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)

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)

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)

Scotland rally photo

The deep-frying of the photo captioned "Keen-Minshull at a Scotland rally, 2023" is painful to see, I took the original and it can be found here: https://x.com/invalide___/status/1622540190769184768/photo/1. It was in Glasgow specifically, if you'd like to say that instead of 'Scotland'? Xx.invalide.xX (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly this. The photo is doctored and has no business being published on this page. IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted the photo. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, feel free to use the undoctored image I've linked to above. It's one which adds depth to the article by informing on the kinds of people she attracts, contrary to the persona she has crafted for herself. Xx.invalide.xX (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Threats of violence against Keen-Minshull & Helen Joyce

A trans woman received a suspended jail sentence for horrific threats of violence against Keen-Minshull and Helen Joyce. This was reported in the Brighton Argus and the Brighton and Hove News. The addition of this material has been reverted with the edit summary Verifiable, but falls undo WP:notnews. Couldn't find rs talking about it.

WP:NOTNEWS says: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, events, sports routine news coverage of announcements, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. The conviction does not come under events, sports routine news coverage of announcements, or celebrities and is not at all of the same kind.

This material should be reinstated. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If it gets picked up by more national/international news sources, I'd support restoring a mention. Probably not its own section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does it have to be picked up by more national or international news sources? It’s an extremely serious matter. By the way, I made it a separate section because it didn’t fit properly into any other section. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is subject with a lot of coverage in top-quality international news. It's appropriate to be skeptical of inclusion of material that can be sourced only to local news. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that you actually doubt whether 2 local newspapers have correctly reported on a conviction? Don’t you think that if the report was incorrect, there would be a complaint/libel action from Layla Le Fey? Who even has her picture in the newspaper? [1]There is a reason why newspapers like the Guardian don’t want to pick up on this – the idea that Keen-Minshull is a victim of a crime doesn’t fit with the easy, fashionable narrative that she is a villain. If Keen-Minshull had been convicted of threatening someone, I really can’t imagine that anyone on Wikipedia would be arguing that somehow, this is not DUE. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As I noted, it is verifiable. That has nothing to do with due, neither does the event in question (if the moon disappeared but no rs commented on it Wikipedia couldn't comment). Compare the sourcing to other paragraphs, they usually are sourced to multiple well recognised rs not one local paper. Honestly when looking it up I was expecting to see reporting in the times or the telegraph to back this up, I only saw the daily mail and this was an event that happened 4 months ago. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I know of no reason to believe that the Argus is not a reliable source. You say you agree that the fact is verifiable. Then you say I was expecting to see reporting in the times or the telegraph to back this up – as if you think that it is not verifiable. If the fact is verifiable, then it does not need ‘backing up’. You seem to be saying that unless something is reported by the Times or the Telegraph, then it is not DUE. Please explain your reasoning. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that for an international figure, reporting in only one local paper means it is not due. We do not include every verifiable fact here. Compared to other statements put here, it is undersourced. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both the removal and the reason. Doesn't seem WP:DUE to me. Loki (talk) 01:11, 6 August 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)