Talk:Kerry Chant

Conspiracy theory material
I've repeatedly removed a para claiming that Chant "caused outrage among conspiracy theorists on social media" when she used the term "new world order" at a press conference. Strong evidence is needed for this being a significant element of Chant's career, rather than an issue that is actually about the beliefs of whoever these conspiracy theorists are (which should be covered in an appropriate article, if really notable, rather than this article per WP:BLP). news.com.au, Yahoo news and Crikey (among others) note that Chant's comments were routine and had no alternative meaning, and the issue is with how nutters on the internet interpreted them. The edits which have claimed that Chant used the term directly in the context of New World Order (conspiracy theory) are a blatant BLP violation. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree this is not notable, and just a beat-up. Chant just meant "get used to wearing masks", not some hidden conspiracy meaning. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Wouldn't be opposed to a sentence about the nutters on the internet interpreting it if it was a bigger deal, but it was a one-day story and not notable in the scheme of things. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I had removed the link & capitalisation from the quote for similar reasons to Nick-D. Trending on twitter & a brief flutter of interest in a benign comment isn't notable. --Find bruce (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Would it be better if the New World Order text links to the political term instead? X-Editor (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No. It was an innocent remark.  All this chatter is an attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * New, world and order are ordinary words that are easily understood by any reader. Any attempt to attribute a meaning to them, whether by reference to politics, conspiracy or anything else, requires a reliable source as to the definition the speaker intended. More importantly the comment has no historical significance, a brief blip of interest on minor sources before drifting off into obscurity. --Find bruce (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. How on earth could "We will be looking at what contact tracing looks like in the new world order" be referring to the balance of power in international relations, or a vast global conspiracy, rather than just an innocent slip of the tongue? Neither the conspiracy theory or the political term were remotely the meanings or implications of Chant's statement, so linking to either is applying an interpretation that is simply not present or sensible. Don't even include this please, it's ridiculous undue weight and has already blown over. --Canley (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)