Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

Ideology

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

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

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

The term is associated with gender-critical feminism, although Keen-Minshull herself has clarified that she is "not a feminist". [1]

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify, I was trying to note how the article is built from reliable sources; we also should be careful to avoid original research. I have reverted the attempt to add content based on Keen-Minshull's tweet [2] for several reasons. The section where the content based on her tweet was added is not about her ideology, it is about her billboards, posters, stickers. This content was added after existing content related to an advertising campaign, including how the campaign (not her ideology) is reported by an independent, reliable, secondary source. Adding her tweet about feminism after this does not seem appropriate according to sourcing guidelines and core content policies. Beccaynr (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

- Feminism is widely understood to be rooted in the struggle for women's rights. The default google definition for "feminism" (provided by Oxford Languages) reads, the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes, and other dictionaries have similar definitions including an emphasis on "rights".[3]

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

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

• KJKM has been very clear that she is not a feminist, and obviously does not want the term applied to her. She has made this point repeatedly on Twitter and elsewhere. [4] [5] When an interviewer referred to her as a feminist, KJKM quickly corrected him. [6] It would be inappropriate if this page inadvertently led readers to conclude that she is a feminist.
• The second sentence of the article reads, She describes herself as a woman's rights activist. While this is clearly true, it is obviously incomplete. KJKM's repeated disavowal of the "feminist" label is evidently an important part of her identity.

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

I propose changing the second sentence,

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

to

She describes herself as a woman's rights activist, [3][4] although she has repeatedly stated that she is "not a feminist". [7] [8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that KJKM identifies as "not a feminist" has indeed the subject of reporting by numerous sources [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], as well as a subject of discussion among both pro-KJKM and con-KJKM sources [14] [15] [16] [17]. (The journalistic reliability of sources like the Daily Mail and random substack newsletters is not an issue here, since KJKM's non-feminist identity is not in question. The point is rather that this identification is the subject of widespread reportage and discussion.)

The confusion that I describe, in which KJKM is assumed to be "feminist" based on association with "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" or "gender-critical feminism", is exemplified by numerous articles. [18] [19] [20] Oddly enough, other articles quote people who claim that KJKM is not a feminist, which would appear to be exactly KJKM's own position. [21] [22]

I can't see any way in which the "not a feminist" claim is less well supported, or less relevant to the conversation, than the "women's rights activist" claim. Indeed, the broader discussion around KJKM, TERFism, and the GC movement more generally is often about the meaning and future of feminism itself. [23] [24]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to additional sources offered by IP 74, the WP:DAILYMAIL is not considered a reliable source; opinion pieces, to the extent The Critic is an RS, [25] are per WP:RSOPINION reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact (it is also not clear that this piece attributes "not a feminist" to Keen-Minshull); to the extent QNews is an RS, this source attributes the "not a feminist" claim to a third party, not the reporter; the Star Observer does the same [26]; we also do not use blogs or self-published substacks; and what is reported by Vice does not seem sufficient to support inclusion in the lead, because this is not a response to her self-description as a woman's rights activist, it is a statement she reportedly shouted at a rally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (edit conflict) I've looked into this further. I've found sources like [27] [28] which talk about how someone else has said she has admitted she isn't a feminist, without actually something that view in their editorial voice. Then there is this, which talks about a feminist insulting her including saying she isn't a feminist [29], yet even this source doesn't comment that Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is in agreement on that point. The only sources I can find which mention her saying she isn't a feminist is this [30] although only in the context of something she yelled at a protestor, and [31] which isn't really a great source since it's a discussion programme although does go a little more into the not a feminist thing. I'm unconvinced that those two sources are enough, we do not add random crap someone yells at a protestor one day even if it's covered in a secondary source or two. And while the other one is a little better, I'm unconvinced that a discussion programme is the sort of source we should use for a BLP. It does seem to me that for whatever reason, sources have chosen not to pay attention to this statement of hers. Why, I don't know and don't really care. Perhaps there is some additional context to the "not a feminist" label that we're missing, perhaps they just didn't think it was important (although it's a little weird that those 3 earlier sources didn't), perhaps they disagree with her labeling herself so and feel it's not worth commenting on (although again a little weird the earlier 3 didn't), perhaps they just missed it. Ultimately per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we're not here to right great wrongs and if for whatever reasons other sources have not paid attention to her self description then we'll be doing the same. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  • On ABC, an interview with Dr Kaz Ross, a researcher studying far-right extremism: So, yeah, it's a bit of a mouthful, but she she calls herself a women's rights activist. But not a feminist. [32]
  • The Daily Express literally says, Ms Keen, from Wiltshire, who says she is a “women's rights activist but not a feminist”, believes... [33]
  • There are other legit and semi-legit news organizations that report the same: [34] [35] [36]

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

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

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

  The Daily Telegraph (AU) refers to KJKM first as a feminist and then as a WRA: ...outspoken UK feminist Kellie-Jay Keen. Ms Keen, a women’s rights campaigner ... [37]

  KJKM on Tucker Carlson, probably the biggest name on Fox News -- the video (on KJKM's channel) has 131,000 views. In only her second answer to Carlson's questions, KJKM says, Well I think it helps [that] I'm not actually a feminist, okay um, and I'm not a feminist for a multitude of reasons... [38]

  KJKM interviewed on "This Morning", a video with 2.1 million views titled Feminist Blogger Believes Trans-Women Aren't Real Women [39]

  The Post (NZ): [40] The activist... has accrued a significant online following with supporters calling her a feminist while detractors say she is transphobic.​

  Spectator (AU): More than anybody else, Keen is emblematic of British feminism’s current direction of travel away from the academic left. [41]

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

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

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

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

  Anyway, you're right about the ABC interview, and I would add the Tucker Carlson one as well: Tucker is a key figure of the American right, and until recently, his show was perhaps the most influential on FOX. The version I linked is on KJKM's youtube channel, but it also appears to be available through Apple TV (which I don't have) [42] and it's on a TC fan channel as well [43]. At 130,000+ views on KJKM's page alone, it's hard to imagine that it's not notable enough. 74.76.229.168 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The part which would support an addition is on page 97 [44]

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, I noticed some stuff which I didn't pay much attention to since it wasn't RS suggesting she didn't always reject the label. I did come across [45] from 2018 which includes a quote where she explicitly calls herself a feminist. Her change from embracing to rejecting the label may be an additional reason why sources haven't paid much attention. (Sometimes such changes can get more attention but other times they can be a case of can't be bothered keeping up with it.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I suggested the wording that ‘she does not identify as a feminist’ because that is what is in the Finn Mackay source. I’ve no idea why you think that would make readers think about ‘stinky’ feminists, nor why you think readers have ‘worms in their brains’. [46] Sweet6970 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i agree, though the phrasing shouldn’t necessarily be “feminist” — she has stated multiple times that she is NOT an anti-trans activist & does not call herself a feminist, but she IS a women’s rights activist and calls herself just that. her tag should be changed to reflect that. Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't go by someone's self description, we go by what the reliable sources say overall. Furthermore, KJKM is not necessarily a reliable source on herself. Loki (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

oh okay! i’m just confused because multiple reliable news sources cite her as a women’s right activist (or advocate)

ex.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aDLNA_WUIAY&pp=ygUPa2VsbGllIGpheSBrZWVu (as “women’s activist”)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Su8XLdc26uo (as “women’s rights advocate”)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13065187/amp/trans-woman-threatened-kill-womens-rights-campaigners-faces-jail.html (as “women’s rights campaigners”)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-were-up-against/amp/ (as “women’s rights activist”)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12452915/amp/Womens-rights-campaigner-Kellie-Jay-Keen-sues-Australian-MPs-defamation-attacked-rally-following-condemnation-tour.html (as “women’s rights campaigner”)

etc etc etc

so can’t it be both? maybe women’s rights & anti-trans activist? Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Out of the Daily Mail, the National Review, a seemingly random Youtube channel, and Sky News Australia, none of them are reliable sources. The Daily Mail in fact is deprecated at WP:RSP, the National Review and Sky News Australia are both ordinary levels of unreliable, and the other Youtube channel appears to be a WP:SPS. Loki (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

the “random youtube channels” are credited foreign news sources. i’m confused T_T aorry Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to label her a "anti-transgender rights activist." this conception of "rights" implies that her activism seeks to undermine some concluded upon set of priveleges that transgender individuals morally inherently deserve, instead of to question the ways in which society treats non-sex conforming individuals and suggest that some of them may be harmful. As a result I think it's better to either a) leave the description at just "gender critical" without the addition of "anti-transgender rights activist" or at least change it to just "anti-transgender activist." This would improve clarity and better adhere to WP:NPOV Smefs (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with just "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender", I think it's a little less awkward phrasing honestly. Loki (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Kelly Jay keen is 'PRO Woman' She is not 'Anti trans'. Her activism is always Pro Woman's Human rights and the impacts that the erasure of these rights is having and how women are being silenced for speaking up about this. Its an abusive use of language that implies a hatred and reinforces her claim that women are being silenced by shaming women into conceding their human rights. I have seen above that this has been criticised before but that was clearly ignored. Linglinus (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's generally ignored because Kelly Jay Keen happily admits her activism is definitively anti-trans and not always pro women LunaHasArrived (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

can you source this? thank you Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've realised that I made a mistake with ordering in my comment. I meant that her activism isn't always pro women (look at her stances on teenage abortion and teenage birth control. She does argue against these because she does argue against gillick competence in the UK) and she's happily admitted that her activism is Anti-trans and transphobic. Although it is interesting what KJK says about any women who doesn't agree with her anti-trans views. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but now we're getting into the realms of WP:SYNTH. You cannot jump from her arguing against Gillick Competence straight to "her activism is not always pro-women", because you're making a logical leap that the two are equivalent, which is a value judgement that not everyone would share. We can quite happily talk about Keen's transphobia, or her cosying up to racists, because those things are sourced in multiple reliable sources, but there doesn't appear to be one which sources her "not always being pro-women", even if it may appear that is the case. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

100% the case, I wouldn't try to put this opinion into a Wikipedia article without a secondary source, but on a talk page I think it's fair to say she doesn't always argue pro women. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A quick bit of research has led me to this [1]

Which could definitely be a credited quote in a relevant section. There is also this  : "I don't care what these people think about trans ideology. That cannot be separated from the things they do and advocate that specifically harm women." which is already used in the article.LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The source you have linked above is plainly a biased opinion piece, and therefore not suitable for use in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You're definitely right to say it shouldn't be included due to Wikipedia:BLPSPS (I am admittedly unfamiliar with these types of pages.) Either way the point is made be the quote in the article.LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

this source is biased, though Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the quote from this Wikipedia article makes the point that she actively harms women (hardly pro women). LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just want to add that I have no plans to edit this article at this time, just talking on the talk page LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

i think that a good source could be her pieces for the women’s liberation front, as she acts as special advisor for it i believe? would you like me to link some? Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, a good source for what. Anything sourced from there would have to be under Wikipedia:SPS as well. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not aware that K-J K-M has ever said she is not always pro women. Sweet6970 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Party of Women

I have deleted the material added today because I do not think that the sources provided were satisfactory. I have tried a general internet search, and not found anything relevant. Can anyone provide an independent reliable source confirming that the political party has been registered? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have reinstated this as the citation to the Electoral Commission registration is sound. That is a suitable independent reliable source.

The lack of reporting of the registration, in contrast to the reporting of the initial rejection, may tell us something about 'RS'.

BTW Apologies for my revert summary but I thought I was going to add a new citation. I hadn't realised the original editor had used this. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Why no early history?

I'd be interested in finding out her family, religion, schooling etc. I think it would be relevant. Also why she choose to parody the actor Parker Posey's name. 14.200.155.254 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a spin on Nosey Parker rather than Parker Posey?

Not sure her early life etc. is going to be very interesting but you could do some research and see what you turn up. If it's properly sourced it would go into the article. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

photo

may i update the photo to be something more recent from her lws event in edinburgh? i’m not sure the protocol on this. let me know! Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

hey again! still wondering this. new to wikipedia editing, but i’ve been browsing all my life (as i’m sure most have) — i just always thought it was interesting that you could tell if editors disagreed with the person the article was written about based on the photo chosen for the article. anyway, keep me updated! Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The main issue is copyright and personal rights, i.e. licensing and permission to use an image on Wikipedia. You can't just upload a picture you found elsewhere to Wikipedia, not even a picture you took yourself; you need to get – or grant – permission to use it in this way.

See Wikipedia:Uploading images, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Images, and especially the Wikipedia:Image use policy, which contains a summary of the potential issues. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)