Talk:Nina Power

Political affiliations

(Removed original comment and title per WP:LIBEL - AndreyKva (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)) (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Added references to this, citing https://luketurner.com/Nina_Power/#messages Roobscoob (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is libelous comment being published by an unreliable source with an animus against the subject who is deliberately & maliciously taking an ironic comment out of context in order to alter its meeting. 103.170.73.37 (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(Removed original comment per WP:LIBEL - AndreyKva (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)) 50.229.151.138 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many comments here actually. 75.185.211.58 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it libelous when the person saying it just won the libel lawsuit? 2600:100E:B080:A97C:798C:70D:27D6:EF46 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources are strong. Judiciary and insolvency record. Feltmatress (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(Removed original comment per WP:LIBEL - AndreyKva (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)). Drcchutch (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

She is also no longer editor with compact magazine Feltmatress (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Have restored references to the official court judgement and bankruptcy register. Have used the cite:court template which I am not familiar with, so would be grateful if someone who knows better could check that the parameters (case number, court name, etc) are entered correctly. Chaikney (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The government is libelous?[1]https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/IIRCaseIndivDetail.asp?CaseId=704486509&IndivNo=710057929&Court=HIGH&OfficeID=700000069&CaseType=B EnbyEditor (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." You need secondary sources to include this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The text you removed was of the form "the court ruled", not "the named person is". Deliberately worded as a statement of fact and judicial record and not an assertion about the person.

Also it is a court ruling, not a transcript (which I take to mean "written record of evidence laid in court", not "judge's finding of fact"). If you feel that the wording can be tightened, grand, do so. But completely slicing it out is not justified. Restoring. Please do be precise about the issue you have with the text. Chaikney (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Those are "court records" and "other public documents". This article is a BLP. You need secondary sources to support any statement which has been or can be challenged. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now raised the matter at BLP/N. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Apparently secondary sources that I do not have time to edit into the article or format properly:

• https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9fc2ae0-4e8d-41ce-9e7c-0022b77c065a Luke Turner successfully defends libel action in key freedom of expression case
• https://www.5rb.com/news/claims-dismissed-in-libel-and-harassment-actions-in-miller-power-v-turner/

Chaikney (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The first appear to be some sort of PR-firm (via an aggregator), the second possibly some legal firm, involved I don't know, that one (5rb) may be good for "The case and the counterclaim was dismissed in November 2023." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Her bankruptcy order was reported/published in yesterday's London Gazette, listing Turner as petitioner: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4655863 — LittleDwangs (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like WP:BLPPRIMARY to me, but I could be wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Power thinks transwomen do not face threats of violence seems to be false, there is no citation or quote. Having looked at the Warwick article it is refering to an article in Compact, which has no such claim. Please read https://www.compactmag.com/article/welcome-to-terf-island/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckBMZ (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a citation on it, which linked to this article: https://theboar.org/2023/11/activists-protest-warwick-event-featuring-gender-critical-speaker/

In the article it contains the paragraph "Power’s talk was followed by a Q&A session, during which members of the audience asked questions about topics ranging from ‘slut-shaming’ to sexual assault. A Home Office report has suggested that crimes against transgender people in the UK have risen by 11% compared to last year. When asked about this trend, and whether she thought her remarks had contributed to it, Power disputed the notion that anti-transgender hate crime was a pressing issue. Referring to transgender women, she suggested: “Men who purport to be women are not victims of violence.” She added: “I don’t hate anybody – I’m just committed to reality”

So I think the quote is indeed real, I have restored the content to the article. GraziePrego (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if one accepts this student newspaper as a reliable source for a contentious claim about a living person, it's hard to see that this, or indeed almost anything in the section containing it is WP:DUE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

A writer who has written a lot on gender, sex and feminism and who has taken stances known to be contentious, to the extent that it ended up in the UK High Court? It would be quite remarkable to not include criticisms that people have made of her politics and theories, especially as they relate to transgender people in public life.

And a quick look at the Boar turns up this (https://theboar.org/about/) quote from a TV journalist about them: "“A consistently high standard, like a fine regional newspaper with an outstanding magazine. The dedication of the staff to produce this newspaper on a weekly basis is incredible.”" which, when there's no claim that the story or quotations or false (and when NP is quoted/interviewed in the same piece) says to me that there's no good reason to call the source unreliable.

Chaikney (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Noe of which alters the fact that the Warwick Anti-Sexism Society is s student society whose opinions on issues carry no particular weight except perhaps in the minds of their own student newspaper. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

student newspapers are still newspapers and are considered reliable until otherwise. The incident is interesting... though, I will state there is probably a case to remove this incident if it isn't covered by more than one source, as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE/ Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is Luke Turner mentioned in the lead?

If mentioned later in the article, fair enough, but her career existed long before that lawsuit & I wouldn’t say that is really what she is known for as a public figure. Luke Turner does not even have his own Wikipedia page, it could be argued that he himself is not a notable figure besides his inactive performance art collaboration a with celebrity. Rosie x rosie (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Because WP:LEAD. Since the Turner "thing" is a major part of the article, content-wise, it gets mentioned in the WP:LEAD. It's the local style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, as she is a known public intellectual with dozens of WP worthy sources available online, even from decades before the court case, I think it would be appropriate to update the body of the article & thus the lead as well. A quick search shows that she is largely known for her published writing and not via Luke Turner, who is hardly a known figure in his own right and is virtually irrelevant outside of the court case in the UK. It seems wrong that her notability is attached to someone who is not a notable figure by WP standards, rather than her actual publications. Who can I ask to help with unlocking / editing this article? Rosie x rosie (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, (assuming WP:COI doesn't apply to you) once you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMed, you can edit the article yourself, citing the WP:BLP-good sources you use as you go along. The goal of this WP-article is to be a summary of WP:RS independent of Nina Power, what she says about herself is generally uninteresting for WP-purposes. One possibly useful source:[2]

You can request un-protecting at WP:RFPP. You can suggest sources/wording on this talkpage, if other editors think they are a good idea they might act on them at some point. You can also ask for input at the talkpages of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of this talkpage.

Like everything else around here, this article is a work in progress, and if you can improve it from the WP-POV, that's a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, no COI here & understand that the sources need to be independent & not self-published. It is challenging, with many sources paywalled & my lack of WP experience— but I will work on this, thanks for the helpful advice. Rosie x rosie (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rosie x rosie Yes, getting the good sources can be challenging, assuming they exist, but in this case I think they do. If you see pay-walled sources in the reference section or somewhere else you like to get at, you can try WP:RX. Here are 2 sources you might be able to get some use out of: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Since the article has now been fleshed out with more information about her books, I'll delete the Luke Turner mention in the lead. - AndreyKva (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

That's much more defensible now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Request to Delete Page

Hi - this is Nina Power, the topic of the page. Please can the entire page be removed? It is filled with lies and unsubstantiated claims made by a severely disingenuous and malicious third party. I previously had no page on the basis of lack of public recognition, and I'm not important enough to warrant a page. Thank you for considering this - Nina NinaXPower (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@NinaXPower Hello. The answer is not obvious, but discussion will take place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Power (2nd nomination). It will probably take at least a week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Btw, some editors will probably wonder "Is that really her or some prankster?" If you want to confirm your identity to the WP-community, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#How_can_I_prove_my_identity_to_the_Wikipedia_Community?. This will not necessarily have an effect on the discussion. You are welcome to participate yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

"Can someone with moderator status please delete my Wikipedia page on the basis of lack of standing or whatever it is? Like most of the site it's been taken over by a deranged lunatic who believe that lying is a means to an end. I'd really rather not have a page at all." Twitter 10:31 AM · Jul 25, 2025. cagliost (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that's good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi all - I have put in a request to WP to connect NinaXPower here with my email account and real identity. NinaXPower (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Parallax Optics and far right

Not sure that it's good practice to characterise Parallax Optics as far-right based on one source, which is a blog post. If no supplementary source can be found (I'll have a look later), what do we think, would it be acceptable to put in the article, "Parallax Optics, a blog characterised as far-right by so-and-so writing for so-and-so"? - AndreyKva (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Mention of Parallax Optics has been removed. It doesn't seem particularly pertinent. Notability of the website hasn't been established, nor has the subject's involvement in it. - AndreyKva (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Dissident right

The term "dissident right" was previously replaced by an editor with "alt-right". They stated that "Calling the alt-right "dissident right" is against NPOV". It has now been re-added. I don’t know enough about the term to pass judgement on how neutral a term it is, but it does seem like somewhat obscure jargon – especially as we don’t have an article on the dissident right to link to ("dissident right" redirects to a section of the alt-right article which doesn’t actually explain what dissident right means). — LittleDwangs (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Guardian source only uses the term dissident right in quotation marks. — LittleDwangs (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

IMO, just "right wing" suffices and it is what I changed it to initially. IM-1776 describes itself as "New Right", but that also seems like obscure jargon. - AndreyKva (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Having looked at the references, I've reconsidered: New Right seems like the more credible description, as it is what IM refers to itself as and also what the Vanity Fair refers to it as. - AndreyKva (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Mention of IM-1776 has been removed. What website Miller writes for doesn't seem to be pertinent nor notable. - AndreyKva (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect Information re Bankruptcy

The Art Monthly citation is from a press release sent by Turner to the magazine. Turner paid for the bankruptcy (and an extra estimated 30-40K to appoint his own lawyers). The state/court did not order it - he did. I paid precisely £0 to him. This information is central. NinaXPower (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nina, I've looked at the part about the supposed court order to pay for Turner's court costs and decided to remove it. My reasoning is that the only source provided is a paywalled article with no quotes provided to prove that such an order happened, so the average editor will have a very hard time verifying it. If you have any sources about what you're saying in this post or the one above it, I'd be happy to take a look and investigate if they warrant inclusion in the article - strictly impartially, of course.

I'm happy to hear what other editors think as well. Personally, I'm happy with the paragraph on the court case as it is now and think it should be kept minimal as it is much less notable than the other sections, and also because Turner himself is not notable enough to be given as much focus in the article as he was given before. I also think that any information on the financial consequences of the case, due to the sensitive and contestable nature of such things, should be either kept out or included but well-sourced, and be easier to verify than a paywalled article - not all of us work in libraries. - AndreyKva (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you AndreyKva. I have to say, the whole page is much, much more accurate and proportionate now. I feel bad for criticising wikipedia, which I had assumed was a lost cause and overrun by people interested only in creating a miasma of doubt and fear against targeted enemies. I'm very pleased to see this is not the case. My best - Nina NinaXPower (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Not only, but per our open-wiki nature, quality is and will continue to be uneven. The "this is in the news now so I should add it on WP" attitude sometimes leads to problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

But you, AndreyKva, have access to the WP:LIBRARY and ProQuest, so the WP:PAYWALL is no hindrance for you, and no reason for removal in itself. Source you removed [3] states "In November 2023, after seven days of testimony at the High Court, Mrs Justice Collins Rice issued a lengthy judgment (available online, case number QB-2019-003691) that ultimately dismissed both claims, but then, in a devastating blow for Miller and Power that revealed the judge's take on the merit of the respective claims, ordered the pair to pay 80% of all Turner's court costs - a first instalment of ?250,000 was due within a fortnight." If this is "press release sent by Turner", it's not obvious from what I can see in the ProQuest text of pdf versions. I find the The Times ref more strange, which seems to indicate "paper only", but maybe they still do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake on my part. I didn't know about this tool, so thank you for linking it. I used it to read the article, however, and I still think deleting it was the right decision. My concern is that this source is partial and takes Turner's side in the case, and I also don't think these details are particularly notable either way. I think it's best to note that the case happened and both sides' claims were dismissed but, due to a lack of balanced coverage and/or impartial sources, leave out details, which also aligns with BLP policy of "writing conservatively and with regard for privacy" and leaving out contentious and poorly sourced material. - AndreyKva (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@AndreyKva I'm not sure on the WP:DUE-ness here, perhaps more people will have an opinion. I think "ordered the pair to pay 80% of all Turner's court costs" may be worth including. "takes Turner's side" is not necessarily a problem per WP:ALLOWEDBIAS, context/use matters, afaict written in "voice of the magazine" if you get my meaning.. But happy to have pointed you to the library, you should REALLY check that out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's some coverage of the case/judgement by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain: [4]. Looks ok and in their area of expertise, but I don't know if it's independent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

As for The Times ref, it is accessible and I managed to read it and verify its contents. See: Talk:Nina Power#Times source. - AndreyKva (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I've checked the actual Times site and there is no trace of the article (I have full access to the databse). I've never seen it before. Was it up and then deleted? It's not in the Times search https://www.thetimes.com/search?source=nav-desktop&q=Twitter+no+place+for+debate%2C+judge+tells+intellectuals NinaXPower (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The only reference to that title is this wikipedia page itself https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Twitter+no+place+for+debate%2C+judge+tells+intellectuals%22&oq=%22Twitter+no+place+for+debate%2C+judge+tells+intellectuals%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCDEyODBqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 NinaXPower (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

As AndreyKva pointed to, [5] seems to confirm that this was published by The Times, but why it is this obscure, I can't say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This is totally bizarre. This article doesn't exist anywhere other than "Gale Academic OneFile" and even then it doesn't show up on search engines. This looks like something that was *never* published by The Times, perhaps on legal advice. NinaXPower (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Gale is a legitimate website: see Gale (publisher). It is odd, that the article is missing from the website (see: https://www.thetimes.com/profile/david-brown?page=25), yet I think it still works as a legitimate reference. - AndreyKva (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It's weird. I asked for some input at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Odd_reference_to_The_Times. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The "Times" piece isn't even bad, it's just that its reality seems so bizarre. At least it proves that this claim "Turner said that as a result of the controversy he spent a month inside his London flat because he was 'in terror of the volume and virulence of online abuse directed towards him'" relates to his much earlier Art work "He Will Not Divide Us" and not to anything we said to him. In that sense might be worth keeping! But who knows what or where the piece originally was. NinaXPower (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Btw, if you've changed your mind on wanting the article deleted, feel free to say so. WP:VANDALISM etc is always a risk around here, so there is no guarantee disagreeable edits won't happen again. Fwiw, this article has a WP:GREYLOCK set to expire March next year, and that helps a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It's an awful lot better, which is to say accurate and balanced now, Happy to remove request for deletion. I have no idea obviously if person or people will try to hijack it again. I suppose all this serves as a record of that possibility if they do have another go. Thank you everyone here who has been so reasonable and clear in their explanations. I'm really relieved and it has massively improved my feeling towards the site. NinaXPower (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried to take the legal case out of the lede, but was reverted. I don't think that section of the article should be shrunk, it's already concise. Rather the rest of the article needs to be fleshed out, which I've gotten very little help with.

"and be easier to verify than a paywalled article - not all of us work in libraries."

It's long established that sources need to be verifiable, but need not be freely available or even online. Jahaza (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I reverted you, it seemed the right thing to do at the time. Are you thinking of the current case-paragraph, or an earlier longer version? From where I'm sitting, the non-case parts have been notably improved, for example, apart from you AndreyKva has done quite a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My big chunk of authorship is almost entirely to do with me adding archive URLs to sources. I added very little content, and largely focused on small stylistic touch-ups and filing down the case section due to it, IMO, being given undue weight despite its lack of balanced coverage and limited notability (as established in the voting page for the article deletion, people seemed to vote for keeping the article because of the notability of the subject's books, not the case). With that said, I'm not sure if much needs to be added. I have some familiarity with the subject's career and public profile, and I think what's in the article pretty much covers what's notable. - AndreyKva (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect Information Re Bankruptcy Again

"forcing Power and Miller into bankruptcy by the following year." Untrue. This links to an Art Monthly claim which repeats a lie in Turner's press release to them. Turner PAID for me to be made bankrupt, there was no court order to do so. He then bought up my bankruptcy at a cost of around 30-40K, knowing I had no assets and receiving a return of £0. Turner seeks to pretend the court ordered this, but he did. This is why Miller and I have different bankruptcy dates. Turner is pretending that this was something that necessarily followed, but it was something he paid for and actively instigated. NinaXPower (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I can post/send proof that Turner (not the court) paid for the bankruptcy, and appointed his own lawyers, and received nothing. NinaXPower (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have made it clear that the bankruptcy was involuntary and written a section for our bankruptcy article explaining involuntary bankruptcy in the United Kingdom. Jahaza (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)