Talk:Kajsa Ekis Ekman

Deleted POV

The article is full of text that is nothing less than slandering. The text gives sources, but the slandering (about being pro-russian, a conspiracy theorist, alt-right and so on) are not based in the sources.

--Kairology (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This unfortunately seems to be continuing, with one user undoing changes all the time. She/he is tiem and again giving space to unfound allegations such as affiliations to the Communist party, without providing sources, and placing the author's books at the end of the article.

Guccibelucci (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems earlier blocked user AnnikaCarina has started again to add POV and to turn the article into a catalogue of "controversies" rather than referencing the author's work. Alinsky1 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I have done no such thing. I don't agree with the framing of this material as "controversies" which was done by another editor who restructured and rewrote the article to make this into "controversies". The user Alinsky1 appeared here just today to edit war against different editors (not me) and continue the blankings of the previously blocked disruptive editor Guccibelucci. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You were blocked before from editing this page as you were turning it into a very one-sided catalogue of controversies rather than neutrally depict the author's work. We are several editors who tried to nuance it so please stop reverting our changes. Alinsky1 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Since you registered just today, how can you know anything about whether someone was briefly blocked from a single article a full year ago? In fact the disruptive editor Guccibelucci (whose edit wars against multiple other editors – not me, though – that you have continued today) was blocked at the same time and for the same reason, which was only about the "third revert rule". Blanking is vandalism, and therefore your edits have been reverted by multiple experienced editors today. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not register today, where did you get this from? Your own page shows that you were blocked a year ago. Look at your talk page. You seem to have something against the author, as you repeatedly try to turn her page into a catalogue of controversies. E.g: instead of neutrally referencing her work, and where she works now (Aftonbladet and Klassekampen) you have altered the article by starting with claiming that she was "fired", which is untrue - a freelance contributor is per definition not fired. Also, you section the article into various "controversies", clearly wanting to label the author as a controversial person. You cite sources but your sources do not state what you claim, which a non-Swedish-speaker cannot see. Alinsky1 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That is just blatant falsehoods, like everything else from you and other editors who have only appeared to edit war and blank content. Also the claim that i "section the article into various "controversies"" is a blatant falsehood as well, this was done by a different editor (which I'm not that happy about) as already explained to you. Also note that the article is not supposed to be an autobigraphy or promotional text. Also, "fired" is the term used by Swedish media in connection with the Dagens ETC (where she was a paid contributor until the paper ended its relationship with her) and Arbetaren controversies last year, but if you can find sources describing it differently it would be unproblematic to change the exact wording. She also doesn't "work" for those other papers in any other way than she was affiliated with Dagens ETC. She is not an employee of e.g. Klassekampen but has a column like she did at Dagens ETC. Her contributions to Dagens ETC were vastly more numerous and more well-known than her occasional contributions (once a month or something like that? or even less frequent?) to Klassekampen. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear AnnikaCarina, you seem to be angry with everyone, not just the author. Perhaps it would be better to find another topic to write about that you don't feel as strongly about. Articles about living people usually reflect the present engagements first, while previous engagements come later on in the article. The same way, the author's own work is generally presented before the views of others. Instead of writing what is actually in her books/articles/talks, you dedicate the entry to what others have said about them. Often there is not even a point of the quotes you add - they dont contain any information - but seem mainly to be added because they say something bad about the author. The sources you add about eg ROKS, do not state what you say in your text. Alinsky1 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Ekman's views "är inte förenligt med Roks ideologi (...) Styrelsen lyder under årsmötesbesluten och med anledning av det beslut från årsmötet 2016 som slår fast ”att vi ska vara tydliga med att vi vänder oss till alla som definierar sig som kvinnor eller tjejer...” är inte en medverkan förenlig med jourernas intressen. (...) Styrelsen har därför valt att under porrkonferensen i Göteborg ‪den 20 februari 2018 avbryta Kajsa Ekis Ekmans medverkan."[1] Note that the text in the article is just a brief/succinct summary of this longer statement. This is one of the largest women's organizations in Sweden and the cancellation was a notable early event in her involvement in the trans issue that received a lot of press coverage, from SVT[2], and international sources as well. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not what you wrote. You wrote that this was due to "controversial statements" that Ekman has made, but nowhere in the text does this phrase appear. The phrase "controversial statements" is your own and is not reflected in the source. Added to that, you also fail to notice that ROKS has hosted conferences with Ekman several times since 2018. This is just one example of your lack of neutrality, where you dedicate the whole section about her book to criticism and opinions of others, at the same time as you do not reference what is in the book and delete references to positive reviews. All in all, this gives a very unbalanced view. From your edits in other languages it seems you are obsessed with this author and comes to Wikipedia only to slander. Alinsky1 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that is just an attempt at nitpicking. The text does not claim that the specific phrase "controversial statements" is a quote from the article, that is just a fair and objective summary of the situation based on the above, and only worded that way in the interest of succinctness. The text makes it clear that she was cancelled in response to those statements. I'm not aware of any other invitations she may have received, perhaps because they haven't generated the same kind of extensive controversy and media coverage, unlike that 2018 cancellation that was widely discussed in Swedish and other media. I have not deleted any references to positive reviews, just unsourced praise. It seems that you only come to Wikipedia to continue another's user's edit war against a bunch of editors. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you write "controversial statements" without that phrase being anywhere in the original text that you quote. Neither do you include a quote of which statements you refer to. Which are the controversial statements? The reader is left in the dark, only with an impression that something is bad about this person. Moreover, you have done the same in the excerpt on Arbetaren, where you give three sources, two of which are site errors and do not lead anywhere, and one that does not back up what you claim. The board of Arbetaren and the staff have stated that the problem was the CEO acting on his own in the recruiting process. You instead claim that this had to do with Ekman's opinions, which again, a non-Swedish speaker will miss. You are also repeatedly quoting a source that has been sentenced by the Swedish board of media ethics, which means it is not a reputable source. Alinsky1 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Dagens Nyheter is the most respected newspaper in Sweden. Whether someone believes they should have offered her an opportunity to comment on criticism has no bearing on whether the source is reputable, and there is no question about the accuracy of the reporting, but we can of course mention her complaint about the article. The trans issue is specifically mentioned in one of the articles, and many others, as an issue that was contentious. The article didn't say this was the sole reason or the board's rationale, only that it had been mentioned in public discourse in connection with this controversy, which was one of the largest media controversies in Sweden in 2022. See e.g. [3]: "Konflikten får en ytterligare dimension av att Kajsa Ekis Ekman har profilerat sig i frågor om transpersoner på ett sätt som lett till breda anklagelser om transfobi. Den kritiken finns också på Arbetarens redaktion. Kastner [an employee at Arbetaren] är själv transperson. – Jag känner mig inte särskilt bekväm med att ledas av någon som notoriskt felkönar folk med mening. Och det tror jag också de övriga i redaktionen sympatiserar med." However the wording regarding this in the article was cautious precisely because there may have been other issues at play, and because this high-profile conflict seemed somewhat difficult to understand from an outside perspective. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A ruling by the Swedish board of media ethics is not "whether someone believes". When an article is sentenced by the Board, it means the newspaper must print an apology or be fined, and that the article in question cannot continue to be published at the site without the adherent sentence posted at the top of the article. Your continuing to use a source that the Media Board has sentenced for libel, as a reputable source, is not in accordance with good faith. When Ekman's employment was terminated, the company of Arbetaren stated this was due to the CEO having bypassed the staff. You are claiming something else, but without a source to back it up. That is just one of many examples. Ekman has been a public journalist and thinker for twenty years, in Sweden and elsewhere, and has a huge body of work. The article should reflect that and not just your own views about her, which seem to be very negative indeed. It is also a bit odd that you include several Norwegian comments about her book, when it was not published there. Alinsky1 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

That is just more complete fabrications on your part. The criticism over the fact that Dagens Nyheter didn't offer her an opportunity to comment on criticism (one specific statement in the article) has nothing to do with "libel", a legal term. Her complaint concerned a value judgement by a critic which is not "libel", but the ethics board thought she should have an opportunity to respond, which is something else entirely. The article also includes her response. I don't see a problem with including one or two Norwegian reviews as well given how she is active in Sweden and Norway, she seems to have received a fair amount of coverage/reviews in both countries in connection with her various controversies. I also note that the material you have added to the article (e.g. about how Ekman feels about RFSL's book) by means of edit warring against multiple editors (not me) appears to be completely unsourced, which is ironic given your attempt at nitpicking over the exact way to translate and phrase information above. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You are here with one purpose alone: to make her look bad. An article should present living people in a neutral way and you instead begin with controversies, continue with controversies, and end with controversies. That is the main problem. The other problem is that your facts are inaccurate. You eg state that "her main journalistic venue was ETC" which was not the case. Rather she wrote for Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet. You also return with your claims that she has written for Steigan.no which is not the case. The articles that appear there are borrowed material from other sites - without permission (?) The reason why you seem to want to highlight that a Norwegian blog borrows her texts in Swedish newspapers is that you want to associate her with anti-vaxers and the like. I could go on and on. Alinsky1 (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You and a bunch of other new accounts who signed up yesterday are here with a single purpose, to make this into a hagiography or autobiography (see e.g. the excessive praise added to the lead section with a lengthy quote yesterday). You have now edit warred against numerous other editors than me, probably three or four or something like that, and several editors have pointed out the "whitewashing and promotional efforts" going on, see e.g. [4]. Note that Wikipedia is not a space where a subject can write about themselves, it's not her website.

Ekman is very controversial (or "primarily known for the controversies surrounding her" as User:Bonadea just accurately said it[5]), as the article and numerous sources make clear, not just over her trans-related views (as the description "leading figure in the new transphobic movement" in Dagens Nyheter illustrated[6]), but also over her views on Russia/RT (resulting in the Dagens ETC affair last year where the newspaper ended its cooperation with her, generating extensive debate in Sweden) and more recently as the centre of one of the largest media controversies in Sweden recently over her hiring and immediate firing as editor of the newspaper Arbetaren. Obviously an encyclopedic article cannot be a hagiography or written just from the perspective of herself and her writings, or be like her own website. We rely on third party sources that write about her. Many/most of those sources are not supportive of RT, anti-trans activism etc., and treat her views relatively critically. See for example the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull for how we write about subjects who are very controversial. Regarding Steigan, the article said her works have "also been published by" Steigan alongside several others and included a specific source that demonstrates that several dozen of her articles have indeed been published by that publication. You have offered no source that contradicts this in any way whatsoever. Indeed all your edits are unsourced and apparently based on your own views and claims of personal knowledge. You insist on a prominent mention of Klassekampen, which is not exactly the New York Times but a small Norwegian newspaper where just a few of her opinion articles have been published, surely fewer than the ones appearing in Steigan or Dagens ETC for that matter. Also the Klassekampen statement doesn't even include a source (a link to a single op-ed is not sufficient), unlike Steigan and Dagens ETC where sources establish that her works have appeared regularly. There is no reason not to mention Dagens ETC and Steigan, the best-sourced statements regarding which publications where her work was published. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is surely no reason to exclude it.

I also note the tendency to promotional embellishments in the article, including the previous false claim added repeatedly that she wrote for The Guardian. It turned out that a single op-ed of hers had been published in the Commentisfree section (which includes letters to the editor and op-eds, and where anyone can contribute.) You don't become a Guardian journalist by sending them a letter to the editor or op-ed. There has also been a tendency to greatly exaggerate her relationship with other larger newspapers above, for example your false claim that she "works" for Aftonbladet and Klassekampen which she doesn't. As mentioned Klassekampen has just published a few of her opinion articles. It is normal for newspapers to publish opinion articles, op-eds by people who are not employed there.

Furthermore, I note your attempt to introduce fringe and conspiratorial perspectives into the article, for example related to the Dagens ETC affair where the editor specifically said the paper had ended its regular relationship with her over her statements regarding RT ("Ekman (...) har bagatelliserat Russia Today och vad de sysslar med i världen och där går min gräns"[7]) and where coverage in Swedish media focused on her statements regarding RT and parroting of Russian talking points. You have changed this to "In 2022 Dagens ETC ceased publication of her articles after having written an op-ed about the newspaper Kyiv Independent where she revealed that their funding came from USAID and several European governments" which was not the rationale used by Dagens ETC and which is not how this case was presented in established media, but rather reflects talking points common in pro-Russian and conspiratorial milieus. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have signed up with the sole purpose of discrediting this author. An article should be neutral in scope and yours is not.

Ekman is not primarily known for the controversies "surrounding" her, but for her own work. This work should be mentioned first with a neutral tone. Even in the case of Kanye West, the article begins by referencing his work and later goes on to statements he has made. I notice that you do not reference her work but have only picked out any negative comments your could find in any language, while obliterating the neutral and positive reviews.

The source you keep on giving for the trans issue has been sentenced for libel. That is why it must be treated with caution and not given as a reputable source.

Ekman is a regular contributor to the Klassekampen's foreign affairs column and you can find all her articles there here. While the articles on steigan.no, which is not a newspaper but a blog owned by one person, are all copied from other sites.

As for the Dagens ETC affair, there was general agreement in the Swedish press, see or here that the real reason was the op-ed on Kyiv Independent. You may want to include that in the discussion instead of only presenting one side.

It is interesting that you in that case, choose to rely solely on the editor, while in the Arbetaren case, you instead ignore the board of the newspaper's statement that the reason had nothing to do with her but was a result of the CEO acting on his own. Instead of referencing the board member's statement, you quote a TV publication sentenced by Granskningsnämnden, where none of the board members are quoted but rather a TV journalist's own speculations, which you then give as the official reason. Alinsky1 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Deleted POV

I listened to her TEDTalk. I can not hear that she ever said "as we face not only economic crisis, but a much bigger climate crisis, a plan is exactly what is needed." (User:Guccibelucci had written that.) She never talked about "central plan", only "plan". Also, I have not seen that her authoring is specifically about marxism, so I replaced that with capitalism critique. Apparently, someone wants to depict her as a plan economy proponent, but she suggests mixed economy and strong unions - using traditional left-wing social democrat arguments. Mange01 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kajsa Ekis Ekman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150517013015/http://www.lybrary.com/kajsa-ekis-ekman-m-252651.html/ to http://www.lybrary.com/kajsa-ekis-ekman-m-252651.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate secondary source

The last paragraph of the page cites an article which claims Ekman said "gender is biological". In the referenced article Ekman actually says that biological sex exists separately from gender identity. This inaccuracy probably stems from the fact that the Swedish word "kön" can be used to mean both biological sex and gender. I propose changing the text of the page to be more accurate, however I cannot find any English-language sources to back this up.

R Bush (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, somebody already has replaced the English-language Sputnik source with a Swedish source. Just a comment: to say "gender is biological" is not necessarily inaccurate because 'gender', in English, has always meant "biological sex", there was never a different meaning to it until in the last 2-3 decades of the 20th century, some academic sectors (by no means all people) started to use "gender" and "sex" for different concepts. Outside these sectors, the sentence "gender is biological" means exactly the same as "sex is biological". Ilyacadiz (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Removal of sourced content by apparent COI or PAID editor

An editor who has been engaged in pushing anti-trans fringe POV in other articles (see e.g. the introduction of their personal fringe views here,[8][9] reverted repeatedly by other editors) has been disrupting this article, removing a lot of sourced content and adding false promotional material, such as the false claim that she writes for The Guardian (a single op-ed on the commentisfree platform doesn’t count).

The editor also claims (e.g. in various edit summaries) to have personal knowledge of whether she was paid by, or had a contractual relationship with, various websites that have published her work, such as Steigan, a topic that has not been addressed by any reliable sources. I take this as an admission that there is either a WP:COI or WP:PAID situation here. There are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources that discuss whether she was paid by Steigan or other platforms. All we know is that dozens and dozens of her articles have been published by Steigan, unlike the single op-ed on the commentisfree platform of The Guardian. Steigan has undisputedly been her main platform in Norway, publishing most of her articles by far, for years. There is no reason to remove that from the article, other than an apparent attempt to distance herself from the website after the criticism it has faced in recent months for its pro-Russian stance. An unsourced claim from an editor with an apparent conflict of interest that she wasn't paid by Steigan for publishing nearly 40 of her articles has no bearing on whether we should mention that her work has been published by Steigan.

Tellingly, the same editor has removed the discussion of her role at the Swedish newspaper ETC (where she has long been criticized for promoting pro-Russian views[10]), that had been her main platform in Sweden for years, and that fired her earlier this year,[11][12][13][14] generating a large amount of media coverage across Scandinavia. It is clear that there has been an attempt to remove well-sourced material that someone with an apparent conflict of interest doesn't like, someone who adds extreme material/opinions (and is reverted for it) to other articles as well. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Please move any discussion about editor conflicts of interest to the WP:Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This talk page should focus on the improvement of this article. You must obtain consensus before reinstating any contested items. I reviewed several of the disputed items and they fail our policies on verification and synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Guccibelucci's blanking of sourced content

The editor Guccibelucci is at it again, blanking vast amounts of sourced content, including every mention of Ekman's extensive trans-related controversies and views (book, other writings, cancellations and the extensive discussion of it in Swedish media), and her hiring and then immediate firing as editor of Arbetaren, one of the most discussed controversies in Swedish media last year[15][16] that clearly warrants mention. As I explained above, a conflict of interest tag may be appropriate in the article given how the editor seems to treat the article as a space for an autobiography or promotional text (including blatant falsehoods and embellishments, such as the false claim that she writes for The Guardian; she has submitted a single op-ed to the Commentisfree section years ago) and claims to have personal knowledge of non-public information (that isn't really relevant to the article anyway, given how the issue regarding which publications that have published her work is now worded). The editor has also refused to discuss their "edits" (which aren't really proper or constructive edits, but just blanking of sourced content, with edits summaries that contain blatant falsehoods). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that I'm not that happy with the framing of much of the material as "controversies" which is the result of another editor's restructuring of the article. I would prefer a more thematic approach, perhaps. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

False information, POV, and lack of neutrality

The page as it stands now, has several false claims, such as that Ekman writes for steigan.no, which is a site that unlawfully republishes copyrighted material from other websites. It also wrongfully states that she has "views on transgender people" without providing a quote from her for this. It wrongfully claims that her main outlet in Sweden was ETC while it was and remains Aftonbladet. More importantly, it does not reflect her main body of work which is that on prostitution, surrogacy and the Eurocrisis. The controversy sections should be moved to the end of the article, instead of the introduction, and the article should be changed to a more neutral tone. Miamor2 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the article only says that her works have "also been published by" Steigan along with several other publications. This is suitably referenced; the reference shows that Steigan has indeed published several dozen of her articles over a period of about 7(!) years. The claim that this has happened against her will is entirely new to me. I've never seen a source claiming that, and given the length of time her publications appeared there -- apparently without any public objection -- it seems uncredible, especially without a source. Do you have a source for that? For example a newspaper article or other source where Ekman states that Steigan has published all those articles without permission all those years? If that were the case, it would be unproblematic to change the article to reflect that and remove Steigan from the lead. Wikipedia articles are based on publicly available information, we have no way of knowing if a newspaper has published her works without permission if there is no source for that. Also, it seems to be uncontroversial, judging from the press coverage that I've seen including interviews with herself, that Dagens ETC was her most regular affiliation until 2022 (which was likely also a reason for why it generated that much controversy), but if there is information indicating that she wrote more frequently for other publications we can of course change the wording; but a word of caution: there have been ample examples of promotional embellishments in this article, such as false claims that she worked for The Guardian which turned out to be a single "Comment is free" op-ed, and claims above that she "works" for various newspapers where she has merely contributed occasional opinion pieces/op-eds without being employed there. She appears to be a freelancer who has contributed op-eds and opinion pieces to various publications, and who had a regular affiliation with Dagens ETC until last year's controversy.

As User:Bonadea explained, she is "primarily known for the controversies surrounding her"[17]. Indeed most of the third party coverage seems to focus on her many trans-related controversies and highlight that she is widely known for this (examples above; the description in Dagens Nyheter as a "leading figure in the new transphobic movement"[18] that became a controversy of its own is just one of many such descriptions), as well as the controversies surrounding her firings from Dagens ETC and Arbetaren last year which were both high-profile and widely discussed controversies in Sweden that received extensive coverage and media discussion. Obviously it would be inappropriate to "bury" the material on the issues she is best known for, the current (largely chronological) order that even discusses other less high-profile and less contentious issues she has worked on seems reasonable and fair. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe compiling where she has been published without independent sourcing acknowledging this list is WP:COATRACK#Fact picking. How are you deciding their prominence on what to list? Is there a theme (synthesis) here beyond WP:NOTRESUME? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The intention here originally seemed to be to list all the publications where she has been a regular contributor. Most of this was added by other editors in the past and without any sources at all. In the past this included embellished/untrue statements such as the claim that she wrote for The Guardian; it turned out that she had a single op-ed on the Comment is free platform. So yes, it's important to have sources and evaluate this material critically. Her contributions to Dagens ETC specifically, and their decision to terminate her association with them, was the subject of a ton of media coverage, for example, so that is obviously well-sourced. The same goes for her role at the newspaper Arbetaren where she was the editor. Her writings for other publications appear to be on a freelance and less regular basis. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem I see is that have been republished the defamatory version. It was removed the information that she is one of the directors of the Swedish Observatory for Human Rights and republished a sentence stating that her book was criticized for relying on far-right fake news sources (as if this were true) and that she participated in the Swedish launch of the anti-trans group WDI. WDI is a women's rights group, not an anti-trans group, and Wikipedia cannot take sides in accusing them. Also, while it is true that her book was criticized, Wikipedia cannot claim that it relies on far-right fake news sources because that is false. The phrases should be neutralized so that Wikipedia is not the one accusing Ekman of being anti-trans or using fake news. This is a biography of a living person and all damaging material should be removed or redacted in a neutral way. As it is written, only criticism prevails and little is said about his career. This is a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. --Gum2 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

A note regarding the reliability of Swedish newspapers

Social-democrat daily Aftonbladet (where Ekman has been a columnist) and liberal daily Expressen, which are considered each other's main competitors, are both published in the tabloid format. In Sweden both papers are regarded as generally reliable, and since they are among the country's largest/most influential newspapers they both play a significant role in public debate. Expressen has the same owners as Dagens Nyheter, which is considered Sweden's newspaper of record. In Scandinavia most newspapers now appear in a tabloid format and follow a tabloid "style" to some extent, but they should not be confused with British tabloids that are prone to make things up. Unlike British tabloids those large mainstream newspapers in Sweden have a reputation for being reliable newspapers. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Popularity or size does not guarantee reliability. For example, Fox News and the New York Post (same owner) are two of the largest publications for their respective markets in the United States. They certainly are influential and contribute to the public debate. They are not reliable for many topics on Wikipedia. bonadea, has your opinion about Expressen and Aftonbladet remained the same since 2015?[19] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Fox News is in fact accepted as a source and used as a source in many articles on Wikipedia. The reason why people may be sceptical of it is largely its far-right leaning. Expressen is a centre-right/liberal (in the centrist European sense) newspaper, owned by the owners of Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's most respected newspaper. In Scandinavia Expressen and Aftonbladet are both considered as reliable newspapers, they both seem to be widely used as sources on Wikipedia, and there isn't such a contrast between "serious" and "tabloid" newspapers, because we don't have the kind of tabloids and extreme media that some other countries have. Expressen is not listed as a prohibited source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you weren't aware, Fox News is going through another rereview based on a recent court case that it settled.[20] When I look at expressen.se, all I see are headlines that panders to sensationalism which explain its popularity. Other editors can feel free to chime in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least until now Expressen appears to have been widely accepted as a source on Wikipedia (English and Swedish) where it's cited in countless articles. It's not on the list of prohibited sources on the English Wikipedia. If people feel the source is not ideal, I'm sure we can find alternative sources. The information supported by those sources here seems to have been reported by many other sources too. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As i just wrote on BLPN, I don't think dismissing Expressen as a mere tabloid makes sense. The reporting is generally reliable. Headlines are not content. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @AnnikaCarina and @Draken Bowser. As has already been iterated, tabloids in the Anglo-American context are infamous not least for spreading misinformation. While there may be occasions where Swedish daily newspapers make the same mistakes, in the eyes of their Swedish readership, Expressen and Aftonbladet both hold vastly more credibility and trust than the New York Post or Daily Mail. My personal understanding is that Swedish publications, news tabloids or otherwise, are all held to a higher standard than those in a lot of the English-speaking world are. By law, news publications must designate a person (ansvarig utgivare) who is legally responsible for all content published in the publication's name, for instance. ~ lovkal (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem I see is that have been republished the defamatory version. It was removed the information that she is one of the directors of the Swedish Observatory for Human Rights and republished a sentence stating that her book was criticized for relying on far-right fake news sources (as if this were true) and that she participated in the Swedish launch of the anti-trans group WDI. WDI is a women's rights group, not an anti-trans group, and Wikipedia cannot take sides in accusing them. Also, while it is true that her book was criticized, Wikipedia cannot claim that it relies on far-right fake news sources because that is false. The phrases should be neutralized so that Wikipedia is not the one accusing Ekman of being anti-trans or using fake news. This is a biography of a living person and all damaging material should be removed or redacted in a neutral way. As it is written, only criticism prevails and little is said about his career. This is a Violations of the biographies of living persons policy. --Gum2 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gum2 There are multiple sources in the Women's Declaration International article supporting the descriptor of anti-trans; further, it's noted as having developed model anti-trans legislation. To that end, it is appropriate to call it "the anti-trans group Women's Declaration International", rather than "Women's Declaration International, a group that has widely been described as anti-trans". —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred, can you please change Dagens ETC to Dagens ETC? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have done so. Primefac (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Dagens ETC affair

There has been some debate over why Dagens ETC, where she had been a regular contributor for many years, ended its association with her. According to an article[21] from Sveriges Television (SVT), the reason included her statement that "Russia Today (RT) ”har mycket kvalitativ journalistik” och ”inte är styrd av Putins regim”. (RT has very/a lot of solid journalism and is not controlled by the Putin government). The article quotes the editor-in-chief of Dagens ETC who gives this rationale: "– Det kom till min kännedom i dag att Kajsa Ekis Ekman i sociala interaktioner har bagatelliserat Russia Today och vad de sysslar med i världen och där går min gräns" ("It came to my attention today that (...) Ekman has whitewashed Russia Today and what they are up to in the world and that's where my limit is"). Since we used Expressen as a source for this quote and some objected to this publication, we can perhaps replace it with the SVT article. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This detail, if kept, is not appropriate in the lead and should be moved to her career section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this was meant for the coverage in the body of the article and was intended to provide the original context of the quote that is included there and an alternative source in light of your objection to Expressen above. The lead should just succinctly mention that she was a contributor to Dagens ETC until she was let go, since 1) she had a long-standing regular association with Dagens ETC and has contributed many times more articles there than any other publication (as she wrote herself: "Jag har skrivit för Dagens ETC i snart tio års tid. Det har blivit runt femhundra texter" [I've written for Dagens ETC for nearly a decade. Around 500 articles in total])[22], and 2) it was a major controversy with significant media coverage in Sweden.[23] --AnnikaCarina (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Article structure, over-use of the word controversies and the way forward

As I've stated repeatedly in the entire above discussion, I don't agree with the over-use of the word "controversies" or framing of everything as controversies in the headings etc. that was introduced by another editor a while back. I didn't revert it when it happened, but I've never agreed with it and any edits where I restored this in the past didn't constitute an endorsement of it. Some of that has now been removed.

However, it is also true that Ekman is "primarily known for the controversies surrounding her" as User:Bonadea recently said said it[24]), in the sense that most coverage of her in third party sources focuses on this: particularly the Dagens ETC and Arbetaren affairs last year that were indeed major controversies in Sweden that received a ton of coverage as sources cited above and in the article demonstrate, as well as her highly controversial views regarding trans people that have been the subject of major debate. The reception of the latter in reputable sources (including reviews and media coverage) is largely very critical (or has led to "widespread accusations of transphobia" as one source puts it[25]), so it's reasonable that the discussion here reflects the reception of her views (compare the overall tone of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, where most of the article is far more critical than this article). It's important to avoid a false balance here. But we don't need to use the word controversies in headings or to describe everything as that, particularly not her less controversial work regarding sex work, migrants, eurocrisis etc. It's perhaps not necessary to use the word "controversies" in any headings. It's currently used only in the the heading about the Dagens ETC and Arbetaren affairs, but that heading could just as well be changed to "Dagens ETC and Arbetaren affairs".

I think the current order of the content is largely reasonable and logical, but the structure could use some work and be more systematic. For example it doesn't make sense to have a main chapter titled "Biography and work" that discusses her work in the surrogacy/sex industry and eurocrisis fields, and another called "views" that discusses her activities in other fields. These should be combined into one main heading with thematic sub headings (e.g. "sex industry and surrogacy", "eurocrisis", "transgender people", "Palestine" etc.)

Note that I've specifically addressed the reliability of some of the sources used above[26] and also proposed alternative sources and addressed the context of some of them[27]. There is room for improvement in the article regarding both the structure, exact way to phrase material and use of sources, but since it's currently protected it will have to wait. Perhaps we can work on a draft somewhere in the meantime? --AnnikaCarina (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I am mostly a contributor to Swedish Wikipedia, and via my activity there I have been pointed to the locking of this article. I am happy to start a draft at my Sandbox. To me it is clear that this version focuses on the bad critics on later events and that it is not nuanced at all.

So my suggestions is this for intro:

Remove all stuff about ETC and Arbetaren from the introduction. That is nothing else than WP:Recentism, things occuring the last year, and with obvioius focus on slandering. Compare with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section how this is a breech to good article standard. It is said above that this is what she is "known for". First of all Wikipedia is supposed to depict what she is notable for, not "known for". Sometimes they coincide, but in this case Kajsa Ekis Ekman have had an article on Swedish Wikipedia for way over ten years and almost ten years at English Wikipedia. Her notability is much more general and the intro should reflect that. And it is absolutely not true she is "primarly known for controversies surrounding her." Controversies surround her because she is an activist that creates material for debate. If someone reacts to her action, such as putting the bath tub of a politician to sale on craigs list, because he want to sell out the public pool, it is not "a controversy surrounding her."

Regarding the dispostion I want to suggest this, which follows both the Swedish version, and to some extent the current article:

Add some biographical background, completely missing now.

Add section title "Advocacy"(? Opinionsbildning), with subtitles as "Activism on privatisation", "Critisism of Israel", "View on sex" etc.etc.. Normally it should be written more chronolgically, but I think it works in this case. She has worked with different questions with high focus for a limited time so it is mostly chronological.

Add sections for the situations at ETC and Arbetaren.

In the article text there is room for nuance and balancing you cant put in the intro and that is missing in current text. LittleGun (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

More biographical details and material on her other activities can certainly be added. It is true that she has had a media presence for a number of years and published on different topics and the article should of course reflect that. However, it is also true that there has been a large surge in third party coverage of her in relation to her trans-related views (publications, cancellations of her etc.) since 2018, as well as her firings from Dagens ETC and Arbetaren, which were both very widely reported controversies in Sweden in 2022. In this sense User:Bonadea's observation[28] is accurate. A person can be notable or marginally notable, but then become more notable or well-known for something in particular; those are not mutually exclusive.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." In line with this, it doesn't make sense to omit Dagens ETC from the lead entirely considering that she published around 500 articles there over about a decade, as she noted herself[29] (many times more articles than any other publication). It also doesn't make sense to omit Arbetaren, both since it's the only newspaper she was the editor of and given the massive amount of coverage of the affair (easily the most discussed media affair in Sweden in 2022)[30][31]. Of course, the coverage in the lead should just be a brief summary; it's sufficient to mention that she wrote for Dagens ETC for about a decade until she was let go (amid controversy), and to mention her tenure as editor of Arbetaren in a similar brief way. Regarding the Swedish article, it is rather problematic and e.g. includes entirely fabricated promotional claims, such as the untrue claim that she writes for The Guardian (one single op-ed on the Comment is free platform (that includes op-eds and letters to the editor) doesn't count), so it should be taken with a grain of salt. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The current lead, in the locked article [32], give no room for any nuance of the two "controversies" regarding Arbetaren and ETC, and both are very limited in time, so it is clearly both biased and recentism. I dont think it is possible to agree on short formulations required for a lead not too text heavy, and that would make it even worse regarding recentism. Also the line on transgender, or "View on sexes", in the intro only claim "criticism".

Of course any other false claims, promotional or not, shall be removed.

The details may be handled when setting the new draft. LittleGun (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

We can work on revised ideas for a lead section, but I think it will be difficult -- in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section -- to write a lead section that doesn't mention any of the things she is, quite frankly, best known for (by far) at all, whether it's her long-standing role at Dagens ETC or her trans-related writings and views since 2018. Her role at Dagens ETC spanned a decade (and was her main platform as a journalist, with her 500 articles) before it ended in her controversial and widely reported departure, and isn't any kind of recentism, for example. But we can word it differently than the current version, e.g. like " she was a regular contributor to Dagens ETC for a decade, until she was let go amid controversy in 2022", which is a fairly neutral way to word it and with details left for the body of the article. Also, regarding her views on Russia Today, trans people etc., it's important to be mindful of Wikipedia:False balance. Reliable sources have been overwhelmingly critical of those views. The article needs to reflect how sources treat this material and avoid a false balance here. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not only the lead section. I have made a draft TBD now (Draft To Be Discussed) as requested. It is a translation of the article on the Swedish Wikipedia, placed here: Talk:Kajsa Ekis Ekman/Draft TBD.

Please take a look at it. Is it possible to replace the current locked article, 32, directly, and then discuss the content in each section and improve it in normal Wikipedia fashion? LittleGun (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I have informed about the draft at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kajsa_Ekis_Ekman. LittleGun (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The existing article here on the English Wikipedia should be the starting point. The Swedish article isn't that good. The lead – barely half a sentence that doesn't convey much information – doesn't conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in any meaningful way, and there are significant problems with the rest of the article too. The article is longer, but a lot of the material seems rather autobiographical in nature, detailing her inner thoughts or going on (only) about her views based on her own op-eds, and is very poorly sourced. Some sections practically lack any sources or only include an opinion piece by herself as a source, for example. The section on the transgender debate has problems with Wikipedia:False balance by giving far too much weight to a framing of her views as just a conflict "between women's rights issues and later transgender rights demands" which is how the TERF and anti-gender movements frame their views, but which is a really WP:FRINGE position, and not really in line with the portrayal of those views in mainstream sources. The heading "Sexes and Genders" isn't really meaningful; the whole controversy is about her views on trans people specifically (and the widespread accusations of transphobia), so the heading should include the word transgender. (Compare the focus and word choices in the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who Ekman has appeared alongside with at WDI events/podcasts). On the other hand there is some information there that could be included in the existing article. It would be better to add factual and sourced information from there to a draft based on the existing article. (I'm a little busy today and tomorrow, but I may try to combine the articles in a draft later this week). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Swedish article are way better than the current version of the English article,[33]. Not because it is longer but because it covers more of her activities and is not focused on defaming.

I have never heard of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull before, but according to the article she has done nothing else than being active in debate regarding "later transgender rights demands"

This is not the case with Kajsa Ekis Ekman. A better template is J.K. Rowling, but instead of one husge success, a number of smaller notable activities.

How about changing the heading to "Sex, Gender and transgender"? Or maybe "Sex, Gender and accusations of transphobia"?

I think we should extend the lead also, but we shall not doing it by taking stand in any controversies, we should trust the readers. The lead shall conclude the article, how about:

/...is a Swedish journalist, author and lecturer. Her workings have sparked debate in subjects regarding prostitution, surrogacy, and transgender issues taking a left-wing and feminist perspective.

LittleGun (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are some sourcing issues in the swedish version, otoh it is more comprehensive. I'm curious as to why FRINGE is being invoked here. The guideline covers pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, it does not invite picking sides in ongoing political disputes. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess it is invoked as mainstream medias and scholar ship view is part of FRINGE. Meaning "later trans gender rights demands" is not a political view, but a scientific law.

But I see only political debates and discussion regarding this. So both sides can argue that the other side is spreading pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, and I guess are doing so.

Lets go through one section at the time, and maybe not starting with "Sexes and Gender". In Swedish Wikipedia there is an article on just the book "On the Meaning of Sex", relieving some of the burden of the debate from her article. LittleGun (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I will look into this in more detail later, but just a short comment: Ekman is absolutely not anywhere near comparable to Rowling, who was world-famous for her Harry Potter books many years before she became involved with the anti-trans movement, and who is really only known for her anti-trans views because of her earlier fame. Ekman was a marginally notable freelance journalist and op-ed writer in Sweden who has in recent years faced "widespread accusations of transphobia"[34] and become a "leading figure in the new transphobic movement"[35] Much of her other work is comparatively obscure, and certainly compared to Rowling. While the article should of course reflect her other work too, the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull who is involved with the very same organizations, movement and ideas as Ekman in this topic is a relevant comparison in relation to the coverage of/section on her writings on transgender people specifically. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course we shall write about the accusations, and they are in the draft. The reason FRINGE is not valid is that the debate and discussions on gender and transphobia is not a scientific law.

However, I did not compare the level of fame. It was about each individual base of notability. Kajsa Ekis Ekman have had an article in English for nearly ten years and an article in Swedish for more than ten years. She has been writing for most liberal Swedish papers and for all relevant left-wing papers on several subjects. She was well notable in different areas long before she was accused of transphobia (starting 2018, escalating at 2021 and her book "On the meaning of sex". Not as successful of course, but well notable and in many subjects.

Then we cannot write an article using the Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull-article as template.

Symptomatically the source you chosed for showing she was "leading figure in the new transphobic movement", [35], was blamed by the ombudsman on the Media ethics board for that and another statement. I hope this is not the way this is going to work. LittleGun (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Dagens Nyheter (one of the two sources I cited above) was criticized for not offering Ekman an opportunity to respond doesn't change the substance of the criticism or the accuracy of the reporting, it's really just a matter between them and her, and it's just one of several such descriptions anyway, cited here just to illustrate how she is indeed well-known for her views and activism in this area. Yes, the positions of organizations such as WDI (supported by both Ekman and Keen-Minshull) are fringe and it's important to avoid a Wikipedia:False balance, trans people's existence/human rights is not commonly regarded as a "debate" between two "equal sides" in reputable and academic sources, and we should take care to avoid giving such an impression. Of course the article shouldn't be identical to Keen-Minshull's article, but regarding the coverage of/section on the trans issue specifically it's worthwhile to have a look at how the same ideas are framed/presented in articles on other prominent activists within the same movement, who advocate the same ideas in this topic area. Apart from that, I will get into this in more detail in a few days, as I mentioned. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Biography

I'm thinking: cut source 4 and 5, let Lundagård verify that sentence. As for the second to last paragraph, there is no information in Resumé on most of the claims as far as I can tell. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed source 4 and 5.

When you write "second to last paragraph", I am not sure what you mean. To me that is most of the biography (second paragraph starting with "She participated in the protests at European Council meetings in Gothenburg 2001,.../ and last paragraph ending with "She has referred to herself as 'generally left-wing.'") Did you mean Second to last sentences in the fifth paragraph?

That is from the sentence starting "She contributes to the cultural section of Dagens Nyheter and is " to the last sentence in that paragraph: "She lectures internationally on prostitution, surrogacy, and theory of crisis."?

It is stated she is writing for DN and ETC in the resume-article and that she lectures on those three subjects. About the writing both in the running text and the section "About Kajsa ekis Ekman" and there the lecturing can be found too. I guess the citation was solmenly for the last sentence, on the lecturing.

I have tried to clarify what is sourced and were citations is needed in the second paragraph. Is it clearer?

I think the others can be sourced, not with examples but actually mentioned in other sources, so I kept it. LittleGun (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearer to me. I've applied for access to mediearkivet, which should allow me to be a bit more useful going forward. I usually use DN for sourcing, but finding articles about someone is a lot harder in a newspaper with plenty of articles written by them. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In the DN article it is reported that her family lived in Sri Lanka when she was a toddler, but it is unclear whether she was born there or not. According to the article she has scarcely any memories from the stay, and maybe it is only worth mentioning were she actually born there. Unfortunately I've managed to find nothing useful even with Retriever-access. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that she published in klassekampen, but the only independent source I've found is from Epoch Times Sweden, and the international edition of Epoch Times is deprecated as a source on enwp. Tricky. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The newspaper has occasionally published opinion articles/op-eds by her – 19 in total since 2016 – but she is not a journalist with the paper; she doesn't work there. Opinion-focused newspapers like that routinely (i.e. daily) publish opinion articles by people not affiliated with the newspaper. Her contributions there appear to be a very tiny part of her writings – especially compared to her 500 articles in Dagens ETC with which she had a more regular relationship. If there is a better source than Epoch Times it would be sufficient to mention it only briefly in the body of the article, IMO. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The draft

Very little changes have been suggested to the draft and the article is no longer locked. It is clearly understood that AnnikaCarina really wants to address alleged transphobia and emphasize slander regarding ETC and Arbetaren. Note that there is articles in eleven languages, none of which is emphasizing these angles. I will copy the draft to the article now. As there has been an asked for draft out for several weeks, please discuss beforehand and do not start another edit-war! LittleGun (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking good. I'll come back to deal with the cn-tags and buff upp the sources once I get a better understanding of advanced searches in Retriever. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The draft was a somewhat poorly written and especially poorly sourced text, full of citation tags and unsourced statements, and things that needed work, and there has not been any agreement to replace the existing article wholesale, although there has been acknowledgement that material from the draft could be integrated with the existing article. As I said before the stable version here on the English Wikipedia should really be the starting point. It's not really a good solution to just disregard the entire existing article in favor of something else, especially when that something else isn't that good or ready, and certainly has more problems (including with unsourced material) than the stable version. The numerous problems raised before remain and haven't been addressed. Apart from poor sourcing, parts of it read like an autobiography, written from her perspective ("Ekman decided to", as we can know her thoughts). It goes on at length about her thoughts and views instead of citing third party sources. There are whole sections that are unsourced / sourced only to her opinion pieces. There are also statements that are critical of her that are entirely unsourced; not that I disagree with them, but it just shows the draft shouldn't just replace the existing article. Work on the draft also stopped weeks ago, so there has not really been any progress anyway, or anything to engage with there, or any improvements to comment on following the initial comments above. I've been somewhat busy myself as well. Also, there is no "slander" anywhere, and describing her views regarding trans issues – widely described as transphobic or anti-trans – as views on "transgender issues taking a left-wing and feminist perspective" – as if anti-trans views is the "feminist perspective" – is pure POV. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Simply no. There are minor concerns surrounding sourcing, which can be addressed. As soon as the article had been unlocked you're back in the lede re-introducing the same hit piece nonsense, against prevailing consensus. Thereby causing comparatively major issues with respect to neutrality and the BLP policy, while disrespecting the ground rules of the collaborative editing environment. Please stop this. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, the text (where all work stopped weeks ago despite the comments above) is full of unsourced statements, and it is not appropriate to just delete the stable version and replace it with a text with significant issues, certainly more than any of the stable version had. The stable version is really the starting point here. Sourced material from the other alternative text could be added to or integrated with the existing article, but replacing the article with a text where significant parts are fully or practically unsourced isn't the way forward. Also, given how the text has significant issues with poor sourcing, problematic language and more, it clearly needs editing. The statement "Her views on transgender issues have generated extensive debate and criticism in Sweden" is a fair and objective summary, in light of the content below in the article, and much better than the other proposed wording introduced yesterday that portrayed her trans-related views, that are aligned with the GC/TERF movement, as the "feminist perspective" on trans people, a rather extreme statement. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

She has been active for over a decade as a left wing advocate and writer engaged in various issues and causes. This is now summarised as her being fired twice last year and also we get to know her stance on one specific issue, or rather we don't. I find that inappropriate. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We have been over this before. As User:Bonadea said it, she is "primarily known for the controversies surrounding her". Those two controversies were among the most widely reported in Sweden for a whole year. Additionally she has received extensive (critical) coverage related to her trans-related views, far more coverage than any other coverage apart from her two firings. The lead is written in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which says the lead should be "a summary of its most important contents" and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" and "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." In the early 2000s she may have been active as a freelance writer, but she wasn't the subject of extensive third party coverage, or anywhere near as well known as today. Based on the article alone, most of the third party reliable sources included there seem to be about these three things. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The draft was written because it was requested, and and update the content in good faith and after discussions to avoid edit war in the article namespace. Suggested changeswas added and/or discussed. It was not many. That is stable.

This article had 77 edits and 50-something editors between 2014 and November 2021. That is stable.

It have had 341 revisions by 80 users the last 18 months. In comparison, not very stable. During the same time the article have been locked and one user have been blocked for editing. Also, not very stable.

But very typical for an article where a loud minority want to smear the articles subject. LittleGun (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It was made clear that material from your new text could be integrated with the existing article and that the existing article should be considered the starting point, and that your text had a number of problems, including large unsourced portions and some problematic sections. In fact it had far more problems than the existing article regarding sourcing. These problems weren't addressed and work on the text stopped several weeks ago. But that's ok, there is no hurry, we can continue working on it, and include material that is unproblematic and properly sourced. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Stability was the issue. The Swedish text is very much more stable, as you can see in the history. None of the topics are missing from the locked article. So lets gosection by section. Starting with the intro. The place for summary and showing notability. LittleGun (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Name

Her complete name according to the Swedish resident registration, but including a nickname, is: Anna Kajsa Helena Langemar "Ekis" Ekman Makboul.

Kajsa Ekis Ekman is her "nom de plume".

Kajsa is a first name, Ekman is a surname and "Ekis" is a common nickname for persons with the last name Ekman, Ekstedt, Ekström etc, but is included in her nom de plume.

Her nom de plume is commonly written without citation marks, but in Sweidsh Wikipedia we write it with the nickname between citation marks.

Her complete name contains three last names, "Langemar Ekman Makboul", at least I think Langemar is a last name originally too. Swedish resident registration have had different approach to more than one last name. At sometimes two, and even more than two, have been accepted. At other times you have been asked to add them as extra middle names. I think Kajsa Ekis Ekman has changed her last name at least once, and moved other last names as a middle name.

@Primefac. I think the article name should be "Kajsa Ekis Ekman". But why was her complete name as stated in Swedish resident registration removed? Is it too many and therefore disturbing? Does it fit better somewhere else? LittleGun (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find verification so I defaulted to the page name. If that is her full name, then that followed by "commonly known as Kajsa Ekis Ekman" is fine. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Intro

I reverted the intro to the one in the draft again, clarifying what subjects she have deabted prostitution, surrogacy, transgender from a leftish view to clarify it is not right wing, religious or conservative. A summary of the content of the article rather than cherrypicking a few rescent examples from the last year. (It stated only that she has debated and been critisized for transgender issuse, leaving out all other subjectt she has started debates on. It also emphazised that she has been removed from two positions from left wing magazines during 2022, but not stating any of the outcomes).

The only example of subject (trans debate), and what happened a ETC and Arbetaren are not why she is notable.

The main reasons why it sparked debate was critisicism that things were handled wrong. Her freelance collegues wrote an open letter to the ETC chief editor. The CEO from Arbetare hired Ekman without checking with the staff in an syndicalist union owned magazine (how is that controversy her fault?). That was critisized as being stupid, and strange they did not give her any chance, and resulting her being fired, something rescent events proved unlawful. All this is left out in the previous intro when giving the few examples.

She is a woman, she is left wing, she is writing on feminist issues, writng on prostitution, surrogacy, anticapitalism, and she wants debate and discussions. Her break as a political writer was to sell a politicians bath tub. Of course she spurs controversy!

She writes leaders and columns and books in subjects where she thinks points are being missed. That is her job and main objective. Of course there will be critiscism. That is part of debate and shown in the sections below.--LittleGun (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the lead should be "a summary of its most important contents" and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" and "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

The vast majority of RS coverage of her – and the majority of the sources in the article – is related to her various high-profile controversies, and her trans-related views. As User:Bonadea said it, she is "primarily known for the controversies surrounding her". Whether she believes she was wronged in these controversies is immaterial; this is not her website or autobiography. We can include her views on that if published in reliable sources if this is an important part of it.

The text as it now stands seems to be based on Wikipedia:Original research and personal views (including on the weight of the material) rather than reliable sources, and is not a summary of the article in the sense of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

Describing her trans-related views as the "feminist perspective" is extreme. She has been widely criticized for anti-trans views (she has been "roundly criticized for transphobia" as one source said it[36]) and being a prominent figure within the current anti-trans movement. That is not the "feminist perspective." Describing views that numerous RS describe as transphobic as the "feminist perspective" is POV and whitewashes extreme views that dehumanize trans people. The former wording was a fair and objective summary, intended as a reasonable compromise based on the article's content and sources, and not even that critical ("Her views on transgender issues have generated extensive debate and criticism in Sweden"). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No. It is not just the transgender views that makes her notable. Not until 2021 with her book that was part of her notabiity. So a summary should not just pick one subject. But the most important ones. So in the summary trangender is one. All is elaborated in the running text.

Again: She is a woman, she is left wing, she is writing on feminist issues, writng on prostitution, surrogacy, anticapitalism, transgender and she wants debate and discussions. Of course she spurs controversy! LittleGun (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Again: Lead sections are based on RS and the relative prominence of the material in RS per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The vast majority of that RS coverage is related to her controversies and trans-related views. The lead is very short and could also mention some of these other (less reported and less prominent) issues that you mention. I don't see what "she is a woman" has got to do with anything, and numerous feminists like me would disagree that anti-trans views has anything to do with feminism, but of course we can mention how she identifies politically. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And of course a won lawsuit against Arbetaren should not just be part of her autobiography. And of course must an open letter from her freelance colleagues given her support be mentioned. All that is part of those controversies. Also part of the running texts. But too specific for an intro. LittleGun (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

What is RS short for? LittleGun (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Which is made clear from the guideline I asked you to read as well (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry and thanks. I have read the guideline and the citations you have presented from it. I did not realize the shortcut redirection was a well known acronym for reliable sources. I thought it had to with Mainstream Media or something from the context. LittleGun (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to go into the details of the Arbetaren controversy in the lead, but as an extremely high-profile and widely reported controversy in Sweden it would be appropriate to mention it in some manner. The subsequent saga of the lawsuit just underlines its prominence. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

POV template

In the justification for the POV template, written in the edit summary,[37] it says: describing her views – widely described anti-trans (she has even appeared with Posie Parker!) – as the "feminist perspective" is not encyclopedic

It was not my intention to write that her views on transgender is the feminist perspective. Rather "a" feminist perspective. Her views on trans are described as anti-trans in some part of the feminist community. The one referring to her and other (feminists) as TERF:s. The F in the slurword TERF stands for feminists.

Does this not show that the "feminist perspective" in this question is split? And that there is not exactly one "feminist perspective" in that subject?

I believe that goes for all subjects? Sure there are feminists embracing capitalism, prostitution and surrogacy too? I still think that for a short summary "left wing and feminist" is valid and draws the broad platform helping reading the rest of the article. LittleGun (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The wording heavily implies that her anti-trans views is the feminist perspective and ignores the fact that she has been "roundly criticized for transphobia"[38]. That is offensive and wrong. Feminism is not split over this issue. The anti-gender/anti-trans movement using feminism as a justification for anti-trans views is a fringe movement – especially in the context of feminism – and not representative of mainstream feminism and its views. Feminists are the ones who are most supportive of trans people, in general. It would be better to have a separate sentence that could describe how she identifies as left-wing and feminist, and then a separate sentence summarizing her trans-related views and activities (like the one I proposed above), without conflating the two issues in a tendentious manner. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is that really a fact? It sure seems feminists are split from an outside view. And, even the slur TERF includes feminists.

Can we agree that the articles text show she is writing from a left wing and feminist view on the other subjects? LittleGun (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

May this work:

Kajsa "Ekis" Ekman is a Swedish author, freelance journalist and debater. Her workings have sparked debate in subjects regarding prostitution, surrogacy taking a left-wing and feminist perspective. Her writing and debate regarding transgender and feminism have sparked controversy.

Her main point in the transgender discussion is that it is a backlash for feminism. LittleGun (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Not good. We need why, or how, it have sparked controversy. LittleGun (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I will try with:̈́

Kajsa "Ekis" Ekman is a Swedish author, freelance journalist and debater. Her workings have sparked debate in subjects regarding prostitution, surrogacy taking a left-wing and feminist perspective. Her writing and debate regarding transgender and feminism have sparked controversy and accusations of being trans-exclusive.

LittleGun (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That is ok with me. (Although I believe the correct word here is exclusionary rather than exclusive). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I do think we should replace workings with something else: works, efforts? Draken Bowser (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, bad choice from me. I changed to "work", missed your plural "s", but I do not think it is needed. Better than workungs anyway. LittleGun (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

TERF is a political sneer word, not a slur. Please don't cheapen the notion of what a slur is. Recently there also seems to be an uptick in trans exclusionary feminists adopting the term in earnest, so the victim-playing is quickly becoming out of fashion. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. English is not my first language and I do not see a significant difference between politial sneer and slur. "Victim-playing" or not, it is a word used "derogatory" also according to the Wikipedia-article. So I am not sure you are completetly right, and it is definitely used derogatory in the threads above and in Swedish discussions regarding Kajsa Ekis Ekman. LittleGun (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear to me that "pejorative" and "slur" are not synonymous. One is disrespectful towards what someone does, the other towards what someone is. The term in English cannot mean mere casting aspersion on someone, least of all to political affiliations, which are always taken up by choice, but on someone for aspects of themselves over which they have no control (nationality, skin color, sexuality etc). Are we to consider words like "bourgeois", "liberal", "Nazi" or "communist" to also be slurs? That would be ridiculous. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)