Talk:Konstantin Kisin

WHat is his date of birth?

What is his date of birth?--it would be interesting to know if he was born in the SOviet Union or Russia. Even just the year would be interesting

'Right-wing wokeism' and Soviet Trauma

Can anyone look into & add some details on what is, in MY view at least, clearly a STRONG bias towards (alt-?)rightist & conservative points of view? To what extent (insofar at all, of course) is Kisin running the risk of achieving exactly the OPPOSITE of what he CLAIMS to stand/aim for, by actually *fanning* the flames of the modern day societal strife that we are dealing with, e.g. by being (overly?) critical of being 'woke'? How much does he NOT actually appreciate Western society for what it is, and only help to dramatize matters and potentially bring very important things (such as institutions) down, even further? In the worst case, (someone like) Kisin is actually DELIBERATELY doing this sort of thing, out of convictions that might be more or less well communicated to, or rather hidden from the public. Perhaps it is a form of lingering trauma from living with Soviet and immediate post-Soviet trauma - that does NOT give him the right NOR credits to actually *undermine* Western society, though. It would do the overall integrity of Wikipedia well to address this matter specifically, though only insofar it can occur in as neutral a manner as possible, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.62.61.233 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Western Society is being undermined by the modern cultural Marxism, which is distinctly anti-liberal. This is precisely the issue being addressed by Konstantin. 187.150.152.202 (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Konstantin Kisin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced Guardian quote

We have that "while The Guardian said the "politics of the show were all over the place" -- but no citation is given. As added by the apparent SPA Triggerfan1, no less. Nor can I find such a quote online -- in fact, searching for it produces Kisin complaining that the Guardian didn't review it (because it was too good, is his theory). Should be sourced or removed with some degree of urgency, per BLP. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, here we go, it's not in a review, it's in the "From Titania McGrath to a Brexit party standup: is rightwing comedy on the rise?" article, and the phrase is directly in reference to Dominic Frisby and only obliquely to Kisin. The actual line about KK is "He also contradicts himself. We mustn’t call people we disagree with Nazis, he says – then ends with a George Carlin quote equating political correctness with fascism." Might need tweeked wording, definitely needs the citation to be clearer. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Woke culture" in WP:WIKIVOICE

Lead probably needs a re-write. Is it acceptable to put "woke culture" in WP:VOICE? Probably better to say culture war topics, as it says within the same sentence instead. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

deleting these BBC and other sources

Bon_courage - before deleting these again, it would be helpful if you could share here your thinking, as 'primary/undue' is rather brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no indication these appearances attracted any attention from secondary sources, so why should Wikipedia be interested? This (Wikipedia) is meant to be a tertiary source. Bon courage (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletion - as the answer to your question is in the text you deleted.

His appearance at the Oxford Union, was followed by the BBC inviting him on Question Time where the presenter referred directly to his appearance at the Oxford Union, and stated that his talk there had been viewed 15M times already CanterburyUK (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Tell me if I am missing something - but the BBC is the secondary source commenting on the Oxford Union primary event. Isn't it? CanterburyUK (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources provide "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis". Just a factoid is insufficient. And the other stuff you are edit-warring in has even worse problems. Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It is undue, and there is no WP:SECONDARY sourcing. If you continue to edit ar without achieving consensus you are likely to get blocked. Bon courage (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You mention ' without achieving consensus': are you not acting without consensus in your deletions - so far no other editor has agreed with your deletion.

In terms of what is most helpful to the reader - I can't see any downside to the text+ sources you have deleted being there for folks to read.

If the Presenter of the BBC political program thinks it important enough to state when introducing Kisin: than any ready would probably want to hear about that - wouldn't they? CanterburyUK (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really, the presenter has to say something about every guest. This is not typically source material for biographies and seems a bit desperate/undue. It also does not explain the other material you are edit-warring. Bon courage (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

> It also does not explain the other material you are edit-warring.

It would be helpful if we could agree that everything bar what you refer to as above can stay - that way other editors will get to read the Oxford Union / Question Time new content, and maybe we'll get chance to hear their wider views and reach consensus. CanterburyUK (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear: this[1] is undue in my view. Bon courage (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, That is the whole text that I added and we both then reverted twice.

To repeat my question: if I delete the part of it that is NOT the Oxford Union / BBC Question Time part: would you be happy for the rest to stay, to help elicit wider editors notice? CanterburyUK (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I already undid what I consider to be undesirable changes. But you kept reverting. The undue material should be removed. Bon courage (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the part you referred to as 'the other material'.

I added mentions of other sources that comment on his Oxford Union talk, including the critical article from the New Statesman CanterburyUK (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note CanterburyUK has now tried to force this content for a third time, and has been warned for edit warring. Bon courage (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why didn't you wait for me to comment here on Talk, as I said I would in the revert comment? And as I have already, above? CanterburyUK (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  and could you explain where 'third time' comes from?

  The history as I see it is:

  • I put up the sources
  • you deleted them (your first revert)
  • I put them back and added the Talk comments here. (my first revert)
  • you deleted them again (your 2nd revert)
  • I put them back (my 2nd revert)

  CanterburyUK (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  You have added the material three times. Please see WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You are edit-warring. Bon courage (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I may be wrong - but was your deletion motivated to any extent by you thinking the page is too long or bloated in general? Or conversely that you don't think that at all? CanterburyUK (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  The page is not 'too long', but what there is, is bloated with undue material. And adding WP:NYPOST stuff worsens the issue. Bon courage (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I added the critical New Statesman article too. CanterburyUK (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bon courage appears to have the right idea. I am not sure why we would need to reference a BBC interview just to say "his speech has been viewed more than 15M times". This seems WP:PROMO. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Tone and balance

Before @Bon courage and @CMFante tilt this article into full edit war, can we all step back and admit that it's currently a long way from being neutral in its tone.

Changing a section heading from "Political commentary" to "punditry"?

Come on. That language does not reflect the secondary sources about the subject for a start. I propose that is undone. Also, giving large paragraphs to minor controversies is not encyclopaedic. Needs a good trim. And a de-escalation of language. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

What controversy? He hasn't had much coverage so this is probably due since this article is otherwise a bit nothing-y. I've no objection to a better word than 'punditry' (Note the new section title is not changed to just "Punditry" as claimed) but since the objection was that this wasn't politics we maybe need something?. Bon courage (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@CMFante - seriously, stop the war. Make your argument regarding content here.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:BRD would have been a way to go. Just mashing the revert button is not good. Bon courage (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In broad terms, I'd like to see this article grow up a bit. A the moment it's a bit of a list of blow ups, rather than a biography. A grown up article would do the subject's biography, an outline of views (along with reactions) then a relevant personal sketch. That's what I'm going to support. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Having read the discussions on this talk page, seen the descent into edit wars, and had sympathy with both sides, I have to agree with MatthewDalhousie's proposal that would, I hope, de-escalate the debates and give the page its most neutral tone and feel. Once we have a more biographical, mature page, then debates can be had over details, but as it stands it will continually cause consternation. I hope this can be a sensible path forward. Alex IslaCara (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

With three paragraphs given to a spat with a student society? Fact is, this person seems to have little or no coverage in RS, so to put everything from a fairly major magazine (New Statesman) down the memory hole looks it bit POV-y. Bon courage (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The New Statesman piece is interesting but a challenge to summarise. At the moment the article includes the quote "when he told me, unsmilingly, not to misrepresent him, a sad thought floated into my head. Misrepresent him? There would have to be something there to represent in the first place." Outside the context of Lloyd's piece it's a bit cryptic. In Lloyd's previous paragraph he makes a direct point about banality which may be more useful. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an odd bit to pick out, but something of this is surely due. Bon courage (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This sounds good, especially from a accessibility point of view. HaroldSupermac (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)