Talk:Kajsa Ekis Ekman

Intro

I reverted the intro to the one in the draft again, clarifying what subjects she have deabted prostitution, surrogacy, transgender from a leftish view to clarify it is not right wing, religious or conservative. A summary of the content of the article rather than cherrypicking a few rescent examples from the last year. (It stated only that she has debated and been critisized for transgender issuse, leaving out all other subjectt she has started debates on. It also emphazised that she has been removed from two positions from left wing magazines during 2022, but not stating any of the outcomes).

The only example of subject (trans debate), and what happened a ETC and Arbetaren are not why she is notable.

The main reasons why it sparked debate was critisicism that things were handled wrong. Her freelance collegues wrote an open letter to the ETC chief editor. The CEO from Arbetare hired Ekman without checking with the staff in an syndicalist union owned magazine (how is that controversy her fault?). That was critisized as being stupid, and strange they did not give her any chance, and resulting her being fired, something rescent events proved unlawful. All this is left out in the previous intro when giving the few examples.

She is a woman, she is left wing, she is writing on feminist issues, writng on prostitution, surrogacy, anticapitalism, and she wants debate and discussions. Her break as a political writer was to sell a politicians bath tub. Of course she spurs controversy!

She writes leaders and columns and books in subjects where she thinks points are being missed. That is her job and main objective. Of course there will be critiscism. That is part of debate and shown in the sections below.--LittleGun (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the lead should be "a summary of its most important contents" and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" and "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

The vast majority of RS coverage of her – and the majority of the sources in the article – is related to her various high-profile controversies, and her trans-related views. As User:Bonadea said it, she is "primarily known for the controversies surrounding her". Whether she believes she was wronged in these controversies is immaterial; this is not her website or autobiography. We can include her views on that if published in reliable sources if this is an important part of it.

The text as it now stands seems to be based on Wikipedia:Original research and personal views (including on the weight of the material) rather than reliable sources, and is not a summary of the article in the sense of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

Describing her trans-related views as the "feminist perspective" is extreme. She has been widely criticized for anti-trans views (she has been "roundly criticized for transphobia" as one source said it[1]) and being a prominent figure within the current anti-trans movement. That is not the "feminist perspective." Describing views that numerous RS describe as transphobic as the "feminist perspective" is POV and whitewashes extreme views that dehumanize trans people. The former wording was a fair and objective summary, intended as a reasonable compromise based on the article's content and sources, and not even that critical ("Her views on transgender issues have generated extensive debate and criticism in Sweden"). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No. It is not just the transgender views that makes her notable. Not until 2021 with her book that was part of her notabiity. So a summary should not just pick one subject. But the most important ones. So in the summary trangender is one. All is elaborated in the running text.

Again: She is a woman, she is left wing, she is writing on feminist issues, writng on prostitution, surrogacy, anticapitalism, transgender and she wants debate and discussions. Of course she spurs controversy! LittleGun (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Again: Lead sections are based on RS and the relative prominence of the material in RS per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The vast majority of that RS coverage is related to her controversies and trans-related views. The lead is very short and could also mention some of these other (less reported and less prominent) issues that you mention. I don't see what "she is a woman" has got to do with anything, and numerous feminists like me would disagree that anti-trans views has anything to do with feminism, but of course we can mention how she identifies politically. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And of course a won lawsuit against Arbetaren should not just be part of her autobiography. And of course must an open letter from her freelance colleagues given her support be mentioned. All that is part of those controversies. Also part of the running texts. But too specific for an intro. LittleGun (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

What is RS short for? LittleGun (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Which is made clear from the guideline I asked you to read as well (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry and thanks. I have read the guideline and the citations you have presented from it. I did not realize the shortcut redirection was a well known acronym for reliable sources. I thought it had to with Mainstream Media or something from the context. LittleGun (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to go into the details of the Arbetaren controversy in the lead, but as an extremely high-profile and widely reported controversy in Sweden it would be appropriate to mention it in some manner. The subsequent saga of the lawsuit just underlines its prominence. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

POV template

In the justification for the POV template, written in the edit summary,[2] it says: describing her views – widely described anti-trans (she has even appeared with Posie Parker!) – as the "feminist perspective" is not encyclopedic

It was not my intention to write that her views on transgender is the feminist perspective. Rather "a" feminist perspective. Her views on trans are described as anti-trans in some part of the feminist community. The one referring to her and other (feminists) as TERF:s. The F in the slurword TERF stands for feminists.

Does this not show that the "feminist perspective" in this question is split? And that there is not exactly one "feminist perspective" in that subject?

I believe that goes for all subjects? Sure there are feminists embracing capitalism, prostitution and surrogacy too? I still think that for a short summary "left wing and feminist" is valid and draws the broad platform helping reading the rest of the article. LittleGun (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The wording heavily implies that her anti-trans views is the feminist perspective and ignores the fact that she has been "roundly criticized for transphobia"[3]. That is offensive and wrong. Feminism is not split over this issue. The anti-gender/anti-trans movement using feminism as a justification for anti-trans views is a fringe movement – especially in the context of feminism – and not representative of mainstream feminism and its views. Feminists are the ones who are most supportive of trans people, in general. It would be better to have a separate sentence that could describe how she identifies as left-wing and feminist, and then a separate sentence summarizing her trans-related views and activities (like the one I proposed above), without conflating the two issues in a tendentious manner. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is that really a fact? It sure seems feminists are split from an outside view. And, even the slur TERF includes feminists.

Can we agree that the articles text show she is writing from a left wing and feminist view on the other subjects? LittleGun (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. --AnnikaCarina (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

May this work:

Kajsa "Ekis" Ekman is a Swedish author, freelance journalist and debater. Her workings have sparked debate in subjects regarding prostitution, surrogacy taking a left-wing and feminist perspective. Her writing and debate regarding transgender and feminism have sparked controversy.

Her main point in the transgender discussion is that it is a backlash for feminism. LittleGun (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Not good. We need why, or how, it have sparked controversy. LittleGun (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I will try with:̈́

Kajsa "Ekis" Ekman is a Swedish author, freelance journalist and debater. Her workings have sparked debate in subjects regarding prostitution, surrogacy taking a left-wing and feminist perspective. Her writing and debate regarding transgender and feminism have sparked controversy and accusations of being trans-exclusive.

LittleGun (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That is ok with me. (Although I believe the correct word here is exclusionary rather than exclusive). --AnnikaCarina (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I do think we should replace workings with something else: works, efforts? Draken Bowser (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, bad choice from me. I changed to "work", missed your plural "s", but I do not think it is needed. Better than workungs anyway. LittleGun (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

TERF is a political sneer word, not a slur. Please don't cheapen the notion of what a slur is. Recently there also seems to be an uptick in trans exclusionary feminists adopting the term in earnest, so the victim-playing is quickly becoming out of fashion. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. English is not my first language and I do not see a significant difference between politial sneer and slur. "Victim-playing" or not, it is a word used "derogatory" also according to the Wikipedia-article. So I am not sure you are completetly right, and it is definitely used derogatory in the threads above and in Swedish discussions regarding Kajsa Ekis Ekman. LittleGun (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear to me that "pejorative" and "slur" are not synonymous. One is disrespectful towards what someone does, the other towards what someone is. The term in English cannot mean mere casting aspersion on someone, least of all to political affiliations, which are always taken up by choice, but on someone for aspects of themselves over which they have no control (nationality, skin color, sexuality etc). Are we to consider words like "bourgeois", "liberal", "Nazi" or "communist" to also be slurs? That would be ridiculous. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Update professions

I'm trying to figure out the best way to add that Ekman is a literary critic at the Swedish major daily Aftonbladet's cultural section, a foreign issues analyst at Norwegian daily Klassekampen, and contributes regularly to Dalademokraten. She also writes for Le Monde Diplomatique and Truth Dig

Probably more significantly, she's the editor-in-chief of Parabol Press. Given that, I have removed "freelance" from the lead.

References

All of this would of course go in the biography section (Klassekampen is already mentioned but with citation needed). I am not sure what parts of it should be mentioned in the lead, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just expand from author, journalist, and debater to author, journalist, literary critic, and debater? That seems to be the main characteristic not included in the lead. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've incorporated this into the article. For the lead, I just wrote "editor-in-chief of Parabol Press, and contributes to a number of other publications", which are detailed in the body text. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Swenglish

I added Kajsa Ekis Ekman’s date of birth and corrected some Swenglish phrasing. AnikaCarina undid my changes with no further explanation as to why Ekman’s date of birth should not be included, or why “engaged in”, “sent it in”, “Whats-On-appendice” and “theory of crisis” are preferable to “involved with”, submitted it”, “supplement” and “crisis theory”. BlåTornet (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Any assertion made in a biography of a living person must be cited to a reliable source, and this includes date of birth. This is not negotiable; see WP:BLP. The small improvements to phrasing are fine (and they are mostly retained), but deleting huge swaths of content is not. Before making such wholesale changes as you did, you might want to get consensus here first. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not trying to negotiate. I merely included the date of birth stated in the Swedish, Spanish, Catalan, Asturian, Basque and Norwegian versions of this article, assuming that they constituted reliable sources. The consensus here appears to be that the swaths of content I removed constitute a one-sided catalogue of controversies, added by someone who seemingly holds a personal grudge against Ekman. BlåTornet (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias are independent of the English one, and they have looser rules. Here, you cannot add anything to a WP:BLP article that cannot be cited to a reliable source. Please read the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons carefully. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)