Talk:Kathy Shaidle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Controversy" section[edit]

Explanation added later: In February-March 2009, a few Canadians tried to discredit and censor Kathy Shaidle. (An attempt to get The Agenda, a leading current affairs TV program, to cancel an appearance by her failed. An attempt to get her evicted from a CIC-sponsored group trip to Israel also backfired.) Like many blogwars, those efforts spilled over into Wikipedia, resulting in the following discussion. CWC 14:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC) edited 11:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IP editors have attempted to re-introduce a "controversy" section that violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. It is a list of quotes from Shaidle's own blog, used to advance the position that Shaidle is controversial. To have a "criticism" or "controversy" section, editors will need to cite reliable sources (not examples from blogs, for example) that discuss the controversy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better to create a "Charges of bigotry and racism" section and include the quotes, which demonstrate that Kathy Shaidle is a bigot and a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.245.52 (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misinformed about the meaning of the world "controversy."

The word "controversy" by definition means there are two or more opinions and sets of facts being debated in public. Otherwise the word "controversy" has no meaning. See the Wiki entries for Mark Steyn and/or Ann Coulter for sound "controversy" sections which include a) the author's original material AND b) his or her critics' accusations, counter charges, refutations.

Merely quoting another person's writing as de facto "controversial" does not a controversy make, by definition. This is a typical progressive method of "argument" because progressives believe that their worldview is the only legitimate one and any views that contradict their own must be automatically "controversial." Shaidle's opinions are held by some people and not others or else she would not warrant a Wiki entry in the first place. There is no "controversy" unless you can quote these "others" to explain why they disagree with what she has written, perhaps using statistics and counterfacts.

Otherwise, the entry is a non-neutral, one-sided "gotcha" post made up of heavily elipsed one-liners taken out of context. And Wiki values neutrality.

If you wish your entry to remain unmolested, I'd suggest re-naming it "Things Kathy Shaidle Has Written That I Personally Don't Approve Of For Reasons I Don't Care To Elaborate." Otherwise you are being as bad as you think she is.

Remember:

1. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
2. Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images.

tomwindowpaine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwindowpaine (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "controversy" means. That's why I suggested an entirely different section. There's no controversy with a statement of fact that asserts someone is a bigot and a racist is backed up by their own words that demonstrate bigotry and racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.245.52 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you don't know what a "bigot" is, or "racist"? Both are merely opinions of the accuser, and how are you going to prove your opinions on Wikipedia? If it's your opinion that KS is a "bigot", how are you going to prove it or document it? There is no known test for bigotry. It's only your opinion. It's like accusing someone of being a "dickhead". I doubt you're going to find a test for it anywhere, or proof of any kind. If you say KS is a bigot or a dickhead because of something she said, she might be able to back her statement up as a fact. Then where's your argument? Bushcutter (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that any of this anonymous stuff is accurately quoted or sourced? Unsigned, unsourced anonymous attacks on a living person like this can be removed without notice, so if anyone feels adventurous, go for it! 154.20.131.164 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quoted and sourced all over the Internet. One day, all of Kathy Shaidle's vicious bigotry will make it into the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.245.52 (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia gave out an award to the most effectively "whitewashed" entry, Kathy Shaidle's would win hands down, this is a joke, better to delete the whole thing than let it remain in its current form.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.44.191 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 March 2009

When we had a discussion last year about whether or not the article should be deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Shaidle), it was mainly her poetry (and the Governor General's Award nomination) for which Shaidle had received enough press to meet the notability guidelines. Things may have changed. As I mentioned above, if there is to be a section about her being a controversial blogger, it would need to be sourced to some third-party sources. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a third-party source in the London Free Press (London Ontario's daily) from a few days ago here, presumably this will help.
A man in space (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Shaidle-haters are getting desperate. That article comes from a ...um... close associate of the self-styled ass-kicker and king of propaganda who is trying to ruin Ms Shaidle (perhaps because his own racism became public knowledge only a few weeks ago). Bernie Faber is also ...um... closely associated with that person. This is not a reliable source, but instead a blatant piece of hit-job journalism. (Check the perfunctory quote he allows Shaidle vs the expansive quotes from her haters).
These attacks rely on what Shaidle calls "Ransom-Note Racism". You can tell these people are trying to deceive the reader by the way they always leave out the context of the very short quotations they use, and by the way they mix unsupported accusations in with those misleading quotations. (And you can be sure those accusations are not just unsupported but false and unsupportable, or the haters would provide some evidence.)
To summarize: this entire fake controversy is the work of one man, a guy who creates political controversies for a living.
Wikipedia has strict rules about articles about living people. Putting any of these smear attacks in this article violates those rules; doing that will get you banned.
(OTOH, there are some important things about Ms Shaidle we probably should add into the article: that a guy who posts hate speech on neo-Nazi websites is suing her, that she got married (IIRC) last year, etc, etc.)
CWC 13:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. This is not about being a "Shaidle-hater" as you have suggested but trying to contribute new information to an article. Some time ago some controversial statements made my Ms. Shaidle were added to this article. They were removed and it was suggested that Ms. Shaidle would appropriately be described as being a controversial author should she be described as such in a third source in the mainstream media. That criteria has been met in the London Free Press Article as well as the section stating why she might be considered controversial. I don't believe what appears to me to be editorializing is appropriate, nor is threatening editors with being banned for including sourced information from a credible third party "The London Free Press"). However, as you have concerns about the one source, I included a second source that describes Ms. Shaidle as the author of a controversial blog that pre-dates the Free Press article. Regarding literary criticism, the quote from the Montreal Gazette which you described as hostile is appropriately sourced and provides an alternative viewpoint concerning Ms. Shaidle's poetry. If you claim that it requires verification to be included, then one would think the Edmonton Journal quotes praising her poem should be removed for the same reason. I have no desire to get into an edit war with you, however would respectfully suggest that you might be allowing outside influences affect your objectivity? Perhaps I'm wrong and if I am I will apologize in advance. Still, I don't believe it is appropriate to ascribe motive to a third party source. Thank you. AnnieHall (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who had added the reviews back in early 2008, when the article was up for deletion. I did not think it appropriate (per WP:UNDUE) to add selectively only the positive reviews or only the negative reviews of her poetry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working notes, March 2009[edit]

This is just a collection of stuff which might be useful in this article, in no particular order.

  1. Interview at FrontPage, Nov 2008. Excerpt(s):
    I grew up below the poverty [line.] ... I was the first person in my family to finish high school. I grew up around people who talk to each other in the flesh the way all these alleged "neo Nazis" did on the internet. ... [T]he proles must remain silent as the great enlightened liberal Elite rule the nation. ... I find it fascinating that Steyn's accusers were a university professor and a group of young law school grads, and Steyn himself dropped out of high school at age 16. When you read the anti-free speech, pro-HRC argumentation in Canada, you don't have to scratch the surface too much to reveal lots of class snobbery. So much for egalitarian Canada.
  2. 5FoF, 2008-06-19 Ms Shaidle and Arnie Lemaire were married in June 2008.
  3. Steyn on the LFP hit piece
  4. 5FoF, 2009-01-30 Shaidle supports Warren Kinsella against "the Professional Ethnic Victimhood Police". Excerpt:
    Look, every day on my blog, I insult groups of every ethnicity. Why? Well, because it's funny, dammit. I grew up watching Don Rickles. ... But also because I don't accept the notion of Group Insult. Political correctness is a threat to national security, not to mention an encroachment on our ordinary lives, where we feel inclined to whisper constantly like we're living in the Soviet Union. Political correctness must be undermined at every opportunity if we wish to survive.
  5. 5FoF, 2009-03-23: "'Ranson note racism' targets moderate, conservative Canadian Muslim"

I hope to have time to expand the article in the next few weeks. CWC 12:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these sources would be appropriate in the controversy section to provide balance and context? AnnieHall (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Controversy" section - doubtful notability, pushes a POV, risks libel, and relies on a questionable source[edit]

I hesitate to take this drastic step, but, really, as currently written up, this section falls short of WP standards on several points:

  • I doubt that the event (the controversy around Shaidle's London, Ontario appearance) is really notable, in the sense that it is a significant part of her biography, or something that someone will want to know about in the future.
  • On the contrary, it strikes me as a fairly transparent pretext for working some unflattering selective quotes and paraphrases into the article - something several editors have been trying to do for months, long before the London controversy.
  • Shaidle, Mark Steyn, and other commentators have criticized similar attacks on Shaidle as "ransom note" journalism - i.e., piecing together selective quotes and (arguably inaccurate) paraphrases into polemical attacks. If there is any substance to Steyn et al's complaint, these attacks may be defamatory, and so reproducing them verbatim in WP runs contrary to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. Note that as editors we are in no position to debate issues of libel in this case, except to note that selective quotes and paraphrases amounting to misrepresentation may indeed be libellous.
  • The WP policy on possible libel is not to debate, or to flag, but to cut. Please do not reinstate the Richmond or Faber quotes without a discussion leading to consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.187.193 (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section relied heavily on a single source, which while it apparently ran as a news story is better classified as an opinion piece, departing as it does from normal objective tone one expects in a daily newspaper (even the London Free Press, that rag). As such, it cannot be used as a factual source as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
"News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."

Despite all this, I do believe that some of the controversies around Shaidle could be written up in a Wikipediable fashion.

Cheers, Chris B. (not Chittleborough) 05:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.187.193 (talk)

Commenting in response to the recent reverting that has been happening: I also would urge caution (from the WP:BLP policy perspective) about introducing so much negative material from a single source (one article in the London Free Press). I think the sentence Her views on Islam, political correctness, freedom of speech, and other issues have ignited controversy is a fair summary. It's risky to reproduce the bulk of the Free Press article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipropaganda[edit]

Even the discussion section of this article is a joke. Some Shaidle agent (possibly her duplicitous husband) prevents actual quotes from being introduced here.

If you want to white-wash this hate-filled extremist's reputation, so be it. The Internet never forgets, however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.245.189 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 April 2009

As I see it, Wikipedia policy requires that this sort of material be removed from Talk pages as well as article space - see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. This is as much for Wikipedia's protection as for the sake of the persons involved. If you think I've misinterpreted policy, by all means let's discuss that here. It's worth noting that Shaidle has claimed that some of Richmond's attributions are inaccurate - so we need to be careful here.[1] I'm not Shaidle, her husband, or a Shaidle agent of any kind.
I agree that Shaidle is a controversial character, and there would be nothing wrong with documenting some of those controversies. But there are three things to keep in mind:
  • We don't document "Controversy" per se; we document specific controversies that have been discussed by reliable sources.
  • We don't HAVE to document every controversy. If reliable sources exist to support mention of various controversies, then we can document them; if not, then we can't.
  • Wikipedia cannot engage in one-sided attack. Shaidle and her defenders argue that she is a provocateur challenging PC shibboleths, and not a racist bigot. Any mention of her controversial posting would have to give full coverage of her self-defence.
Chris B. 66.183.187.193 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the aim of every article should be to report, not judge. Insofar as there have been controversies that have been notable enough to be noticed in the main stream media, the article should note them in an uncommital way. A man in space (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Just the facts, Ma'am" is an attractive approach, but the way the facts are selected and presented will always introduce some degree of bias. If the bias is strong enough, then we have an NPOV problem. Richmond's article has been heavily criticized (by the "usual suspects", but still...) as POV, so including a lengthy quote is questionable under NPOV (and RS, in so far as it might be considered an opinion piece rather than a straight news article).
The thing is, there are basically two views on Shaidle's blogging. One is that she is a racist bigot, the other is that she is a provocateur who deliberately flouts the conventions of political correctness. Including set of cherry-picked quotes like Richmond's would tilt the article strongly towards the Shaidle-as-bigot view - and that's POV even if the quotes were cherry-picked by a mainstream journalist rather than by WP editors. I've discussed this point at greater length on NJGW's talk page. Chris B.16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.187.193 (talk) [reply]
"Discussed at length" is a bit of a stretch. She made statements. It's not improper to report that much. It is further proper to give what analysis of these statements exist, along with the hedging recommended at WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Just leaving it out is censorship and whitewashing because this is part of why she is even notable in the first place. NJGW (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, I am mystified why Wiki has this article on this up at all. This person is of absolutely no note, Can someone please explain why the article is here at all ? 24.24.142.155 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ On further examination, it looks like Shaidle was confusing two separate posts.

Notable?[edit]

Why is this person notable? There seems to be absolutely nothing notable about her beyond being a typical blogger. I think the entire article should be deleted.

Move for deletion.[edit]

I think it is clear that this person is not notable in any way. I am calling for the Wiki editors to delete the article entirely. It should never have been put up. 23.242.139.139 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki editors moved to keep it and the explanation is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kathy_Shaidl

Apparently losing at the GG awards makers you a valid candidate .24.24.142.155 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kathy_Shaidle&oldid=1207295846"