Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

"anti-trans" activist

Little more explanation here since my revert submitted early. "Women's rights" activist means fighting for women's rights. Not once in reliable sources does Keen actually do that, since harassing transgender women (who are also women), working with the Heritage Foundation, and calling for armed men to enter women's bathrooms to police who can go in (since trans people are the one's saying men should enter women's bathrooms to cause violence...) has less to do with women's rights than transphobia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Trans women are men. Everyone knows it, no matter how loudly you shout it. That's the reason for the "trans" label. 173.217.195.26 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We disagree, and I could say lots of terribly impolite things in response to this, but it's also not even relevant. This is a pure factual claim. The subject of this article campaigns against trans people, and does not campaign for increased rights for women, even specifically cis women. Therefore, she is an anti-trans activist, and not a women's rights activist. 3mi1y (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Keen is an activist for the rights of women, rights which are being encroached upon by biological males. This has been stated by the subject many times on many platforms and published in many forms of media. To change this to "anti-Trans" activist is vandalism of Wikipedia and opens the platform to defamation claim. TheTranarchist is vandalising an encyclopaedia in order to push their own personal views and not reflect a truly factual portrait of the subject. MahdDogg (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, I single-handedly wrote all of the articles in dozens of reliable sources that describe her as an "anti-trans" activist. Allllll me... Fun fact, page consensus here is that calling Keen - a women who's said its fine to lose abortion rights in order to attack trans people - a "women's rights" activist, is vandalism, not supported by reliable sources, and blatantly untrue. If you want to check out my user page, I actually have the algorithm by which I write articles such as this one outlined. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

100% Agree 87.115.233.67 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-trans activist is simply the most efficient way to describe her. Its abundantly clear that attempts to switch from this description to a "women's rights" description is rooted in bias and an attempt at generating positive PR for the subject, which is not the purpose of this website. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I followed Keen's recent #LetWomenSpeakUSA tour and (although strongly opposed by trans-identified males and self-declared "allies") her clear emphasis was against pediatric medicalization of gender-anxious youth and for the preservation of single-sex spaces such as prisons, sport, rape and domestic-violence shelters. Would "women's rights activist focused on single-sex spaces," work for you, perhaps with accusations of "anti-trans" bias noted elsewhere? That seems more in keeping with Wikipedia:NPV. Rorybowman (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I followed Keen's recent #LetWomenSpeakUSA tour too and it was strongly opposed by trans people and allies because her clear emphasis was in support of forcibly detransitioning transgender minors (which should be met with equal horror as forcing a cisgender child to take cross-sex hormones against their will and mandating every pretend it's ok) and support for the government-mandated exclusion of trans women from spaces such as prisons (to send them to mens' prisons' where its an open secret they'd be raped or beaten by the guards and other prisoners), sports (no matter their stage of transition, times on various hormones, etc), and rape and domestic-violence shelters (since they may face higher rates of rape and domestic violence than cis women at the hands of the very same men but some very loud cis women might be uncomfortable with the mere existence of those icky transgenders). Would "anti-trans" work for you and continue to describe baseline reality? Perhaps with her thin veneer of labeling herself a "women's rights activist focused on single-sex spaces," noted elsewhere? That seems more in keeping with WP:NPOV. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, this is your biased lens putting falsehoods in the subjects mouth. Her emphasis is, and always has been, on Trans identifying children not being pushed into medical transition before the age of 18. How TheTranarchist is allowed to even come near articles like this and spread fictions and lies in order to demonise a living person is utterly beyond me. MahdDogg (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah it's all correct, I just expanded on the euphemisms to describe the facts of the matter. I'm here because unlike you I use reliable sources instead of screaming into the void and casting aspersions, and I've written several articles about anti-trans groups and activists (such as this one). Trans identifying children not being pushed into medical transition before the age of 18 is a thinly veiled euphemism for banning transgender youth from transitioning. I myself transitioned before 18, and anyone who argues trans minors shouldn't have the right to transition is at most charitable an idiot and at least charitable outright cruel and bigoted. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. See arbitration advice surrounding this. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RoryBowman, I do not mean to be rude, but suggesting you "followed" her USA tour is inaccurate and blatantly dishonest. You were present at her Tacoma stop where children were pepper sprayed and a 14 year old Black girl was called racial slurs. There is video of you there in a green beanie that says "Rory" and you can be seen engaging in physical confrontations as well as getting in the faces of counter protesters. I do think you should step back from editing as striving for neutrality is essential. If I was a man who has engaged in physical violence while acting as security for the subject of an article, I would remove myself from the editing process for the sake of my own credibility on this site. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Just checked to verify this and it indeed seems true based on this (Redacted) of the event. Definitely a WP:COI that should be disclosed. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Collecting references to this subject by reliable sources

• "Feminist" label applied at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-form-a-thin-blue-line-to-keep-gender-protesters-apart-xdjgs52xf, "Police form a thin blue line to keep gender protesters apart: Feminists and trans supporters hold rival demonstrations in Glasgow," The Sunday Times, 5 February 2023.
• "Women's rights campaigner" at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11715379/Womens-rights-campaigner-Kellie-Jay-Keen-thanks-Nicola-Sturgeon-waking-Scotland-Glasgow.html, 5 February 2023.
• "Controversial gender critic" at https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23300710.glasgow-gender-recognition-reform-rally-met-counter-protest/, 5 February 2023.
• "Controversial gender critic" at https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2023/02/05/hundreds-join-rally-against-gender-recognition-reforms/, 5 February 2023.
• "Anti-trans founder of Standing for Women" at https://www.thenational.scot/news/23299549.posie-parker-anti-trans-founder-standing-women/, 4 February 2023.
• "Controversial gender critic" at https://guernseypress.com/news/uk-news/2023/02/05/hundreds-join-rally-against-gender-recognition-reforms/, 5 February 2023.
• "Controversial gender critic" at https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scotland-gender-row-organiser-thanks-nicola-sturgeon-for-waking-up-scotland-as-hundreds-join-rally-against-gender-recognition-reforms-4014899, 5 February 2023.

I'll be adding to this later, and encourage others to do so as well. Rorybowman (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Before someone points to it and tries to change the article again, please note that the Daily Mail, the only one in this list using the "women's rights" wording, is not considered a reliable source here. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 02:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted, the express and star and guernsey press are both just reprints of UK news, not two separate sources. The times, which has a reputation for it's anti-trans line, does not call Keen a feminist, it presents a false dichotomy between being feminist or pro-trans (which are absolutely not mutually exclusive), then also calls her a "gender critic". I've never seen the term "gender critic" before in my life before this (and given my extensive research on the anti-trans movement, I should have seen that euphemism at least once before) and it seems to be the latest rebranding of gender-critical and has only been used to describe Keen in the last two days in only some publications. The only source you listed that provides WP:SIRS coverage of Keen is in fact the National, which describes her as "anti-trans", and also mentions her links to various white supremacists and islamaphobia, which should probably be in the lead. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to add my own tuppence ha'penny, I also don't see the reliable sourcing for "women's rights activist" in the lead. That she's an anti-trans activist is surely not in dispute, is it? Are there sources saying that she's a supporter of trans rights? OsFish (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, but "anti-trans" sounds bad, and people who agree with her want to make her sound good instead (because who could possibly argue against a women's rights activist?) ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 15:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered this issue on multiple pages over the years. People seem to confuse Wikipedia's neutrality policy with being some sort of duty to be nice about people, or to be a platform for how that person wants to be known. If someone in the real world behaves in a certain way, resulting in reliable sources describing them in a manner they don't like, it's not for Wikipedia to help them or, what seems much more the case here, their supporters, to manage their PR. By the time Wikipedia gets to treat the subject (ie after RS has appeared), the horse has already bolted.OsFish (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

This article is a total hatchet job on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshul. This bias of the writers is extreme. This article needs to be withdrawn and a new one commissioned from a fair and balanced view. Kimiko Hiroshige (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an edit request, and Wiki articles aren't "commissioned". Is there anything you believe is wrong or missing, and can you back it up with reliable secondary sources? LarstonMarston (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Change anti-trans to pro-women. She speaks about and on behalf of women, LJM184968 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't what the reliable sources say. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Untrue 87.115.233.67 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide one? Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Kjk is and always has been an advocate for women's rights. Calling her anti trans is just men's way of saying they are mad because she tells them to let women speak. TheLadyBadger (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023

I suggest to remove/replace the section title "Harassment of transgender people". The reason I suggest this as she has never been convicted of harassment and there could be a legal issue with Wikipedia allowing this to be stated in this way. ResidentAmerican (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see cited sources. We simply report what reliable sources say. Also see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS Cannolis (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

Kelly-Jay Keen-Minishull is not an Anti-Trans Activist, she is a Woman's Rights Activist. Please make that change. 24.234.170.116 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please see the many cited reliable sources throughout the article that support our current phrasing. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ask Kellie-Jay. She approves of the change. How can wikipedia insist on keeping wrong information? X10 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Because wikipedia follows reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Nazi barbie as a profile image - accusation or statement?

Might be a bit controversial so bringing it up here. The article currently states Keen has been accused of using a Barbie doll in a Nazi uniform as her profile image on the social media site Spinster. This is based on the source using the word "accused" and sticking to the source. However, a quick verification with archive.ph shows that Keen has verifiably used the image as her profile picture. Would it be WP:OR to state it as a fact rather than an accusation? Failing that, to include the archive link as a reference? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we can only go as far as the source goes, which unfortunately links to a tweet, breaking the chain of reliable sources. That the accusation is clearly accurate is not for us to confirm. I'm also uncomfortable with linking to the archive. Again, although it shows the accusation is true, it's not really our business as Wikipedians to do journalism.OsFish (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't do journalism but we do edit. It seems like a pretty trivial and flimsy thing to include, even if it turns out to be true. Wikipedia isn't a place to dump all the dirt that people fling on the internet, even if RS give a nod to it. Do any other sources substantiate it or make a deal about it (beyond saying "someone tweeted an accusation")? Mere verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The phrases "has been called" or "has been accused", when used on Wikipedia often warrant scrutiny of WP:PROPORTION: "Well, okay that's true. X did said Y. Why does it belong in an encyclopedia?" --Animalparty! (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

For a start, both the fact that she was accused of it and that she very obviously did it are true. Considering one of Keen's main criticisms has been her support for the far-right and constantly appearing with white-supremacists and saying "oops" as a defense when called out about it, the fact that she willingly chose to use a nazi barbie as a profile picture, which was covered in a reliable source, seems pretty due. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between true and appropriate. Per WP:PROPORTION (policy) An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING (another policy): Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. There appears to be currently one reliable source, published only 2 days ago, the mentions the Nazi Barbie accusation. Thus, that accusation currently has rather little weight compared to other actions that have received wider and more sustained coverage (see also WP:RECENTISM). And even if several sources state "she was accused of X", the question remains of "why should Wikipedia include this?". Even innocuous statements can be used to imply or suggest more controversial things if placed carelessly or without context. Did X lead to significant controversy or impacts to to the subject, or is X just one of many things thing that happened? If we can't explain to readers why something is important to a biography without WP:OR, it's best omitted unless or until reliable sources allow for such. If a reliable sources confirm someone ate a peanut butter sandwich, that fact alone doesn't warrant inclusion. If the result from said sandwich was dying of a peanut allergy, then it becomes much more significant. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If we can't explain to readers why something is important to a biography without WP:OR, it's best omitted unless or until reliable sources allow for such. - You don't need OR for anybody to get the significance, just stating it is enough. Anybody publicly dressing as a nazi or representing themselves online as one is due and relevant information, especially if noted in a reliable source. Even if the reliable source uses the newspaper speak of "accused", we simply use that too, and there is anyways no doubt that she did as it is publicly available information. In terms of proportion, a reliable source wrote a section on her links to white supremacists and noted she had a nazi uniform in her profile picture at one point. That is vital context, and the difference is clearly palpable. To your sandwich analogy, "this person's profile picture had a blue shirt on" does not provide anything and is verifiable but doesn't warrant inclusion, "this person has links to white supremacists, for example her profile picture was reportedly a barbie doll in a nazi uniform" is a verifiable piece of information that is extremely relevant and it's significance is expanded upon in the article so it very much warrants inclusion. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Even in the one RS source that mentions the Barbie doll, it reads to me as almost an afterthought, an "oh and one more thing". The sentence is currently placed in a section "Relations with conservatives and the far-right". From reliable sourcing we don't know anything more than "someone on Twitter made this accusation". Do we know the context? Was the Nazi Barbie a long-standing part of her profile, or just a brief, perhaps poorly executed stunt, response, joke, or political statement (something like "here's what my critics think of me!")? Posting a dressed up doll does not on its own signify adherence to white supremacy, no more than dressing as Hitler at a costume party, tasteless as it may be, signify the wearer is an antisemite. Our job is not to record every shocking 2 day old controversy in stone: sometimes it takes some time to discern which outrageous incidents are just drops in a sea of scandal. Do you agree with the premise that not everything printed in RS must automatically be added to an encyclopedia? There are many problems with this article, and I am by no means a supporter or sympathetic to Keen (though controversial people as a rule need more WP:BLP scrutiny, which sometimes means defending an article, not a person). It is not surprising that supporters, or dispassionate observers, may find it objectionable. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I read it as more of the final nail in the coffin or the cream on the cake, best evidence saved for last. If it helps, we can include that Alejandra Caraballo, who is a public figure known for reporting on anti-LGBT legislation and rhetoric, was the one who made the accusation. There's literally no good reason to have a nazi uniform in your profile picture, and as evidenced by my archive link above this was not a one-off but remained her picture for 1-2 years. I do agree that not everything in a RS should be added, but having a nazi figurine as your profile picture seems due. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your readings are different than mine, which is understandable. We should certanly not stretch to include Caraballo by name, since the source does not (although it links to her tweet), and too many extraneous names already clutter this article. What reliable sources claim the profile was up for 2 years? Be wary of reading too much into things because of unpublished sentiment. Note that there is currently no consensus for this sentence (which you took pleasure in adding). The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus and justify its inclusion is on you. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I had thought that linking to the tweet would mean we could just say she was the source without being too much of a stretch but I stand corrected. No reliable sources note that, a quick verification on archive.ph (it won't let me link to all the snapshots for some reason, but click history on the snapshot mentioned above) shows it was definitely present from at least July 2020 to February 2021, and with Caraballo's tweet being in October 2022 I estimated the range it had been up as approximately 1-2 years. I thought it's placement in the National article was giving it more weight, you thought less, regardless a WP:SIRS thought it was noteworthy and due for inclusion and we take the lead from them. While there is not consensus to include, there is not consensus not to, and in this discussion 2 for inclusion and 1 against. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a point about mentioning Caraballo: the RS news article links to her tweet. So I'm not sure it would be OR to mention Caraballo's name, if the material is included. Is there a general rule about this sort of thing? It feels like we're treading on eggshells when in a less controversial article, we wouldn't have a problem disclosing the source the RS was openly relying on.OsFish (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It might not technically cross the OR line, but it would be undue and disproportionate: giving more emphasis on Wikipedia to a point that wasn't stressed in the RS. Wikipedia articles should summarize sources rather than present or analyze them: the primary sources underlying a story or the font used or the section editor or the photographer credited may be verifiable to a reader, and perhaps significant for subsequent writers to make note of, but are generally not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is not factual or objective

Wikipedia has a history of presenting factual and objective information as much as possible. It is sad to see that Wikipedia has abandoned the policy of objectivity by taking one side in the transgender debate. Kellie-Jay argues that the rights that transgender people demand conflict with womens rights. I would expect there to be a fair discussion on this topic, and wikipedia showing pro's an con's. Instead, Wikipedia calls Kelly-Jay an anti-transgender rights activist. She is not. She is a women's rights activist. Please, let's go back to when Wikipedia was a platform for factual and unbiased information instead of a platform where decent people who fight for a cause are defamed. X10 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

My change in the article was reverted because "it does not meet BLP requirements". The change I made is what Kelly-Jay herself wants the text to be. How can wikipedia say the text should be opposite to what the subject of the article wants it to be? X10 (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

What Keen wants the text to be has absolutely no bearing on what it should be. I am aware of no wikipedia policy that says a public figure has the final say on how they should be described on Wikipedia. Instead we stick to the reliable sources, which in this case tend to overwhelmingly use "anti-trans activist", please see the past talk page discussions and archives. Also, I just want to note the irony in the idea that Keen, who has vociferously opposed self-identification for the past few years, should be described as a "women's rights" activist just because she identifies as one. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've made some edits to remove some material that appears solely cited unreliable sources, and I've added tags where source reliability is unclear to me (e.g. Byline Times) or other places where (potentially) unreliable sources are cited in-text. There are very real sourcing issues with this article, and cleanup is going to be needed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a history of presenting factual and objective information as much as possible

Is any information here not factual?

Kellie-Jay argues that the rights that transgender people demand conflict with womens rights. I would expect there to be a fair discussion on this topic, and wikipedia showing pro's an con's

This falls under WP:FRINGE. What exactly are the pros and cons of, for some quick examples: saying all trans people should be sterilized, minors should be forcibly banned from transitioning, trans people should be legally excluded from using public spaces, and abortion rights should be sacrificed to get all that done?

Instead, Wikipedia calls Kelly-Jay an anti-transgender rights activist. She is not. She is a women's rights activist.

That's not how sources describe her. More than that, she is not a women's rights activist by any stretch of the imagination. Even other gender-criticals have criticized her for repeatedly working with the far right and her insistence that attacking trans people is more important than having the right to an abortion.

Please, let's go back to when Wikipedia was a platform for factual and unbiased information instead of a platform where decent people who fight for a cause are defamed.

All information in the article is factual and unbiased, if a list of things you've done makes you look bad that's on you not anyone else. Also, decent people is a bit of a stretch when you consider her repeated support of working with the far-right, her calls to sterilize all trans men, the unreported but easily verifiable calls to eradicate all trans people at some of her rallies, and her literally choosing a nazi barbie as a profile picture.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"sterilize all trans men". What does that mean? A man cannot give birth, if a person can, they're not a man. If by "sterilizing" you mean vasectomy, I'm sure no one asks for men to have a vasectomy. X10 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In a stretch of WP:AGF, I will assume you truly have no idea who trans men are, so I just linked it for you. A man cannot give birth, if a person can, they're not a man - we do not misgender people on wikipedia and there are discretionary sanctions for that, you are entitled to your opinion but not to loudly insist that trans people shouldn't be respected as their gender. In that case Keen was indeed referring to trans men, though misgendering them, and called for their sterilization, stating women who call themselves men should be sterilized. But if she was calling for the sterilization of trans women that would still be horrendous. Generally, calling for the sterilization of a minority you don't like is, most charitably, not a good thing to do, but on the other hand it does explain her choice of profile picture. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have very specific objections to the use of a self-published statement from Freedom News and from Anarchist Federation. Neither of these are reliable enough for BLPs, and WP:BLPSPS is very strict about the use of self-published sources. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, Freedom News is a publisher organized as a collective; that source is not SPS, Anarchist Federation is an SPS, but nothing in the section I restored is a claim covered by WP:BLP sourcing requirements - these do not operate at the article level but rather in relation to specific statements for which these sources are used. All this material is part of the stable version of the article, and none of it consists of contentious material about a living person. (We have an essay, WP:CRYBLP, concerning attempts to exclude material on the pretext if BLP concerns that do not actually apply to the material removed.) Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If the content is not related to the article subject, which is this BLP, then it should not be in this article. I understand that we have that essay—you have linked to it before when reverting my edits—but that doesn't change the fact that we either have a BLP violation or we're including content in the article that does not verifiably relate to the article subject. Up to you as to which poison you'd like to pick, but the content sourced to the SPS has to come out in either, and should not be re-introduced until there is consensus to do so. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, please. The incident relates to the article's subject, and the SPS adds useful detail about the incident - and is attributed appropriately in the article text. The idea certain editors invoke that we can only use sources in an article for statements they make directly concerning the subject if that article is IMO simply a technique editors have of winning arguments against lazy or inexperienced editors; there is nothing in policy to suggest that our articles cannot add detail clarifying aspects of relevant topics using sources that address the incident or subtopic in particular rather than the topic in general. We are not, for example, forbidden from mentioning when an organization was founded, in an article about an activist or leader in that organization, just because we may have difficulty finding a source that gives SIGCOV to the leader while also mentioning the founding date. Even a SPS could be used for such information.

I believe it is customary to leave text that has been stable to the article in place, while its inclusion is discussed, with the exception of contentious statements about living people - which these are not. Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This article which originates from the Anarchist Federation, a direct action, agitational and propaganda organisation, is not appropriate, as as a WP:SPS. One of many problems in this article with WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION: this article unduly elevates fringe views, as if anarchy blogs carry the same weight and significance as ProPublica. This person has done many controversial things well covered in reliable sources: we don't need to scrape the barrel bottoms of extremist content to find another scrap of mud to throw. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)