Talk:Katie Hopkins/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Selective editing of Katie's biography

The reference to Katie attending North Devon College for A levels has been removed at some point. This creates an false positive impression of her educational background which is much more of a mixed economy. EgbertLeClair (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I could not find the deleted passage by reviewing the article at 50 edit intervals over the last few years. This leads me to assume that it may not have been properly sourced and was therefore quickly deleted. Checking for online references for Hopkins undertaking her A-levels at North Devon College proved fruitless. There are references to her attending the institution, and having studied for the exams, but combining them would be considered original research/synthesis according to Wikipedia policies.

You are quite right that the omission looks anomalous, however, and I have added a citation request tag at the appropriate point. Philip Cross (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jack Monroe

The evidence and judgement of the civil action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins) shows that Hopkins did know she was replying to Monroe not Laurie Penny. Could an editor please remove the phrase "having confused Monroe with journalist Laurie Penny" from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.214.223 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Migrants

This remark from Mrs. Hopkins was removed from the migrants section. Can we please add it again?

"Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad - I still don't care," she wrote in her Sun column.

Sources are the same as those already included in the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C50E:103:6A00:FDE2:C7E0:6E90:1897 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What does it add to the comments included? Very little I would suggest. Anyone who is unfamiliar with Hopkins will have realised by this point in the article that she is a totally insensitive person. Philip Cross (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think Hopkins is a troll and plays up her far-right wing views for a laugh. While I'm here, I'll remind people that (unless it's been retracted), consensus is that we should avoid citing the Daily Mail, particularly in BLPs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump in the lead

On first thoughts, I was inclined to remove a mention of Trump because he looks like he's made of cheetos from the summary. On the second, I relented; it does neither of them any favours, yet meets the requirements of those editors who insist this article should have balance, even for someone as far out as Hopkins. Philip Cross (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

We could merge the paragraph beginning "Hopkins has been criticised..." into the article. Uncle Roy (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How are her libel cases notable enough for the lead, but complementary words from Donald Trump not? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and merging the paragraph beginning "Hopkins has been criticised..." into the article would address that imbalance. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As the summary is considerably under length, Trump's comment, the Monroe v Hopkins libel case and the criticism could all be in the lede. Philip Cross (talk 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC‎)

LBC departure

I have moved the passage on her departure from LBC back to the subsequent (broadcasting) career section. The passages on Hopkins' brief LBC 'career' should be together, lest the cause of her departure is periodically recreated in this location. It is reasonable to assume Hopkins broadcasting career has not ended and will continue, perhaps on FOX News or in the 'shock jock' format elsewhere. The LBC firing will be missing, if it follows the Manchester Arena bombing, misleading readers by suggesting she has a regular third paid outlet.

Since the 'Columnist and controversies' heading has proved objectionable twice in recent weeks, I have not restored it, but 'Opinions' is a wholly inappropriate title for a section which includes her role at The Sun and Mailonline. For this reason, I have rearranged content and introduced a new heading. I have made a few other changes to headings which I will assume are entirely uncontroversial, or at least hope my edit summaries will suffice. Philip Cross (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added a brief note to the "Manchester Arena bombing" section to explain the main outline of Hopkins' LBC sacking is in the "Subsequent broadcasting work". I have chosen to combine a new addition concerning Hopkins response to the sacking with the earlier material. Incidentally her claim that she has an agreement with LBC not to discuss her sacking has happened with other departures of contracted personnel. Philip Cross (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A second in article appearance of Broadcasting work?

Wondering whether the table in section 7 (Television appearances) would fit better to form an outline introduction to subsection 2.2 (Broadcasting work).

GregKaye 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Katie hopkins info

What a completely biased and misrepresented wiki page for katie hopkins. If wikipedia were truly in pursuit of truth, there would be balance in the descriptions. Rugbyhit (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rugbyhit. Feel free to add any balance you think is missing, provided it is referenced to a reliable source. JezGrove (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

The picture of Katie is missing, may I edit? or could you add one? Thanks! Wikicop33 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

External Reference : Black Mirror, "Hated in the Nation" (season 3 episode 6)

The episode begins with glimpses of three persons hated on social media: the first one, Jo Powers, is a famous, controversial colomnist, who recently triggered the web anger by critisizing a disable person who publicly commited suicide - in deliberately crude words. A sequence shows the polemist relishing in reading hundreds of insulting notifications, while having a piece of cake and a glass of wine, with Enya's tune "Orinoco Flow (Sail Away)" playing. The "professional troll" depicted seems directly inspired by Katie Hopkins. This episode as a whole is a very dark satire of the social network ecosystem, and a warning against the feeling of impunity experienced by the users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:A8E:AA00:5E0:38A6:3252:9BEF (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please fix

Could someone please fix the last sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction (She has been has been interviewed [...]). Regards, 213.10.126.18 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ulflarsen. 213.10.126.18 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Misquotation

A quotation in this article begins "It think woman don't". That does not look right. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Columnist?

Should she be described as a 'former columnist'? Who does she actually write for anymore? MikeJamesShaw (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:British women journalists?

Should she not be in Category:British women journalists? PJTraill (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Fake award

Not sure where to put this, any ideas?

https://www.insider.com/katie-hopkins-receives-fake-award-from-youtuber-c-word-2020-1

John Cummings (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Update on 13 May 2020

I have today been WP:BOLD and trimmed the news about this fake award from a YouTube prankster in her Personal life section on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BLP. The content is sourced, but in my view is not hugely important or significant enough to be included in a BLP.

Is a prank that somebody did to her on YouTube really that important, even if sourced? I don't think so. The fake award was not deemed significant enough to be reported on, for example, the BBC News or ITV News websites or most broadsheet newspapers like The Daily Telegraph and The Times.

Guidelines at WP:BLP states:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language.

As per WP:NOTNEWS, which states not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and for reasons of writing a BLP in a cautious and conservative tone, I have therefore trimmed the news of this fake prankster award. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Change "She has been described by left-wing media as a “far-right political commentator”" to "She has been described as a “far-right political commentator”"

as no meaning was ascribed to the term "left-wing media", no citation was provided for unsubstantiated assertion this perspective was uniquely held by "left-wing media", and no case was made that the sources provided were in any sense uniquely from "left-wing media". 2601:19B:B00:87A0:C005:FB9F:FF31:21E3 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, 21E3; apparently Mean as custard added it with this edit. Odd, but since it isn't covered in the article body, it should not be in the lead—per MOS:LEAD—sourced or unsourced. ——Serial ^# 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Far-right political commentator

Katie Hopkins has been described as a far-right political commentator by many WP:Reliable sources.

• Quinn, Ben (11 July 2019). "Tommy Robinson given nine-month jail sentence for contempt of court". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 July 2019.
• Townsend, Mark (20 July 2019). "Donald Trump in new attack on Sadiq Khan with Katie Hopkins retweet". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
• "Far-right British commentator Katie Hopkins, known for her racist rants, finds support from President Donald Trump". Newsweek. 9 August 2019. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
• Papenfuss, Mary (21 July 2019). "Trump Promotes Far-Right Commentator Who Blames Jews For Deadly U.S. Synagogue Attack". HuffPost. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
• "'Disgusting': 60 Mins blasted over 'witch hunt' Meghan promo". News.com.au. News Corp Australia. 5 September 2019. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
• Kaplan, Alex (26 August 2019). "Trump keeps amplifying far-right racist Katie Hopkins". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 5 September 2019.
• Haberman, Maggie (7 August 2019). "A Divisive Voice Once Again Has Trump's Ear". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 September 2019.

This should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD sentence. For comparison, other British far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson (activist), Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen are all described as far-right in the lead sentence. There is no reason why the same should not apply to Katie Hopkins, especially given the large amount of reliable sources specifically describing her as a far-right political commentator. Whatever she is described as in reliable sources, that's what she should be described as in this article. This article should be a reflection of what reliable sources say about her. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. The Guardian and Huffington Post are far-left propaganda publications, Newsweek often publishes just straight-out fake news, Media Matters for America is not even a news source but rather a far-left political activist organization, and The New York Times is well-known for its far-left bias and lack of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemsled (talk • contribs) 12:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing "having political opinions" with "being unreliable". On the other hand, "far right" is a loaded term so it's perhaps not appropriate for use in Wikipedia's own voice, though we may say that sources describe her as such. Do conservative sources say she's extremely conservative? Largoplazo (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Suggestion to add more context for the “Twitter to Parler” portion with information sources identical to those sourced for the Parler Wikipedia article:

“An account falsely claiming to belong to Hopkins appeared on Parler shortly after the Twitter ban, and was quickly verified by Parler. After collecting $500 in donations solicited on Parler to purportedly sue Twitter over the ban, Parler removed the impersonator account. A Twitter account affiliating itself with the hacktivist group Anonymous claimed responsibility for the imposture on June 20, saying they would donate the money they had collected to Black Lives Matter groups, a movement Hopkins has mocked in the past. Parler acknowledged that the impersonator had been "verified by an employee improperly", while founder and CEO, John Matze, made a public apology for the mistaken verification. Hopkins herself joined Parler on June 20, with Matze posting that he had personally verified her account. The incident drew some attention to Parler within the United Kingdom. Thirteen MPs had joined as of June 23, and some British right-wing and conservative activists endorsed the service over Twitter.”

Goforth, Claire (June 22, 2020). "After far-right pundit suspended from Twitter, impersonator raises money for BLM". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on June 23, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.

Sugden, Maureen (June 26, 2020). "Issue of the day: What is Parler?". The Herald. Archived from the original on June 27, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020. Foxhb (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It is not clear what information, or if any information at all, in the proposed text is sourced to which source. It is also unclear whether this merits inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Aftera month with no action, it is clear that this suggestion does not have a consensus for inclusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No evidence for Katie joining to contest the UKIP leadership

As far as I'm aware, the source cited does not have either Katie or any official UKIP spokesman saying that Katie joined to contest the UKIP leadership election. Furthermore, the party rulebook states that leadership candidates "must have been a member of the party, in good standing continuously for at least two years" (Page 39 - O.5: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/f6e3b8c6/files/uploaded/party_rulebook_V22_Aug_2020.pdf). With a leadership election expected to take place this year after Neil Hamilton's interim leadership expires, Katie would not be eligible to stand. Nor has she indicated that she would stand. It looks like some journalists trying to get a good headline in!

In light of this could this section be amended to reflect that she has simply joined the party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdee42 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

80.41.116.69 (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

She is not far right this is misleading and understand what far right actually means

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

If nobody objects, I'll have ClueBot III archive sections which don't get any activity for some time to reduce clutter. Caius G. (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense.

Um, why do I see so many headings under "Views"??? Pakistanis, Romans, etc are migrants. So why have many headings.103.246.36.24 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because they're all diverse, are distinct from each other and can be navigated to easily from the TOC, I should imagine. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a very messy way to organise the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

Remove:

As a child she believed she was "going to be the colonel of the forces. I loved the military. I loved the discipline, the rigour, the big shouty men."

Change:

Disappointed, and putting the failure down to an absence of "a bit of coaching", she instead studied economics at the University of Exeter. She felt that her time at university was "redeemed" by her sponsorship from the British Army's Intelligence Corps and spent her weekends with the Officers' Training Corps.[18] This she found "really fun, lying around in forests with guns having a brilliant time".[17]

to:

She instead studied economics at the University of Exeter, receiving sponsorship from the British Army's Intelligence Corps. She spent weekends with the Officers' Training Corps.[18] 2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:BFE5:C6FD:704:D813 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 06:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand my request. I do not need to provide sources. What I am suggesting is simply that irrelevant, unencyclopedic content be removed in order to improve this page. For example, it does not matter whether or not a person had fun at university or in the army; such information rarely belongs in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The same applies to a person's opinion as to why they failed an interview. The point is, this claim is heresay and is not backed up by any evidence. It is thus misleading and goes against Wikipedia guidelines. If you think I am wrong and that this information is important, please explain why. 2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:BFE5:C6FD:704:D813 (talk)

 Done This should have been acted upon; the language is poor and is based too much on unencyclopedic quoting from the article subject herself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)