User talk:Cellular

If you want to make legal threats, even on behalf of other people, contact the RationalMedia foundation directly. Don’t allude to it on-wiki, it’s a bannable offense. If you’re the subject of one of the articles in question, I suggest you read RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover, and then complain on the article’s talkpage like it suggests. I can’t make any guarantees but judging by the recent AfD discussions there’s a good chance you’d be able to get your article deleted fairly quickly. Christopher (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand there are procedures on this, and I have tried to follow them. But the share amount of inaccuracies, the number of random people wrongfully listed as founders or members of WHRC, the number of unverifiable claims and "quotes" - you should know that it is not just the one article, but a series of recycled claims that are repeated in several articles. The amount of work needed to correct these articles is immense, and they implicate random people - even if one were to find the opportunity to banter interesting, it is simply impossible. The author has been writing continuously since April, and the amount of accusations, inaccuracies and personal attacks is simply too much. Worse of all, there is zero humour in any of the claims, so there is absolutely no incentives to engage.

I have looked through the articles of the author, and as they are recycling the same unverifianle claims, just attributing them to different living people - if I am going through the trouble of collecting them all, I cannot be asked to engage in discussions on the topics in the format you wish- there is simply too much work and too many serious accusations and too many private individuals implicated. All the information is simply wrong, and nobody has got time to engage in the amount of bullshit produced by this author. I am simply going to report the articles and the author to the data authority in Norway, because this is unsalvageable. Do what you want with that information.Cellular (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you not point out some of the glaring inaccuracies in at least one article? I’m very ready to believe that they’re all completely fabricated, but the issue is no one on this wiki (to my knowledge) is Norwegian, we’ve never heard of these people so have no idea how accurate the articles are. They might well end up deleted anyway but it would help convince people who haven’t been involved so far. Christopher (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * considering what i have seen of this author's work on kishwer falkner's now deleted article, it would seem prudent to remove all their efforts wholesale. even if there are genuine cases to be made for one or two or even all of them, the falkner experience suggests they will need some vetting to establish fact from fantasy. as christopher notes, for norwegian article subjects this might be beyond our wit. others appear to be more familiar (posie parker is one i believe) or least the sources will not have a language barrier to contend, but still require a fair bit of effort to assess. deleting wholesale would mean we wont be libeling anyone while we unpick what we can, and can re submit articles on a case by case basis.


 * dunno what the procedure would be for wholesale deletion though, and would certainly require discussion of such a move somewhere appropriate., such as the mod notice board.


 * this cant be the first time something like this has occurred. there is probably precedent somewhere. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * all the entries are perversions, but this section here, and the articles on these names, are simply false and defamatory. WHRC Norway was founded by three women, who I am not going to name because of the real risk of defamation, but this parapgraph and list of names is wholly inaccurate.


 * "Established in 2020, WHRC Norway is the most active anti-LGBT hate group in Norway. It was founded by Kari Jaquesson, Tonje Gjevjon, Anne Kalvig, Christina Eline Ellingsen, Tina Skotnes, Marielle Leraand, Frode Saugestad, Kamilla Aslaksen, Inge Ås, Oline Margrethe Rustad, Anne Marve, Kristin Slaatta, Benedicthe Lyngås, Kristin Bodin, Cathrine Ude, Barbro Svensson, Rita Lock Nilsen, Marit Johanne Bruset, Edwige Mortyr, Sarah Kaldestad, Brita Merete Gulli, Anne Ragna Sann, Karen-Anna (Kanatta) Pedersen, Margrethe Voll Storaas, Anna Nordlund and others.[23]"


 * The paragraph refers to a random selection of signatories of the declaration on women's sex-based rights listed on the norwegian website. These signatories are neither members or founders, simply sympathetic to women's need for sex-based provisions in law.


 * Here is an example of appallingly bad referencing used several places:


 * "“”The Criminal Code, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud and a whole range of other representatives of the kweer patriarchy attempt to silence us!


 * —Anne Kalvig, vice chair of WHRC Norway, doesn't understand why WHRC's nakedly hateful rhetoric is considered criminal hate speech[22]"


 * This quote has never been uttered by the person it is attributed to, as the reference shows, but is a paraphrasing of one persons statements about Anne Kalvig. It is presented here as if it is a direct quote, by Anne Kalvig, and one would have to open the reference to realize it is a paraphrase of a fantasy-phrase.


 * "“”We watch Posie Parker's program every night.


 * —WHRC Norway admitting that their role model is the British far-right extremist who calls for violence against trans women and girls by "men with guns"[21]"


 * Completely inaccurate and irrelevant quote, wrongly attributed to WHRC. Simply ridiculous to bring up.


 * "The group has bizarrely claimed that the main function of Norway's equality ombudsperson Hanne Bjurstrøm is to "discriminate against women," due to her enforcement of legal protections for LGBT people as mandated by law.[27] "


 * Unfounded and unverifiable claim, the reference does not support the statement


 * Nothing in the article about Christina Eline Ellingsen is true, and simply recycles the same esperate claims made several other places, but to point out a specific inaccuracy:


 * "After months of incessant harassment of the leader of Norway's LGBT rights group FRI, that involved false claims that FRI has a "paedophile" agenda, Ellingsen was reported to the police by FRI for stalking and harassment.[18] In April 2021 Ellingsen was questioned by the police about intimidating the leader of FRI.[2]"


 * Nothing in this paragraph is accurate - there has never been made any claims about "pedophilia", there has been no police reports for stalking or harassment, and there has been no interviews by the police.


 * This misinformation is simply endless - every other sentence is twisted beyond belief. This topic has plenty of very interesting problems, and can engage people in very interesting discussions. Of course there will be disagreements, and everyone knows rational wiki is a satirical kind of site - but these articles are void of any facts, completely void of humour and is a personal attack on several people who has not engaged in this topic at all - how have they even ended up in this context? It is creepy as hell to consider the amount of time dedicated to these articles and the "hate-map"-project. Like I said, it is unsalvagable, and that author will be reported to the relevant authorities for harassment. Cellular (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The user Cellular is an obvious TERF extremist, seemingly connected to WHRC, and should be banned for her threats. All the claims above are complete fabrications, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct our coverage of well-known TERF groups, their most prominent advocates and transphobia. For example, the claim that the quote by WHRC's vice chair Kalvig isn't a quote by Kalvig is a complete lie, it's a quote from a newspaper article (one of many) written by Kalvig herself and published in the newspaper Klassekampen (slightly shortened and translated, but not altering the meaning in any way, mostly just ommitting detailed references to specific parts of the law mentioned) from this article (in the middle of the article); the comment above her article is written by a professor at the same university who compared her colleague to the anti-feminist and anti-LGBT movement in Poland and Hungary based on the article when she shared it on FB. (This can easily be verified by using Google Translate). All the other claims by the user are similar outright lies. In fact I've taken great care to include documentation of any statements such as the meticulous documentation regarding that quote, so that is actually a good example. This campaign to obstruct well-sourced articles on transphobia based on complete falsehoods from extremists and trolls is unacceptable.


 * I'm happy to engage in constructive dialogue about any of my articles about prominent TERFs and their (often quite meticulous) sourcing. I've written a number of biographies of both prominent British TERFs such as Posie Parker, Forstater and others, and biographies on comparable TERFs from other countries including my country. Recently I've seen a lot of abuse directed at me and other editors working constructively in this topic area, and that is not a good starting point for any dialogue. It also appears, as others have noted, that several editors working in this topic area have recently had their work obstructed and been scared off the project, so certainly this new attack is part of a trend. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The article you are referring to cannot be reduced to the statement you have attributed to Anne Kalvig. The list of names you claim to be founders are taken from the list of signatories, as you admit, and your claims about their affiliation to WHRC are Unfounded. To lie about people like this is harassment. Your grasp of the "TERF"-debates is simply embarrassingly shallow, prejudiced and wrong. Are the westboro baptist church references supposed to be funny? It does not come across as a joke, but as if you genuinely consider it appropriate to compare a norwegian chapter of a feminist organisation, mainly consisting of left-wing lesbian members, to an American cult concerned with gay-bashing and anti-abortion fanaticism. ... how is this comparison even possible to make?


 * If you have written about Maya forstater I am sure you have realised that the belief that sex is a biological property as opposed to a subjective feeling of identity has recently been declared a protected belief, which will have implications beyond the employment tribunal that judged her case. There is also the Allison Bailey case against Stonewall UK coming up soon, which will assess if Stonewall UK has engaged in homophobic harassment. Just let that sink in - what used to be the leading organisation for championing gay and lesbian rights are now being taken to court for homophobic harassment - maybe there should be a slightly more nuanced approach in the coverage on these debates than these desperate attempts to find connections to westboro baptist Church?


 * Everything you have written about Christina Ellingsen is pointless recycling of random statements
 * completely irrelevant to anything, but most importantly unverifiable and false information. In the article about Tonje Gjevjon you have written about stickers and posie parker under the heading "hate crime" - I am sorry, but who are you trying to expose? It just looks like you are trying to make an idiot out of trans activists. Are stickers hate crime? Really? I am not sure what kind of constructive debate you were expecting. Is your hate-map going to include people associated with stickers? How on earth do you think mindless accusations like that are going to be constructive for anyone, not least for "trans rights"?Cellular (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, that is not true at all. The key individuals mentioned aren't simply just the first, founding signatories of WHRC's founding document, they are the chair, the vice chair and otherwise highly active representatives of the organization, they write newspaper articles on behalf of it, and so forth. Kalvig, the vice chair and spokeswoman, is a good example. The quote is a literal, direct quote by her, with ample documentation including the original article uploaded here plus an assessment of the article by one of her own professor colleagues who directly compares her to Hungarian anti-feminist, anti-LGBT bigots; anyone who doesn't understand Norwegian can just run the sentence in question through Google Translate. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * " Like I said, it is unsalvagable, and that author will be reported to the relevant authorities for harassment." You've been warned about making legal threats, you won't be warned again. "Of course there will be disagreements, and everyone knows rational wiki is a satirical kind of site - but these articles are void of any facts, completely void of humour and is a personal attack on several people who has not engaged in this topic at all - how have they even ended up in this context?" RW is not a satirical site. This is explained in our mission statement and related documents. 14:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to go into a little more detail about the Kalvig quote because it illustrates so neatly how all the claims above are complete and utter, deliberate fabrications by an apparent representative of WHRC, a well-known TERF group founded by Sheila Jeffreys and people booted from the Women's Equality Party in the UK.

Kalvig literally writes in her article File:Article by Anne Kalvig with comment by Elisabeth Lund Engebretsen.png (original here):


 * "Så sjølv om Straffelova sine paragrafer 185 og 186, Lov om juridisk kjønn, Likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudet og ein lang rekke andre talerøyr for det skeive patriarkatet forsøker å knebla oss, teier me ikkje stille"

It is in Nynorsk (a less used form of Norwegian) and the Google translation isn't great, but you certainly get the meaning of it. I shortened the quote by omitting tedious details like "sections 185 and 186" but didn't alter the meaning. Thus, my translation is: ”So even if the Criminal Code [the omitted details about sections etc.], the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud and a whole range of other representatives of the kweer patriarchy attempt to silence us, we won't be silenced!"]

Her colleague, herself a notable scholar in this very field (diversity, gender), describes the article as an example ("unfortunately also at my university") of "anti-feminism and anti-LGBT" that she compares to such movements in Poland and Hungary. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With living people / organizations it is very important that articles be very well sourced. I have no problem covering the WHRC, to be honest, as they are quite TERF-y and actually mentioned on the Norwegian Wikipedia article on TERFs. But it's kind of bad when I look at your opening paragraph on WHRC Norway, head over to their "about" page, and see the fairly easily translatable "WHRC Norge er etablert av Christina Ellingsen og Anne Kalvig." Which is well different than your laundry list of people. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Only a couple of these people have biographies, and some of them are also known for more than WHRC. For example Kari Jaquesson is their most famous member, and it's appropriate to mention her when she is a founding member (plus known for promoting other conspiracy theories, which her wikipedia article also goes into much detail on). I have indeed focused most on the people who are the primary founders and leaders such as Kalvig and Ellingsen (chair / vice chair), but their portrayal of themselves on their website isn't the only relevant source. For example, I've looked at who represents them in the media. Gjevjon isn't mentioned as a 'founder' on that particular page, but she was listed as the very first signatory of their founding document elsewhere on the website, is widely perceived as a main figure in the organization, publishes their 'journal' (Matriarken) together with the chair and is clearly behind the organization in a major way. In her case she is known for starting countless organizations including a Norwegian sister organization of LGB Alliance so it's probably a deliberate strategy to downplay her role on the whrc website to make it appear as if there is a large movement of anti-trans groups. She nearly always writes newspaper articles together with the other people mentioned as founders, 'representing' different anti-trans groups (whrc, lgb alliance and many others). WHRC Norway appears to function as a kind of a 'mothership' for over half a dozen anti-trans groups, where the individuals mentioned are the key founders, leaders and spokespeople. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Kari Jaquesson is not a member of WHRC Norge. Gjevjon is a member, but is not a founding member. WHRC is a campaign dedicated to reminding individuals and organisations that article 1 in UN CEDAW explicitly states that women's rights and women's discrimination is based in sex. As an organisation it offers females only membership. Your ideas about the role this campaign has is in terms of being a "mothership" is paranoid, misinformed and unfounded. A man is listed as a founding member - I rest my case.84.212.206.244 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * She is publicly listed among the first signatories of their founding document and is a prominent spokesperson for their views, in fact the most prominent spokesperson. An extremist group's internal self-perception and attempt to spin information regarding its founders/leadership is not binding on us, particularly not when the transparent goal is to make it appear that Norway has a whole bunch of anti-trans groups, when they are in reality founded by the same group of people, with Gjevjon, Ellingsen as key players. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are simply misinformed. Signatories are not the same as members. The signatories are also listed randomly. Kari Jaquesson has every right to sign a feminist declaration without being implicated as a key player. I cannot see how you get the impression that this campaign and organisation is responsible or affiliated with "a whole bunch of anti trans organisations", or that every organisation ever founded by anyone you have deemed to be "key players" has anything to do with "anti-trans" activities. You have set out to create a "hate-map", and you are targeting random people and lesbian organisations, and the only arguments you have are fictional references to westboro baptist Church and posie parker. To anyone not limited by your tunnel-vision, these articles are nonsensical, desperate attacks on living persons.84.212.206.244 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indent your damn posts children. 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the article, and in the archived version of it, the signatories were not listed randomly. They were listed by date and even included a timestamp. So when Gjevjon verifiably signed WHRC Norway's founding document before anyone else, even the chair and vice chair, how did she manage that if she wasn't involved in establishing the organization? Their only reason for pretending that she isn't a key founder is that she also leads the LGB Alliance counterpart and other groups, and writes articles with Ellingsen and others on behalf of 'different' organizations (often a handful of them) to give the appearance of an anti-trans 'movement'. It's the same handful of key players who founded all of them, as many observers have noted. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The claims about WHRC are demonstrably false. One claim states that 2000 feminists signed a Manifesto in opposition to WHRC norway more than a year before it was even formed. The people you claim to be founding members are random signatories, which can easily be verified by looking up the registered organisation, where the founding members and board members are listed. You have implicated several people as founding members in several articles, and admit that you have taken these people from the list of signatories. In democratic countries, people are free to support whatever the hell they want without false, paranoid fiction being spread about them. I cannot believe a person who openly admit to be working on something they call a "hate-map" have been left unchallenged to vandalise so many People's reputations. Cellular (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to ask you again. Indent your fucking posts. 21:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WHRC was founded in 2019. The declaration by around 2,500 Norwegian feminists that condemned TERF ideology was directly in response to the activities of WHRC Norway's key founders earlier that year, who had been active as TERFs in public discourse in Norway since around 2017. It is true that they only formally registered their branch of WHRC shortly after in 2020. But they already had 'predecessor organizations' and were active in the debate as the same group of people, so this point is simply hairsplitting. For example, the Dagbladet article where the newspaper's most prominent commentator condemned Gjevjon's transphobia is from 2017 Norway doesn't have that many TERFs, only the ones who are connected to WHRC. There is nothing nefarious about the term hate map, that is borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

is this the Manifesto you are thinking about? Please point out where WHRC Norway, or whrc for that matter, is mentioned.

https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/opprop-for-inkluderende-kvinnekamp/72234921

Of course anyone who is branded a TERF will be connected to WHRC if anyone who is branded a TERF is also branded a founding member of WHRC, and every organisation branded a terf organisation is also branded a WHRC organisation. This is ridiculous. Cellular (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay my first ever modhat. This is a warning: Cellular, stop making poorly disguised legal threats, the next one will be a block. Legal threats are unacceptable, if you want to make them, the RWF has a relevant email. Techpriest (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Slander"
"Slander: Oral communication of false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another." You can cease your outbursts now. 21:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Instead of posting on each of the article’s talkpages individually
Try making a post at ATIM summarising the issue, and push to get all of the articles you have issues with deleted in bulk. Some advice: remember that you’ll be talking to people who haven’t been keeping up with the issue so far so don’t skip important context, focus on the manifesto signatures being made up, and don’t try to get Charlotte Takevis banned from the site or anything (it’ll cause unnecessary bureaucracy and isn’t that important, if it becomes an issue a regular editor can make a separate thread). Christopher (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)