Talk:Michael Knowles (political commentator)

AfD Nomination - October 10, 2019

WP:BIO and its subset WP:JOURNALIST require for a journalist's minimum notability threshold that they are "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" as backed by sufficient third party source reporting as required by WP:NRV. While Knowles has scattered mentions through various news events he has been through over the years it isn't clear that he, in fact it doesn't seem like he, meets the third-party sourced notability requirements that were not "not a mere short-term interest" as described in WP:NRV and WP:NTEMP. - 2601:5C2:4380:6380:FDCD:863B:69D2:EBF1 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This article should be kept. The Daily Wire has him doing "The Michael Knowles Show," so that cuts the mustard for me. YoPienso (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO, this should be kept. There is a decent amount of RS coverage of this guy, indicating notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Obviously fails the notability requirements.

Avocats (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Anti-transgender speech

When he was sprayed with lavender oil, he was giving an "anti-transgender" speech per RS, and the article should reflect that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

2 out of the 3 sources provided do not say 'anti-transgender'. Loksmythe (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That some of the sources do not describe the contents of the speech (possibly because they don't know them), does not mean we shouldn't we stick with the language provided by the RS which actually described the contents of the speech. That he's giving an anti-transgender speech seems relevant context, as that appears to be the reason why he was attacked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added information, and an additional source [1], on how the protesters deemed his talk transphobic. Loksmythe (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are we attributing the description to the protesters when the RS is the one using the 'anti-transgender' description? This makes it appear as if it's in dispute that the speech is anti-transgender when there is no such conflict in the cited sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Three out of four sources don't describe it as anti-transgender. Loksmythe (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That does not mean that there is a conflict among the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe you're incorrect in your assessment. Loksmythe (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please present a source then that disputes that the speech was anti-transgender. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessary. 3 out of 4 don't characterize it as anti-transgender. A negative does not need to be proven. Loksmythe (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources that characterize the speech as "anti-transgender":

• AP[2]
• Kansas City Star[3]: "The event, called “Men Are not Women,” at Royall Hall was open to the public and billed on social media as an anti-transgender speech... Knowles’ speech, laced with disparaging comments about transgender people... "
• The Hill[4]
• The Columbia Missourian[5]

Given that multiple sources characterize the speech as anti-transgender, with the Kansas City Star providing a description of the way in which the speech was billed and the contents of the actual speech, we ought to follow RS in this description. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the body should note that lavender is a LGBT symbol for transgender solidarity.[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I failed to locate in these sources where a neutral party directly linked to the incident is quoted stating this event was advertised as being “anti-transgender” or that the content of the speaking event was, generally speaking, “anti-transgender.” The Hill started the headline honestly, and then injected their own personal take on the event, that of which the author clearly did not attend. I admit I am basing that solely on the fact that The Hill provided only second-hand reporting of events, and significantly less information than others referenced overall. The KC Star, which had the most biased reporting, did not cite a single instance of Mr. Knowles, or YAF as promoting the event as anti-transgender. They too lead with the term in the headline and the first paragraph, failing to address it elsewhere.

The AP and Columbia Missourian appear to have re-used the same introduction as the aforementioned media outlets with regards to the leading paragraphs. It should also be mentioned that the reason for this is because it was absolutely not the point of any of these articles. Instead, the story for all of them is the fact that a student had assaulted an invited guest to the campus, and was arrested and charged for said crime. One article furthers the discussion with a university official within the scope of free speech on their campus. I’m pleased to see that this wiki entry has not been vandalized with biased ideology, and would recommend a brief review of the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial to users who find themselves inserting an ideology into objective discussion such as, “Men Are Not Women.” Just as Snooganssnoogans disagrees here, and others with them, it does not mean—nor should it be implied—that anyone is “anti-anything” unless explicitly declared otherwise. Psyburr (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Well put PsyburrMaximusEditor (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)