RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Kishwer Falkner

Kishwer Falkner | Result: Deleted

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) (Continuation of discussion started by on the article’s talkpage). Falkner isn’t a TERF, she’s someone who made a few vaguely transphobic “both sides must be heard” comments in an interview a month ago. This article is completely insane. Christopher (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) AgreeAMassiveGay (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the talk page, living persons must be handled with care. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Having read the article in question, I agree that it is very stupid. 18:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Article's case is pretty weak. Subject is more comparable to the likes of Joe Manchin (a known fence sitter and abuser of the balance fallacy) here in the US than an out-and-out reactionary. 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Per AMGs talkpage comment and Chris's AfD comment. Needs either massive rework (which I'm not gonna be doing) or it needs to go for being a potential BLP disaster. Techpriest (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Hyperbolic guff. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) As others have said, this article makes a bunch of pretty damn serious accusations with very little context, and its only proof for this person being a TERF is one disingenuous tweet of hers. And also, I'm curious as to what types of "bigotry against Muslims" the laws she opposed would seek to prevent. Did they try to prevent actual acts of bigotry, or were they blasphemy laws 2.0 that attempted to ban anything that could potentially offend them? Context please. We as a site should not be in the business of taking the word of a few haughty twitter keyboard warriors at face-value, a la Catgrrl- especially if they're trying to "cancel" a living person. -- Goatspeed. 03:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Let's not be home to what we know is libel. Spud (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Delete it and prepare for a massive cleanup. All of this author's articles is a recycling of a couple of paranoid and fanatic assumptions, which is desperately trying to tie random people to islamophobia, neo-Nazis and holocaust-deniers, with very unconvincing arguments and unverifiable claims. I think the issue here is more problematic than this one article, as the same desperate points are repeated by this author several places. The author has carpet bombed rational wiki with un-satirical, unverifiable claims, implicating many living persons, and I know several of these names are taking steps to sue for defamation. Not only should this article be deleted, but all of the authors articles should be revised, because you will get sued. For instance, stickers with "adult human female" is not a "hate crime". The author unironically suggests this several places. The unsatirical, unironic misinformation typed out by this author is simply too many to list. Cellular (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) This is an appropriately sourced article on a high-profile politician and government official, in fact the most high profile person in UK government to explicitly support TERF ideology who is now the hero of all TERFs on Twitter, second only to JK Rowling. It is important to consider that she is now also head of the commission in charge of trans-related government policy, which makes her transphobic comments far more important than if she hadn't been put in charge of running the government's commission tasked with preventing transphobia. All the factual statements in the article, including her comments and other activities, are appropriately sourced and initially based on an article in Pink News, supplemented by other sources. Whether she can be described as a TERF is a matter of interpretation and analysis (which is part of our mission), and the article makes a solid case for such a description. It is entirely false that she has made "a few vague" comments (she has made very strong comments ++) or that she "doesn't merit an article" (she is a member of the House of Lords, and now the most high profile UK figure to voice problematic views on trans people second to Rowling). Alas, this article has been attacked by an editor most concerned with whitewashing Boris Johnson based on the spurious idea that she isn't a public figure, and based on entirely false claims about the content of this appropriate, adequately sourced and correct article. The talk page is rife with insane comments, personal attacks and entirely false claims about the article's content, which I why I don' participate there. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * none that is actually true AMassiveGay (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Blatant hypocrisy to avoid talkpage discussion (which is why this escalated to an AfD) because of “personal attacks” then characterise AMassiveGay as “mod concerned with whitewashing Boris Johnson”.
 * What has JK Rowling got to do with this? You’re far too interested in the activities of TERFs on Twitter, and the end result is shit like this (quote from the article):
 * "'women', the term TERFs use when referring to TERFs"
 * She hasn’t made very strong comments in support of TERF ideology, just standard fencesitter stuff. I’m sure someone could write a good article on her as she is a prominent government figure, but it would need to be much, much less focused on this one interview, and they’d be better off starting from scratch. Christopher (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at all not "standard fencesitter stuff", and particularly not for the person in charge of running government policy in this area. That's entirely wrong and the article explains why. Also, the false claims about the article that this nomination is explicitly based on ("Continuation of discussion started by @AMassiveGay") were explicitly based on the false idea that she is some obscure private person who doesn't merit an article at all. Also, you have taken that "women" comment entirely out of context, she is explicitly discussing Maya Forstater, the notorious TERF fired for being transphobic, in the context of her voicing transphobic views, when claiming she is representative of women. This is a well-known tactic of TERFs and an odd use of language in any case. The talk page contains entirely insane ramblings and no reasonable editor would engage with that sort of comments. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Anyone reading the discussion knows that wasn’t the point being made. I guarantee you can’t point to one thing she said in that interview that was more than a vague platitude, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Christopher (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You either haven't read the article at all, or you aren't familiar with trans issues. Your claims about her comments are wrong. They are strong (it's not just one vague comment), exceptional given her position, part of a politicization of the commission as her predecessor noted, and have generated a ton of controversy and made her an icon in TERF circles. The things she says are very similar to what the comparable Norwegian government official called hate speech just earlier this year. In the TERF article we have an entire section on why the UK is called TERF Island. Also a reminder that TERF isn' a slur but merely a description of someone's views, and in fact the article is quite cautious in highlighting primarily how she lends TERF groups/individuals/ideas credence, an undisputed fact (who would dispute that Forstater is a TERF?) --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone from the UK I can tell you her interview barely made the headlines, for her trans comments or anything else. I don’t doubt it was discussed a lot on TERF Twitter, but I don’t see why anyone should care about that. Googling her name to see if it did make the headlines and I just missed it gave me this, a vaguely anti-transphobic comment she made more recently. This is someone who doesn’t care about transgender people at all and has decided to play both sides,, not a committed ideologue. Christopher (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Most British media are known to be transphobic and not really suitable for assessing the impact of her views. International or specialized sources such as Pink News are more suitable for assessing her comments in this area. Perhaps it's true that she isn't a committed ideologue, but it's a fact that she has used her role on the commission to lend such ideas credence, which has a far greater impact than some random TERF. It's felt in other countries, in Norway, the US and elsewhere TERF groups such as WHRC and LGB Alliance hail her as a hero and insist we must have the same policies and views on trans people that she spearheads in the UK. (I first became aware of her, as a person not from the UK, when she was massively touted by WHRC as a role model for other countries in regard to anti-trans policies). --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A bunch of TERF groups making a big deal about nothing is no reason for we us to do the same. The entire article is dedicated to one controversy that you’re personally more interested in, it’s ridiculous. Christopher (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)how about the idea that it doesnt warrant an article because most of is actually false and is in fact most disingenuous he said/she said nonsense. the accusations of racism and of islamophobia are just plain wrong and do not reflect any of her actual statements, which are alluded to in the most accusatory and damning language but never actually quoted in the article and with none of the context of what and why she was commenting in the first place. the 'sources' do not either and most do not support the claims being made in the article. also she is not in charge of government policy in this area, the ehrc does not decide government policy. it enforces compliance with the human rights act. i note i only noticed this article because initially it described the current tory government as 'far right' which is patently bullshit so i removed it. is been expanded considerably since then with so much more bullshit with the terf stuff going off into deep end and is little more getting on ones soapbox than providing any real evidence in support of the grossly exaggerated and fabricated claims of bigotry from a fucking true believerAMassiveGay (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. The material on her comments and actions regarding racism and Islamophobia are directly based on the cited sources, both of which are serious/reliable. The article doesn't contain any original analysis in this area, and doesn't even elaborate much on this topic. I've only included it since it was mentioned in articles about her TERFy comments. It is entirely reasonable to describe the policies of Johnson's party and its general alignment now following its rightward drift as far right (at least to some degree; it's certainly not centre-right or conservative as other Western Europeans understand those terms), and several scholars have done that. In fact your attempt to normalize Johnson is very problematic. The Tory Party is in fact allied on the European level with parties widely regarded as far-right, a much-discussed fact. --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the tories sit with a group of unsavoury far right parties in the council of europe because the tories have always sat with unsavoury characters in europe. the other groups were all decidedly untory pro europeans, sitting with those groups or on their own means they wont have a voice at the only seat in europe we still have, while now it means their voice will be heard and put tories onn the council in line for rapporteur roles. it a question of having influence or having none at all. im not sure what can actually be achieved at the council of europe these days but there you go. its not actual tory policy, has not influenced tory policy or reflects tory policy in any way. its a marriage of convenience that has no effect on the tories in the uk because it is in europe and the right in the uk dont care for europe at all and actually far from 'much dicsussed' but barely mentioned. there would have to be an official statement otherwise, and thats to be avoided at all costs. you are playing up the significance because you have a shallow understanding of what is going on and the sole evidence for being far right is a pragmatic alignment that doesnt endorse or advance a far right agenda. but that is neither here nor there for this article. i will address the 'directly based on the cited sources' claim in another post. its going to be a long one. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The description of the rightward drift and chauvinist, far-right stance of the Tory Party under Johnson aka 'Britain Trump' isn't just based on their alliances in European political bodies with parties literally described by many (even British) sources as neo-Nazis (although that in itself says a lot – how can you ally yourself with neo-Nazis instead of conservatives [aka the European People's Party] without being reasonably considered far-right?), but on their anti-immigrant and racist policies and views as well. They are in many respects more extreme than Alternative for Germany in their statements regarding immigrants, nationalism etc, and Alternative for Germany is described as far-right. So how can AfD be far-right but not the even more explicitly anti-immigrant, Islamophobic etc. Tories, who are in fact allied with many 'AfD-like' parties? --CharlotteTakveis (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the conservatives have always been opposed to immigration. its not that position on its own that makes a group far right. afd has more overt nationalist views, its islamophobia is more naked, more extreme. they are anti feminist. anticommunist. the links to the extreme far right are more concrete than just joining a parliamentary group. you think the tories are more extreme than these people? you are clueless. the tories letting  them into their club is just bad optics which dont matter because the story has no traction in the uk. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about the UK. You complained about me describing the Johnson government as far-right. That is a descriptor that I stand by, that is justified and reasonable in my opinion as an observer looking at Britain from a mainstream Western European position, and it's not like I'm the only person in the world who believes that the Tories aren't simply a 'conservative' or 'centre-right' party as they claim, descriptors that in my book belong to Merkel and similar non-racist politicians. I'm prepared to say that they can legitimately at best be viewed as a right-wing populist party with far-right elements, but personally I consider them to be far-right. That the UK is a kind of Hungary in terms of LGBT is merely one of many examples of how the UK is out of touch with Western Europe and progressive Americans. CharlotteTakveis (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Your personal opinion and what you’re prepared to say is irrelevant, you’ve demonstrated a very superficial knowledge of UK politics. If you’re really “not concerned about the UK”, then stop writing about it. Christopher (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and while we are all here, lets talk about sources. the accusation of being a terf, expressing terf talking points, and the accusation of racism, denying the existence of structural racism and support for a much decried report on racism are all found in the one article from pink news. its unfortunate that its clockbait headline was mistaken to be the an accurate representation of her views because the article quotes her (something entirely absent from our article) clarifying more specifically and accurately her views were about a freedom of belief. its unfortunate that this pink news article was given all the heavy lifting when this pink news more effectively explains the context of her statements more effectively, explaining the tribunal that prompted her to make them. our article repeats the original sources point of her saying nothing about the plight of trans people where as this second pink news article has her saying all about their plight, saying you not should not misgender or otherwise be shitty to trans people. shes says the ruling in the case that prompte her intervention i not and should not be seen as license to be transphobic. read the article - it debunks what little evidence there was for transphobia. everything concerning the delusional ramblings on her apparent terfdom is essentially unsupported and produced from whole cloth.
 * the racism thing is on even shakier ground. in the original source it is not supported. it alludes to her defending the aforementioned report on racism. the quote given is less a defensive and pleading not to be beastly to those who had put it together. it links to the furore but to nothing concerning falkner. it there just to imply she is an unrepentant bigot. it doesnt say that, but we do. we say she is 'apparently supportive of Boris Johnson on other issues as well' (no where is this suggested) and she denies there is systemic racism in the uk - it absolutely does not say this nor is there any evidence at all for this. it is a lie, pure and simple.
 * the accusations of islamophobia. the opposing of measures to counter islamophobia. 2 sources for this. still complete bullshit. the middleeasteye article is most useful providing all the relevent info. like the part where she, a muslim, opposed efforts to define islamophobia as a specific form of racism. she belives it is unnecessary with existing hate crime laws and that conflating race and religion is a mistake that is counter productive. read the source for the details. the source is very much anti ehrc but it does actually provide a lot of information, none of which supports the claims in our article for unabashed islamophobia because it isnt true. the henry jackson society links are in this source but they are weak links designed to malign and discredit by association. the 2nd source does not concern falkner but is embarrassingly partisan attack on the hjs. it has no value here except to really bring home the guilty by association vibe.
 * the source that involves david issac has him explaining the belief that the ehrc is being discredited via pressure from the government. he lays the all the blame on the government and does mention not falkner at all. all the other sources are dross in support of the constructed fantasy of a true believer has effectively buried whatever valid criticism there might have been. any credibility is under fire outset as appears the author does not seem to actually know what the ehrc is or what it does.
 * i mean terf island? ha AMassiveGay (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep the article. Not an obscure person. Reliable sources used. Article can always be revised. NorthWasNotTaken (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strange choice of first edit. Unless you’re going to revise it yourself, you shouldn’t vote to keep a bad article on the grounds that someone else might make the effort to make it good, it rarely actually happens. Christopher (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctantly, I am kind of on the fence. However, it can always be deleted later. I also disagree with it is a "bad article" - its not great but still passable. Not total garbage. -Gale5050 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * it really is garbage. see above. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article is shit. My favorite part is the completely random (and frankly offensive) allusion to to Jim Crow politicians in the US. 02:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * What about all the other articles CharlottleTakveis has written? It’s very likely at least some of them are similarly libelous, but it’s impossible to tell as their subjects are largely Norwegian and unknown to anyone else. Christopher (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Karen Ingala Smith is Google-able and English. I would say this article takes a horribly imbalanced look at a legitimate issue that this article could explore (she's primarily known for running a domestic abuse shelter for women and other related activities, and I don't consider the issue of domestic abuse space safety, no matter which side you are on, to warrant such a Twitter-level "TERF!" shriek-fest.) It's the same with Holly Lawford-Smith. Her sin is this website which is concerned about the impact of transsexuals in women only spaces from a safety perspective. This is actually a thing I have with hardline trans activists: I do not consider the safety issue an illegitimate question, and think certain trans activists need to do a better job of actually addressing the fucking concerns instead of just lobbying "TERF! TERF" at everyone who raises these sorts of questions. My guess is most of the other articles from this user are similar. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)