to traditional domestic roles. More detail here: https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/women-in-nazi-germany/

Nazi ideology is incompatible with women's rights. There is no possibility that anyone campaigning for women's rights would be enthusiastic about Nazism. The suggestion can only be made from a position of ignorance of Nazi ideology. Invaluable22 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

picture of NSN at the rally

@Sweet6970 @Muaza Husni .

I'm not overly familiar with the rules for images on Wikipedia but looking through mos/images this image fits everything. It's clearly a notable event and a helpful image. I do not see the argument that using the picture implies KJK supported their attendance, we clearly state in wikivoice that they attended and that's all the photograph shows. If there is any policy I have missed please let me know. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

LunaHasArrived, you have not addressed my basic point – the image gives a completely false picture of the subject of this article, which is K-J K-M, not Australian Nazis, nor the demonstrations in Australia. It is not a ‘helpful’ image, it a misleading one. There is no purpose in having this image in this article unless it is intended to be defamatory. The relevant policies are:-

WP:BLPSTYLE which includes: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. The image is not about the subject of this article. This section also says: 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. The image has the effect of labelling K-J K-M as a Nazi sympathiser, which is false and defamatory.

WP:BLPBALANCE includes: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. It is difficult to think of a more obvious case of ‘guilt by association’ than having this image in this article.

There is also WP: BLPIMAGE which says: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. But, of course, the image in question is not even an image of K-J K-M – it is an image of a group of people she is on record as opposing.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry sweet, can you explain to me why this picture is any more of a blp violation than saying that the NSN attended her rally. The picture is literally described in words in our article already, it is providing a visual description to words literally written there. With respect to BLPimage this is not out of context, we distinctly provide the context in the article. The rest I don't see because it applies equally to the text and the image, and it's been decided the text is ok. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The text says she says she abhors Nazis, and that she has obtained an apology from John Pesutto for suggesting otherwise. The image does not say this. The image will be interpreted as saying that Nazis are typical of K-J K-M’s supporters, and that she welcomes their support. That is the way pictures work – they have more prominence than words. If Wikipedia hosts this image, this would be a gross breach of the neutrality policy, in a BLP. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It is clear neither of us will convince the other. If nobody else comments in the next couple of days I'm thinking of bringing this elsewhere. BLP noticeboard is my first thought but I am open to other suggestions. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes the text is OK but I have to agree that the picture should support the article and User:Sweet6970 is correct in their reasoning. A picture is worth a thousand words Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, seems like consensus is that way. I no there's no need to satisfy but I would like to improve. Is this because it puts too much emphasis on something (i.e false balance) or because there can't be a denial picture? LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The image is UNDUE, the text is enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPIMAGE do not weigh against the usage of the image. The image does not document the subject in a partisan manner, does not state that there is any guilt by association and would not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. What the image does do is provide a visual representation of content which is already in the article at Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull#Australia and therefore I see no issue with using the image for that section. If the image was attempted to be used out of context in the lead or some other section of the body I could see the arguments against inclusion, otherwise I don't. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It has to be one of the least representative images that could have been chosen. What does it do to contribute to the knowledge or understanding of the reader? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It gives a visual representation of events as they occurred which is covered in the content in the Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull#Australia section. That in and of itself contributes to the knowledge and understanding of the reader. TarnishedPath^talk 03:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting a small edit...

Edut request fulfilled and descended to off-topic bickering. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Exactly as the title says, I simply wanted to suggest changing the word "including" to "especially" in the section of her Biography section where it speaks on her opposition to transgender issues and drag performances. The article that is linked after the statement, "...and drag performances, including in locations that may be viewed by children." uses the word "especially" instead of "including'. I think this is an important distinction, as both the article and the proposed revision imply that she is opposed more to the fact that children are able to see drag performances, many of which are often sexually explicit or provocative, and not against them existing and happening AWAY from children. While the page here on Wikipedia, as is, sort of implies that she's against adult (mostly gay) men legally being allowed to get together and enjoy drag in their own spaces. While I'm very certain she has rather negative opinions on drag, all of which I doubt she's even hesitant to acknowledge, saying she is opposed to it in a section almost entirely describing legal matters and hotly debated policies in modern day without making the distinction that this opposition is specifically contextual would be inaccurate and disingenuous. She might not LIKE drag, but the linked article doesn't support that she is opposed to allowing people to engage with it if they like in a context that is less controversial. 2600:1015:B20D:2847:F03E:EC2B:7DF1:EF21 (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Take your transphobia elsewhere. TarnishedPathtalk 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC) That's a strange accusation? I'm not transphobic nor do I even really like the women this article is about all that much. Some of the things she says are rather horrible and abrasive, in my opinion. That said, taking an effort to accurately characterize the beliefs and opinions of people you're making informative articles about is important, no? The transphobic argument still confuses me though, as my entire suggestion was in regards to drag, something that I'll admit isn't my cup of tea, and yet I'm EXTREMELY sympathetic towards it and defensive of it. The sentence i suggested changes to actually kind of frustrated me as I read it because how can you be "opposed" to something that is almost exclusively a form of self-expression, that wording treats it like it is something the government or a position of power has the authority to regulate, abd believing that to be despicable and seeing a linked article, I went to read it. I'll preface this next part by saying that I'm literally a gay man, and my sympathetic and defensive attitude towards drag comes from the fact that I express myself in ways that is deemed "unacceptable" for a man in mannerisms, clothing, interests, and the like as well. So when I say that many drag performances are sexual in nature, I'm not saying this to try to undermine expression or promote bigorty, I'm simply stating a fact, and while bigots WILL use the prospect of "safeguarding children" as a means to promote hate and advocate against anyone the despise, it doesn't change the fact that this strategy works because we DO need to safeguard children from sexually explicit contents. I'm sorry if I came off as somebody typing this in bad faith, I just believe that accurate portayals of people are important and I didn't want to ignore a potential oversight in what was written here given that I noticed a discrepancy. 2600:1015:B20D:2847:F03E:EC2B:7DF1:EF21 (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) The source says: Keen is also opposed to drag performances, especially in locations where they can be viewed by children. So I have changed ‘including’ to ‘especially’, as this more accurately reflects K-J K-M’s views. And both of you – please remember WP:NOTFORUM Sweet6970 (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC) children are able to see drag performances, many of which are often sexually explicit or provocative is clearly a ignorant statement. TarnishedPathtalk 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is the infobox so small?

Shouldn't the infobox be changed to an officeholder infobox due to her leadership of the Party of Women? This would be consistent with other political party leaders in the UK. There should also probably be a bit about her attending the University of Leeds. I noticed this article is in category for UoL alumni but it's not mentioned anywhere in this article, the biography just goes straight into her activism. 148.252.159.105 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly the Party of Women leadership but is there a RS for her attending (or receiving any award) from the University of Leeds? If so then certainly. I had a Google but can't find one - at least that is RS Lukewarmbeer (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no source for the University of Leeds, I have deleted it. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)