This article was nominated for
deletion on 11 October 2019. The result of
the discussion was keep.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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... "
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)reply
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)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per
WP:RECENTISM. No evidence provided that Michael Knowles (political commentator) is the primary topic, as opposed to the well-established actor or the former MP. :3
F4U (
talk)
13:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)reply
And your justification for this is? He may well be the primary topic for Michael Knowles in America, but this is not American Wikipedia. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
remove the line "Knowles is also known to hate trans people and has previously called for a genocide against them" -reason being defamation of character.
64.56.11.249 (
talk)
19:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The Wikipedia entry uses the term “transgenderism” which is not a neutral term. It makes it into an ideology. I would use “trans persons” if possible. Otherwise, it elides the people involved behind a recent, polemical neologism
104.138.241.114 (
talk)
18:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I came here to ask the same question. The issue is that the -ism in "transgenderism" isn't explained in the article, and as the clarifying quote "transgenderism as an ideology" does nothing but leave it open for guessing what is meant by "transgenderism".
As I go to the Daily Beast article quoting Knowles, his belief of what "transgenderism" seems to simply means the recognition of transgender people (or at least I struggle to see any other possible interpretation),
“Nobody’s calling to exterminate anybody because the other problem with that statement is that transgender people is not a real ontological category,” he added. “It’s not a legitimate category of being.”[7]
It has nothing to do with "anti-trans" bias, it is simply just their opinion of what they believe is reality and what is not. They just don't believe it is possible for a human to be inherently transgender (and to be clear, they believe it is possible for someone to believe they are trans which is why they refer to it as a mental illness). Just because you don't like that opinion doesn't mean they actually hate people who identify as trans.
142.116.121.165 (
talk)
01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)reply
But is "transgenderism" a state of being, or an ideology? Feels a bit odd to suddenly call for the abolition of "depressionism" just because it is a mental illness.
Kameloso (
talk)
05:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)reply
They just don't believe it is possible for a human to be inherently transgender (and to be clear, they believe it is possible for someone to believe they are trans which is why they refer to it as a mental illness).
Knowles made legal threats to media outlets which reported that he was calling for the eradication of transgender people or the transgender community, stating that the outlets were being were libelous, and that he was referring to "transgenderism" as an ideology; critics considered the distinction to be meaningless.
with "transgenderism" in quotes. We are quoting him as using the meaningless transphobic neologism. I would suggest we expand the quote, to make it clearer what he said, then expand the critics considered the distinction to be meaningless into a sentence (with quotes from named critics) to make it clearer that what he said is meaningless transphobia. — OwenBlacker (he/him;
Talk)15:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If the critique is worded as something to the effect of "transgenderism" being doublespeak, then I think ought to make it agreeable to everyone as it will leave the Knowles quotes intact, and will be a lot easier to understand for anyone just skimming the article. -
Kameloso (
talk)
06:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Remove content form primary sources
A large part of this article is based Knowles’s own YouTube videos which are primary sources. This violates
WP:PRIMARY and
WP:RS. Should we remove this content and replace it with reliable secondary sources?
SKAG123 (
talk)
16:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Original 2021 photo used in the article (left) and the 2024 photo used since April (right).
The featured image of Michael Knowles in 2024 is obviously AI generated. If you compare the image to the 2021 one featured only months ago, it's not even the same person.
Done for now, I've reverted to the 2021 image for now but I'll keep this edit request open so another editor can give their input. The image looks AI generated to me and at least
one website is giving me a 58% likelihood. 〜Askarion✉00:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply