Talk:Chloe Cole

LA Blade Sourcing

I believe this source is problematic for a couple of reasons:

1. It is not listed as a RS, and while I believe there have been a few conversations from other articles using it in the RS noticeboard, the general consensus (iirc) is that it's not suitable for controversial subject matter.

2. They deadname Cole.

I believe these two issues combined give sufficient reasoning why we should drops in inclusion in this article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI you seem to have posted this twice. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Also I couldn't find any discussion about Blade searching RSN, could you link the discussions? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There appears to have been two discussions pertaining to Blade, of which consensus was not reached. (LA Blade / Toledo Blade). Is there a policy regarding unverified sources and BLPs? It seems to me it's prudent to not include them due to the controversial nature of this BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Toledo Blade is a separate publication with a different owner. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. It's also worth noting that WP:BLPRS touches on the subject of tabloids and poor sourcing. Washington Blade infobox suggests this newspaper is considered a tabloid. While some of the information presented in the Blade source can be verified by other RS, there is content there that is controversial, the language is inflammatory, and the journalist has been alleged as someone who advocates for violence against Cole. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The "format" there refers to the physical dimensions of the newspaper, which nowadays doesn't reflect the nature of their reporting. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What source makes these claims regarding the journalist? Cedar777 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The author herself posted a banner including the text, "I condone any/all violence", with Cole and other controversial figures. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the relevant WP? Additionally please see WP:NATIONALREVIEW Filiforme1312 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that makes the author involved and thus unacceptable for claims about Cole. It also suggested the source is likely to have both serious bias as well as low editorial standards. Springee (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I missed the author part. That may be worth a discussion at RS about when does a journalist cross the Rubicon to activist. Though someone mentioned in an earlier thread, the source has facts that are useable. Has quotes that are useable. The framing by the author is what is suspect and WP:RSOPINION should already cover that and we should be avoiding using any of their fluff anyway. Slywriter (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

For that we would need RS for the discussion. Right now, we have an unsourced and potentially libelous claim about a living person that has yet to be deleted. The source article I suspect informed the claim is wholly unreliable for a variety of reasons. The article itself is dripping with identity based bias and vitriol while amounting to a hit piece. It is one of the more disgusting and upsetting things I have read recently to the point it would draw into question the integrity and ethics of any editor who finds merit in it. There is also nothing presented besides conjecture to connect the statement to the subject of our article.

If this claim had RS, the question about what political views are appropriate on a journalist's personal social media account may be a question worth discussing. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

RS doesn't say we need to discuss it at RSN but if you wish we certainly can. Let me ask, do you think a reporter who has suggested violence against Cole is acceptable is a good source for claims about Cole? Which claim are you saying is libelous? Springee (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The unsourced claim that the reporter's statement irt violence are in reference to the subject of our article is libelous. BLP applies to this discussion and the allegation should be removed. There is nothing to indicate such an accusation and I suggest we refrain from editorial decisions on the basis of unsourced and potentially libelous allegations where the only source available source is wildly unreliable for such a claim.

Whether the hypothetical situation posed is acceptable is irrelevant to editorial decisions at this time. Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

National Review has an article that I don't feel needs to be posted here about the event (Google "dawn ennis condone any/all violence"), and while I wouldn't cite them for an article I believe they have enough journalistic integrity to confirm this writer did in fact post on her banner a photo of Cole while suggesting violence. This is not libel, and suggesting that seems disingenuous and dishonest. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My view is not that the contents of her banner is libelous and unsupported by a RS, but that the connection drawn between the various contents of her banner is potentially. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we can start with a basic question. Is there doubt that the banner belongs to the author of the LA Blade article? If no, then highlighting Cole in a personal banner moves this person from reporter to activist and would make them involved with the subject. Even if their intent wasn't a call to violence (a claim they seem to make in the NR article), the fact that they did this at all shows a conflict of interest and thus they aren't independent of the subject on which they are reporting. It's not like this article will suffer if we throw out the opinion of one writer. Springee (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

So I've just done a quick search of Ennis' tweets, and according to Ennis she was actually quoting from her original interview with Cole (September 2022, September 2022 October 2022, January 2023), Cole said this she mistakenly said "condone" instead of "condemn" and this was corrected in the LA Blade article prior to its publication. I agree with Filiforme1312 that Kcmasterpc is has made a BLP violation here and I'll be removing it momentarily. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Since there is a response to me, I'll reply. If there is WP relating to sources that defines COI to include some sort of use of a subject's photos on social media, then we should look into it.

Her CV is incredibly impressive with the four Emmys, a Writer's Guild Award, and editor/writer & producer positions for major publications/TV news programs. She may be the most qualified and prestigious source we have so it would be a shame to lose her without clear WP justification. Filiforme1312 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if we accept their story the fact that they put these people in their banner suggests they are no longer impartial on these people. They have been called out personally by the writer. They have made the people in the banner a target of the writer. This we should treat everything they say with great suspicion. And that's assuming we believe they just misquoted Cole. Springee (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Had this happened prior to the publishing of the LA Blade article I would tentatively agree. However because this appeared to happen 5 days after the publishing, arguments that Ennis was biased or involved against Cole the time of writing hold no water. If Ennis has written any further articles on Cole, those should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, however aside from commentary on Ennis' Twitter I'm not seeing any other articles published by her on Cole. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

After this I will drop it and exit the conversation, but I wanted to clarify that attributing the quote I condone any/all violence to Ennis is where libel begins to come into play.

As the text appears inin Ennis' banner is from a screenshot of an unnamed source, it would be productive to use the search function on her twitter to verify the source of that text and it's context. Doing so will shed light on the poor quality of the source and the shoddy claims it makes. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Filiforme1312: I've actually done just this. I've linked the relevant tweets above, and it seems as though Ennis was quoting from Cole, with Cole later saying it was mistakenly spoken and was corrected prior to the LA Blade article being published. I agree with you that attributing the quotation to Ennis is a BLP violation, which is why I've now removed it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I've reverted your change. Just because Ennis used a misquote doesn't get her off the hook from the controversy or the very real impact it had. Based on those links and the articles published about this, it caused quite a stir. I'd like to point out that the banner in question did not have quotations on it, nor was it attributed. I don't see how anyone could reasonably ascertain it was a quote at the time she posted it, despite what Ennis claims. If you have an issue with my edits, please take it to AN/I. Cheers Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It certainly gives the appearance of someone who expressed her feelings but didn't think about the backlash it could cause with people who may not agree with those feelings. Springee (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Ennis was attempting to draw controversy and leverage the words of the Cole in a manner that she could later claim as not her own. We can't read minds, and we'll never fully know her intentions. However, we can easily see the impact it had and how people perceived it. Nevertheless, this journalist has proven herself to be unreliable in this aspect simply due to her actions, which are now confirmed, regardless of her intention. This seems to me is a completely valid reason why this reference should be removed entirely from Cole's BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unverified" sources? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources that aren't on RS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPMISSING. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this WP specifically suggests that sources that are unverified may be considered poor. That's why it's problematic for inclusion on a controversial BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What? If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Could be. The point of that whole section is that you don't know until you discuss it. Now please come with some actual arguments rather than a misreading of WP:RSP. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Or it could be one of the Pulitzer Prize winning publications not listed. Maddy's interpretation is the correct one. Filiforme1312 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Los Angeles Blade is mentioned exactly once in that dicussion: LA Blade and NBC's uses are in attributed statements to Leveille. I don't understand how you got the general consensus (iirc) is that it's not suitable for controversial subject matter from that. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The commas are important in my OP. Take out that middle statement, it'll make more sense. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not listed as a RS the general consensus (iirc) is that it's not suitable for controversial subject matter. See WP:RSPMISSING and our convo above about poor sourcing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there WP stating not to use sources that include deadnames? WP:Deadname gives guidance for using these sources, including when the deadname is in the title. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There is WP stating no where should their deadname be included, whether that extends to inclusion in sources is not specified. See WP:DEADNAME -- If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you cite the policy in your reply so we can be sure we're all on the same page? Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I see the edit to include the specific policy. This applies to our content here, any page meaning on Wikipedia.

Also, this specifies transgender people as there is a separate discussion (may be archived) detailing WP on it would be appropriate to include Cole's previous names.

WP:Deadname goes on to state this about sources:

In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that says we shouldn't use sources that include a deadname in their text. Also Cole is not a living transgender or non-binary person. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I see, so since she de-transitioned she is no longer considered someone who identified as transgender? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

She isn't trans, so not covered by that guideline. That was secondary anyway, point is that section doesn't say what you claim it does. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources can and do "violate" Wikipedia procedures all the time. Such issues have no bearing on source use, even if the issue is in the url or headline (limited exclusions can apply on case by case basis at BLPN but generally requires extraordinary circumstances). As to on-wiki use, any alternative or birth names are still covered by WP:BLPNAME, which tells us not to reveal names that are not "widely reported", WP:DEADNAME need not enter the discussion. Slywriter (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That obviously does not extend to sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Clearly sources aren't bound by the rules we use to write articles; we plainly eg. expect sources to perform WP:OR. That said, if people wanted to reach a general agreement that sources that routinely engage in deadnaming or misgendering are not usable for facts about WP:GENSEX issues, I'd certainly agree - it could be worth raising at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. But I'd be opposed to applying it selectively as a special rule in just this case. --Aquillion (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

See Washington Blade for information about the root publisher and their long history. Cedar777 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in using it as the paper isn't being used for controversial claims - such as MEDRS claims. It is a very wide ranging article with significant detail, mostly of the 'human' impact. Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The source has WP:BIAS and should be weighed accordingly but no evidence is presented here to merit outright exclusion. Slywriter (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is the LA Blade deadnaming Chloe? Chloe is her legal first name and preferred name, I've read both articles about her from the LA Blade and none of them "deadname" her. Also, she doesn't even have a deadname! AT1738 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

One hopes it is not a reference to this, which would seem to be abuse of the term “deadname”:

>About a year post-op, Cole says she realized for the first-time that she may want to breast-feed someday, which was obviously impossible following her double mastectomy.

>At 17, Cole says she stopped using the first name “Leo,” detransitioned, and resumed life as a girl.

>Starting in May, Cole has been traveling the country to testify against medical transition. Tospik (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It does not “deadname” her. It references her own account of her previously identified name, which she now rejects. This is part of her story that she tells voluntarily. If she has a “deadname,” it is her now-preferred name of Chloe…that is the name she used before transitioning, and the name she chooses to use now. Tospik (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

In light of being accused of libel and violating BLP guidelines, I have opened a discussion on BLPN WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Los_Angeles_Blade_Source_Concerns Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to put this at RSN, considering it's about source reliability? --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, there are two issues. The source itself and the allegations of libel and BLP violations. If we can't come to a consensus here the issue itself should probably go to RSN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the source is tainted as far as basic facts go. Just need to be wary of allowing any framing by the journalist to be treated as factual. As to the libel, it isn't and it's a silly path we have collectively gone down that is a distraction. It was her twitter header, it includes Andy Ngo so wasn't just a Cole "quote", and a reasonable person can interpret it as an attack on Cole and Ngo. Wikipedia editors are not required to be ignorant of matters outside of their discussion in reliable sources. Slywriter (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Just need to be wary of allowing any framing by the journalist to be treated as factual. Why? There is no evidence that Ennis was biased towards Cole prior to the publication of the article. The incident with the banner happened 5 days after the article was published, during a period where Ennis was being harassed on Twitter by followers of Libs of TikTok [1] and Andy Ngo[2]. Also from looking at other archives of Ennis' Twitter account, the banner was only present for a short period on 15 September, as archives of the profile on 14 September and 16 September show the use of the Progress Pride Flag.

Now was it a mistake for Ennis to create and set the banner on 15 September? Sure, and it certainly gave more ways for those harassing her to continue to do so (see National Review article). But we would be remiss to not acknowledge that it happened during a period where Ennis had already faced 4 days of intense harassment.

I think this is all a diversion though. That Ennis made and set the banner on 15 September could be evidence of a bias or conflict of interest in articles published on or after that date, however the LA Blade article was published before that. The real question we should be asking is, is there any evidence that Ennis was biased towards Cole prior to the publishing of the LA Blade article on 11 September 2022? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me phrase differently as my framing statement is actually irrelevant to the current use of the source and I think an unneeded detour, though do appreciate the additional background.

The source is currently used to support 14 statements in the article. 13 of them are statements by Chloe Cole that would be lost if the source is tossed.

The one statement that's not is Dawn Innis' attributed statement (Currently 'm' on source list). Whether a graphic change five days later on her private twitter affects using that statement is a reasonable discussion. However the awards and record of the journalist do indicate she is qualified to opine.

Dismissing the entire source is not reasonable and would be a negative to this article unless reliable sources show the quotes themselves are false and no evidence has been provided that this is the case.Slywriter (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following your rephrasing any better. Are you suggesting that we should remove the attributed quotation/description by Ennis from the Activism/Legislation section? Or have I completely misread that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the concerns about the Twitter image are not enough to remove the quote when balanced against what else has been presented (credentials, RS, awards, timeline). Though also saying it isn't unreasonable to have the conversation aka not a BLP/Libel/tendentious situation. 100% oppose any attempt to remove the use of the source completely. Slywriter (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying the libel concerns were about talk page comments attributing the quote to Ennis and claiming it was directed to Cole. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Locked from editing

Why can't some editors edit this page until May? I get that there's a whole lot of new traffic, but I just want to add her legal name and her full birthday, because I feel like those are very important parts of someone's biography. I also have the sources if anyone needs them. AT1738 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It's semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Can you share the sources here? I'm sure a more senior editor would be willing to make the changes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here: (Redacted) this is a post from her grandmother proving that her birthday is July 27th, and if she's 18 currently, that means that her birth year is 2004. Her legal name source is from the PDF of the lawsuit she filed on February 22nd of this year, I don't know how to link it though. I know the first one may not be a reliable source, but she is related to this woman. AT1738 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

See post below by Sideswipe9th, neither of these are suitable for use. Per WP:RS and WP:BLP Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, AT1738, I have redacted the link here since I'm not sure it's appropriate for Wikipedia. — 🦊 23:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, I didn't know if any of y'all wanted the source or not. AT1738 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually from what I can tell you should be autoconfirmed and thus able to edit the article. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to note, I've just undone the addition by AT1738. No source was provided in the edit, and when this was discussed previously the only source on her name was from her lawsuit against Kaiser and subject to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

But that's her real name though. I mean what other proof do you need? AT1738 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY forbids us by policy from using court records to support assertions about a living person. That includes Cole's name. There's also WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns here. Cole's legal name has (or had, I've not checked sources published in the last couple of days) not been widely disseminated by reliable sources, and BLPNAME and BLPPRIVACY compel us not to include that information until it's widely reported. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. AT1738 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the enthusiasm and background knowledge about the subject. Definitely stick around as we could always use more editors and this article has been pretty engaging as new developments are happening kinda fast. Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Elli to this discussion related to their edit. Slywriter (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I've seen this discussion. The secondary source I cited reports her name, and was not a part of the previous discussion. The "widely reported" standard is not necessary here, because: sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Brockman filed a lawsuit including their real name and announced that they did so; it can be reasonably inferred from this that she does not mind her name being public. While we aren't supposed to cite the lawsuit itself for that detail per WP:BLPPRIMARY, I'm not doing that; I'm citing a secondary source which reported on the lawsuit.

We can obviously include the title of a lawsuit she filed and publicized, as has been reported in secondary sources. There is no privacy issue here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should treat this as we treat a deadname. If nothing else it seems like it would be hypocritical to do otherwise. Springee (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: there is no indication at all that she does not want Brockman to be her name. If she did, she could just... change it, which is legal. She's using "Cole" as a pseudonym. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

How do we know that, though? Is there a RS covering her feelings regarding her pseudonym? We just have to follow policy, and I believe that is pretty clear; we shouldn't be using it in her BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc: Your standard here is ridiculously high. Nowhere in policy is it stated that we cannot include the name of a lawsuit someone chooses to file and publicize, because they might not like their legal name. That's not in DEADNAME and that's not in BLPPRIVACY. DEADNAME does not apply to someone's current name. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a BLP, where the bar is set pretty high. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"pretty high" is not "however high I feel like"; we do have policies on this and your interpretation of them is not correct. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY are open to interpretation by everyone; however, because there is a dispute here, should we also not take account of WP:CON? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring here. I'm disagreeing with you. Obviously we follow WP:CON to reach a decision here, but that isn't an argument for your position. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a printed niche publication, geared towards lawyers in San Francisco. It's reach is a metropolitan area vs Wikipedia's global readership. If it's only use is to cite for the full name of the lawsuit, it really serves no purpose on Wikipedia and is not sufficient to override BLP concerns. Slywriter (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter: This is not a niche publication, and using information from a source that primarily targets lawyers for information about a lawsuit is perfectly fine. The lawsuit is taking place in northern California, of course media based in northern California will have more in-depth coverage regarding it. That's not a reason not to include said information on Wikipedia. Citing the case name is not this source's only use in the article either.

You have not presented a valid BLP concern about including the legal case name. It has been reported in reliable sources, it is public information, and it is something she has been open about filing. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else that we should strongly lean on the side of not including her legal name. I don't think it's clear that using her legal name in a context where her legal name is necessary means we can infer she doesn't object to it. Let's just follow the existing "widely reported" standard unless we can find significantly better evidence that she really doesn't object. Loki (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Are you arguing that we cannot include the title of a lawsuit that she filed, because she might not like her name? I'm not suggesting generally naming her in the article, just including the title of the lawsuit, which happens to include her name. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we do not publish some information that is technically public for all sorts of reasons. The deadnames of lots of trans people are technically public information and yet we don't include them. Loki (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we cannot include the title of a lawsuit that she filed, because she might not like her name? I don't think anyone has argued that we CAN"T - but why would we want to? How does it benefit the article to use her 'real' name? Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You're asking why would we want to include the title of a lawsuit when discussing said lawsuit? Because it's relevant? Because that's how legal sources refer to it? Elli (talk | contribs) 19:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is about the person, not the lawsuit - which at present is little reported, beyond the basic fact of it happening, and those reports which do exist use her 'adopted' name. So the question is valid. Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We're only including her name in the context of the lawsuit here, though. And you are wrong about your second claim; the source I have cited names her as Brockman. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the arguments against including her name.

People brining up DEADNAME should note its an irrelevant policy that only applies to trans people and were talking about a cis woman. I don't think the comparison to deadnames is appropriate or an accurate way to understand this.

A better comparison would be entertainers who use stage names, which we should look into for advice in this case.

A legal name is not required to be made public for a lawsuit of this nature. Had she wanted to use an alias, her lawyers would have filed as such. Id actually be shocked if they didn't offer this as they're clearly a competent high profile firm specializing in politically motivated tort where this is a common practice. See Rowe v Wade.

Further, the source geared towards lawyers is a better source overall than many of the news articles and per LPNAME should be given higher weight. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree DEADNAME is not a factor. I don't howevere see need or value in using a name that sources largely haven't, regardless of its provenance. Pincrete (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We essentially have two conversations occurring. First is do we include the name of the court case in the section about it. To me this feels useful for readers and is supported by RS.

The other is if we include her name alongside the pseudonym. What are your thoughts on the specific threshold for including her name?

Largely haven't feels like an abnormally high threshold. The Katy Perry article includes her name in addition to her stage name, but I'd say sources largely haven't referred to her by her legal name.

IRT RS there is currently Washington Times and SF Daily.

Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. From WP:BLPPRIVACY feels relevant. Its reasonable to infer that if she had objected to her name being used publicly, she would have chosen to use a pseudonym in court filings. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

She did not publish it in a source linked to her. So we fall back to widely reported and it's not widely reported. Slywriter (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

How is a lawsuit she filed not "a source linked to her"? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Presumably her attorney filed it; additionally, is the lawsuit itself not a primary source? No matter what, I don't know if a court filing can be seen as a reasonable acceptance of its presence. Myself and I assume other editors would be more inclined to agree to the inclusion if Cole herself had publicly stated her real name, either in an interview or at a rally where reporters widely covered it. Until then, I agree with other editors that we should present Cole's identity as what's been widely covered. There are probably 100+ sources who've reported on Cole, and only a few have included her birth name, from what I can tell. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Her attorney filed it... on her behalf. Attorneys do not go around filing lawsuits on behalf of their clients without their clients wanting them to do so, and as Brockman has publicized this lawsuit, it is clear that she wanted it to be filed.

Yes, it is a primary source, which is why I am not citing the name to it! But it being a primary source still satisfies sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

And again I am only including the name in the context of including the actual title of the lawsuit. If someone wants to research this lawsuit, such as on a lawsuit tracker website, having the actual title of the lawsuit would help with that. It is clearly relevant and useful information. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Furthermore the lawsuit isn't being used as a source – a secondary source about the suit is. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Naming the case feels pretty clear cut. I had thought we were just waiting for RS to include it. I'm of the mind that if someone has national media coverage and files a high profile suit under their name then you can reasonable infer they don't object to it being made public. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, I honestly do not believe it's reasonable to infer that Cole does not object simply because she filed a lawsuit with her birth name. Based on a reading of this summary on pseudonym usage in lawsuits, it appears (and I am certainly not a lawyer) that she would have had to go in front of a court and request anonymity, which is granted under the rarest of circumstances. While I believe she could have obtained this permission from the court if she had pressed for it, it's also possible there were other timing concerns with regards to limitation statutes. We don't know the full story here, and until we do (a RS reports on this) we should assume Cole has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Until she either publicly discloses her birth name and eschews privacy expectations or sources widely report on her birth name (when there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy at that point) we have a well-defined policy that tells us we shouldn't include it on Wikipedia. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This thread feels a bit stalkerish. Why are we crawling through court records to use uncommon names for people? Very Average Editor (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is RS for her tort case name. No need to crawl through records. Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If a trans person who wasn't notable under their dead name filled a similar lawsuit and that lawsuit title included their dead name, would you argue to include or exclude? It seems very hypocritical that we are concerned about even using the previous name of a deceased trans person on an article talk page but we are ok when the person with it in this case. Springee (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not a deadname! It is still her name! She is just using a pseudonym. You are drawing a false comparison here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The concept is similar hence treat it similarly. Springee (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't! You are just wrong here. The concept is not at all similar. If MOS:DEADNAME applied to pseudonyms, it would say so. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I just check again... Yes, it is similar. I think you are confusing "the same" with "similar". Springee (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is that a way if you want to argue that local consensus is not following community policy. Doubtful further discussion here will change opinions. Slywriter (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is not a clear "local consensus" here in favor of your position. MOS:DEADNAME does not apply to people who go by pseudonyms. It only applies to the deadnames of transgender and non-binary people. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Which I've never mentioned. Instead relying on the standards of BLP and their customary application on Wikipedia. There is no consensus forming here, so you can start an WP:RFC or got to WP:BLPN as without either of those, the chance of inclusion is near zero given valid BLP concerns have been raised which can't be handwaved away with "But we are not saying her name, just including the full title of the lawsuit". Slywriter (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion here is still ongoing. "There isn't consensus yet, so stop talking about it" isn't really constructive. But sure, I can start an RfC if that's what you'd prefer. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is going in circles. Can call that on-going, if you wish, but certainly not productive. Slywriter (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a dead name, and we shouldn't apply that policy in this scenario, at all. The policy around dead names are centered around cultural sensitivity and civility. There are also privacy concerns, and I believe this is what we should be focusing on, and the parallels with that regard are absolutely valid. (see my argument above). Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, focusing on WP:PRIVACY concerns would probably help make this more productive. If we can't move past them, there's no reason to discuss WP:DEADNAME anyways. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Piping Opposes Gender Affirming Care

Reverted the linking to LGBT rights opposition as that article is far more encompassing and does not adequately cover issues surrounding her advocacy. This is a BLP, implying anything beyond the sources is inappropriate.

Transgender health care has a possible target in Transgender health care#Health care for transgender youth but nothing there to inform reader what opposition is.

Transgender rights in the United States#Treatment for children is likely the best target, if one should exist at all. Slywriter (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the undo here, but it's worth pointing out that it's been there prior (the dropping of it was recent, which was reverted). That being said, I believe if there is another article on Wiki that closely covers the nuance of Cole's view, it should be linked. Sounds like you've found one. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. I put the wikilink back up because I initially understood the concern to be the wording in the link itself. Though in it's current form it doesn't have much to offer a reader coming from this article. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: include the title of the lawsuit she filed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It is clear at this point that the consensus to omit Cole's birth surname, and by extension the case caption for her lawsuit, is not going to change absent a significant change in facts. It would make sense to start a new discussion if either:

1. Cole's birth surname becomes more widely publicized or
2. The case caption itself becomes widely publicized, for instance appearing in law reviews or being referenced in other cases.

(That is not to presuppose the outcome of such a new discussion, just to say that one would be in order.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the "Lawsuit" section contain the title of the lawsuit as published in San Francisco Daily Journal? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: the core dispute is if Cole's birth name, revealed by the lawsuit name, should be included in the article. Springee (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey (lawsuit)

• Support it makes obvious sense to include the title of a lawsuit when discussing said lawsuit. The title is public and has been included in reliable secondary sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Elli. No part of WP:BLPNAME applies here since Cole is neither a WP:BLP1E, a private individual, or a nonnotable family member or other relation. Including the suit's title has obvious encyclopaedic value. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor attempt to make end run around BLP policies using a niche source for sole purpose of identifying the full case name (and as a result subject's legal name) for inclusion here. Source was used for no other reason and claims that the full title of the lawsuit is relevant are not persuasive. WP:DONOHARM, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY and the general spirit of WP:BLP. In particular, a single print source published primarily for lawyers in the metropolitan area of San Francisco does not meet the bar of widely reported nor is a lawsuit a source linked to the subject where reasonable inference can be made. Slywriter (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Slywriter and no case has been made as to why or what or how adding the BLP subject's real name benefits the article. For whatever reason, sources have not used her real name, so why are we proposing doing so? If the lawsuit becomes well-known and/or her real name is widely covered, the situation would change, until then, no. Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: we frequently discuss lawsuits without mentioning the formal name of the suit - e.g. there is an entire section on legal issues in our article on Ed Sheeran, and yet none of the lawsuits are named. Unless the name of the suit is widely reported in sources and someone can give a compelling reason why it is useful to readers, then quite apart from the potential BLP issues I'm not seeing the justification for including it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:BLPPRIVACY. The name of a lawsuit being published in print in a regional legal publication doesn't meet the standard indicated in the policy for including personal information. --Tristario (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:BLPPRIVACY as noted above by other editors. There is a longer post by me above in the conversation that prompted this RfC where I discuss the possible reasons her legal name is on the filing. However, that is all secondary because: Until she either publicly discloses her birth name and eschews privacy expectations in that regard or sources widely report on her birth name (when there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy at that point) we have a well-defined policy that tells us we shouldn't include it on Wikipedia. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose both per BLPPRIVACY and in the general spirit of DEADNAME. Readers aren't going to be denied anything because we don't name the specific lawsuit. Additionally, including the name, which has had very little coverage, via a backdoor naming of the lawsuit. I think most editors would object if someone said, Lia Thomas's deadname should be included because her pre-transition swimming statistics should be part of the article. This seems to be a similar situation. Springee (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please drop the stick with bringing up trans people's deadnames in reference to a cis person's pseudonym. Its not only offensive, but creates a hostile atmosphere for trans editors and demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the subject area. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Your disagreement is clear. Springee (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per BLPPRIVACY and in the spirit of MOS:DEADNAME. There are many, many people on Wikipedia who technically have public information about them available that we would never in a million years publish on Wikipedia. The address of everyone in the US who votes is available in the voter rolls but we would never go through celebrities' pages adding their address. And more directly relevant, there's lots and lots of trans people whose deadnames are available due to some legal proceeding or other who we nevertheless continue to not deadname. Loki (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Not important for the reader to know this. Sheesh. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't know why anyone feels so strongly about including the name, and I don't know why anyone feels so strongly about omitting the name, but I'd generally prefer to err on the side of privacy where something like this is concerned. As an aside, I'd really urge anyone trying to make this about MOS:DEADNAME to just strike that line of argumentation for reasons that have probably already been articulated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know which oppose argument I disagree with more:
  • That she is a trans woman (she is not, she is a cis-woman)
  • That a cis-woman can have a deadname (or that an anti-trans activist can have a deadname...)
  • That "the spirit of WP:DEADNAME" means using a stage name and hiding the real name of non-trans people
  • That a deadname would involve changing the last name, but not the first name "Chloe"
  • That WP:BLPNAME (which doesn't apply to notable people) applies to BLP subjects
  • That a person who files an advocacy lawsuit without using a pseudonym (even though US courts allow it) is going to be somehow harmed by Wikipedia stating their real name
  • That the title of a lawsuit is not important information to include when discussing a lawsuit
  • That a BLP subject's real name is not important information to include in the BLP (of a cis-adult)

These arguments are all terrible. Support including her real name and the title of the lawsuit, for lack of any reason not to. Levivich (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

But no one has suggested that she is a trans woman or that she has a DEADNAME to either use or avoid! It is fairly easy to disagree with ridiculous arguments - that no one has actually made! Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't see the word "DEADNAME" in people's votes above? Levivich (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I see one reference to the general spirit of DEADNAME. I'm not quite sure what that means - apart from a general right to privacy. I do know it doesn't mean that the editor thinks Cole is trans or that she has a 'deadname'. Another editor is -correctly - saying it doesn't apply. Cole has a birth name which she and sources don't appear to be using widely - so why should we? Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the guidance in WP:BLPPRIVACY Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public is pretty clear cut, that standard isn't met here. Also Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified Tristario (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario: how is a lawsuit that they filed and publicized not a source linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public? Presumably if they didn't want their name to be public, they would have tried to use a pseudonym, and would not have publicized their filing of the lawsuit. They've also suggested people look at the lawsuit itself, and that they consider information in it "publicly available", so it can "reasonably be inferred" they're fine with people reading the lawsuit. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think someone including their real name in a lawsuit means they don't object to the details being made public. People include lots of things in lawsuits they'd object to being made public and put on their wikipedia page. And this is a WP:BLP, we should only be including personal information in this scenario if it's clear that they don't object to it, which it isn't. Tristario (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario: So you think someone would file a lawsuit, publicize the lawsuit, suggest people read the lawsuit if they're curious about which parties are named in the lawsuit, because that is "publicly available information"... but also object to details in said lawsuit being public? That makes literally no sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In the context of writing a biography of a living person on wikipedia it makes a lot of sense. We cannot just go around assuming that people are okay with personal details being put on their wikipedia page because they appeared in a lawsuit that they filed. That would allow the inclusion of all sorts of unnecessary personal information on people's wikipedia pages. Tristario (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to include the biography subject's name in their biography. You need a really good reason not to. WP:DEADNAME is a really good reason, but it doesn't apply here. There are no privacy issues here. It's just nonsensical to treat a person's name as private when the person is a public figure and a high-profile individual (under our definitions of those terms in BLP) and it's not a deadname and it's not a minor. The lawsuit isn't under seal, it's not filed with a pseudonym, and she's actively publicizing it -- like dedicated her life to publicizing it, as far as I can tell. The idea that we shouldn't include the title because it includes her name (or that we can't write her name on the talk page) makes no sense whatsoeve when the information is already public by choice of the subject. Levivich (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You need a really good reason not to Per WP:BLP, when including personal information, we need good reasons to do it, not good reasons not to do it. There's no requirement or imperative to be including details like this in people's biographies Tristario (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the title of a lawsuit that editors have apparently reached consensus is notable enough to discuss. That's a compelling reason for inclusion. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 20:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's placement on search engines (plus news reporters, "AI"s, infoboxes, mirrors, etc.) make revelation on Wikipedia the end of privacy. Something that takes effort to find is now readily available, forever. At this time, the subject's legal name and full lawsuit title do not add significant information when weighed against the potential for harm, even if the chance is perceived as low. Slywriter (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You are repeating yourselves in this discussion but not addressing the point that she has publicized this lawsuit (and herself), ie she is a high-profile individual. You keep citing BLP but you're pointing to the parts that apply to low profile figures not high profile figures. Levivich (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Repetition in theme perhaps, not content. I disagree that she is a high profile figure. The page was created in a highly controversial manner and the subject was just as likely to remain a plantiff/activist without a Wikipedia page. Barely notable means survives AfD, so one can have a Wikipedia page and not be a high-profile individual. Being well-known in a niche does not make one high-profile to a global audience. Slywriter (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Please read Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. She has given multiple interviews with media, spoken at numerous conferences and events, and actively seeks out media attention. She is in no way a low-profile individual. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Her name is already included in multiple articles and readily available without deep research. Additionally, her filing under her name when California Civil Code § 3427.3 specifically allows names to be withheld for medical cases(I know from volunteering as an advocate to help trans people write appeals against insurers and hmos in the state). Its actually surprising to see a case against a major healthcare provider not utilize this. Either she chose to include it willingly or her lawyer failed her.

Id say all of this plus the previous statement about her dedicating her life to promoting it is makes it abundantly clear to me. Are we waiting for a direct quote from her in RS? Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

or her lawyer failed her this is a good example of one of a number of possible reasons (amongst other possible ones, like legal reasons, ignorance, mistakes, stupidity, other circumstances) why we should not be using information in lawsuits to conclude that people are okay with particular personal details being public. We need something more direct than what information someone has put in a lawsuit. If she's not openly and publicly saying "This is my real name" and indicating she's fine with people knowing that, and if it's not widely reported in reliable sources, this simply shouldn't be in the article. Tristario (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

So the standard you a promoting is a direct statement from her? Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Either that (or something like that) or if it's widely reported in reliable sources, yes. That's what WP:BLPPRIVACY would indicate Tristario (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes consider my reply to Levivich below, you just have to look into the field of naming those involved in pornographic films (for which there are communities for which it is almost some sort of moral crusade) to see how easy it is for people to make such mistakes. We know many of these people do not want their legal names associated with their stage name and try to prevent it. Yet it's hardly uncommon they make such mistakes e.g. when filing for trademarks many of which AFAIK can be avoided (e.g. by using some sort of trust or company arrangement) which make it easier for people to identify them. While many of these probably did not seek legal advice or only sought very basic legal advice (e.g. how do I file for a trademark properly) I'm sure some did. Even outside such fields, stuff happens. There's a case of a singer who seems to have (at least as of ~2 years ago) tried to keep her full name a secret with some success. Yet some editor was convinced because her full name appeared in sheet music for one of her works, we should include it in an article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sheet music seems like a stretch, but her name is included in multiple RS and there is nothing besides speculation to indicate this is a desire for privacy. It reads to me more like branding. Activists who conceal names tend to be ones facing legal repression from the state, such as environmental or anti police activists. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaken. BLPNAME definitely applies to article subjects and notable individuals. While the policy strongly encourages us to leave out names of people secondary to the article it also says we need to consider exclusion in other cases. The occupation part in particular is one that often applies to article subjects as in certain occupations especially those involve in pornographic entertainment often only use screen names with their real names intentionally concealed. We should not, and normally do not, name these individuals when sourcing of the names is limited even if they're the article subject. (Most of the time there is no reliable secondary sourcing and instead people try to use stuff like trademark filings or other stuff to name them. But these are already excluded by many aspects of policy. One of the reasons for that particular aspect of policy is to remind us even if one or two limited secondary sources also pick up the name, we probably should not follow them. This comes up every so often at BLPN. In fact it came up quite recently at Talk:Asmongold#Article protected a discussion you participated in.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. To the argument that including the full title of the case might make it easier for people to research it, please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: we don't include information merely because it is true or some may find it useful. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Animalparty: how does BLPPRIMARY apply when this is cited to a secondary source? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  This information seems to fit based on NOTEVERYTHING, at the very least it does not fall under the list of what the policy states should not be included. Filiforme1312 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support There are news articles that use her name and I have seen editors name policy, but not articulate how it applies. All of the policy cited seems to refer to specific situations that do not apply here. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't see this as a BLP issue. The subject's common name and apparently her legal name appear in heading of a lawsuit that she has filed. The suit was not filed under seal, and has appeared in sources sufficiently reliable to verify confirm its existence. However, we are not required to make our coverage of a subject conform to the vagaries of legal pleading. Normally I think we publish a full name when the sourcing supports it, but obviously our practice varies. When policy is silent, we should follow the lead of the better quality sources treating the subject. The subject is commonly known as Chloe Cole, and the sources use that name in the stories mentioning the lawsuit. Has a reliable source other than the San Francisco Daily Journal published her name? If there is a clear trend to withhold the name among the sources I'd follow suit, otherwise default to include it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  To answer the question on coverage of her name there are three sources of varying quality that use it. Theres the secondary source about the lawsuit, Washington Times, and Post Millennial. Filiforme1312 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose my primary consideration here is I have no idea why we would want to name the lawsuit in that way. AFAIK it's not very common to name non notable lawsuits. Notable lawsuits will often be named as part of linking to them but non notable ones not so much. If the lawsuit becomes notable I may change my mind but no one is alleging it is at the current time. I don't see that naming a non notable lawsuit is particularly useful. Yes it may make it easier to search for that lawsuit but that's not something we should consider. If we want to help readers find the lawsuit we should link to it rather than do some weird intermediary of just naming it. (Which raises BLPPRIMARY concerns although personally I'm not so fussed about linking to a lawsuit as a convenience link if we already discuss it based on sources which discuss it.) Otherwise it's fine for us to assume readers can rely on secondary sources which still discuss such details to help find it as is common for a lot of things in a lot of articles. If there are important details in the name that we want to reveal we should spell those out rather than naming the lawsuit as an end run around that. But the only details in the name are who she is suing which we already mention to some extent albeit not their names, and her legal name. And if editors want to start naming those people (including her legal name) intentionally, that is when BLPNAME and BLPPRIVACY does come into play. And in any case as I said even if we feel it is justified to name them, we shouldn't be using the lawsuit's name to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree it's normal and desirable to include all of a subject's names in a biography, I think in cases where there is a potential privacy interest, we must err on the side of caution. The redaction in this document is a reason to suspect that a privacy interest exists, and therefore that caution is warranted. We might overrule that caution if there was significant encyclopedic value in including the real name (e.g. maybe in a scenario where the subject had adopted a new identity to conceal a past crime), but that's clearly not the case here.
  The main argument in favour of inclusion seems to be something like: "lawsuit realnames the subject" + "subject talks openly about lawsuit" => "subject is unconcerned with having their real name published to a global audience on Wikipedia". Needless to say, this is fallacious. The lawsuit might include the name for reasons of legal procedure despite the subject having misgivings, and despite those misgivings the subject might still decide to publicise the lawsuit if doing so is overall in her best interests. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support including the name if the lawsuit is discussed. The alternative is to not discuss the lawsuit. Are there any other cases on wikipedia where a lawsuit is discussed, but the title isn't? If there was a privacy issue, wouldn't the courts use 'Jane Doe'? 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 20:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Sativa Inflorescence: User:Caeciliusinhorto already gave the example of Ed Sheeran above. But my question is why do you think it is normal for us to name a non notable lawsuit if we discuss it? As I said above, I don't think it is.

  For example I searched on BLPN archives for lawsuit and opened a few which were 3xx (i.e. recentish) at the top of my results. Then searched in for lawsuit and opened every single article I saw on a person except Gretchen Whitmer which I thought was too complicated. And then searched within for 'lawsuit', 'suing', 'sued'. Every single article I found which mentioned a lawsuit (directly or with one of my other two terms) and so discussed it to some degree (some more, some just a single sentence) does not seem to give a name in the body unless I missed it (some have multiple lawsuits and I didn't look that well). Some may give them in references, I did not check this at all.

  The articles were Wang Zheng (pilot)#Lawsuits, Cathy Areu#Lawsuit, Ken Paxton#Attorney General of Texas (2015–present) (both filed and defended albeit as an AG rather than personal), Kathy Barnette#Political career, Clayton Morris#Financial journalism and real estate ventures, David M. Sabatini#Allegations of sexual misconduct, Eben Alexander (author)#Medical career, Cassandra Clare#Personal life, Everett Stern#Criticism of Michael Flynn, Dov Seidman#Legal disputes, Ryan Kavanaugh#Career, Stacey Abrams#2018 gubernatorial campaign, Peter Strzok#Post-FBI.

  I acknowledge there may be various biases in my methodology so I'm not claiming it's enough to demonstrate what we normally do but I do feel it's enough to demonstrate it's actually fairly common we mention a lawsuit without naming it. And I should mention there were about 5-10 articles I opened but where my search did not find any mention of a lawsuit from my 3 search terms but I'm sure some of these do just use different terms e.g. I noticed Daniel Lacalle#Doctoral thesis controversy does when checking something. Perhaps some of these did name the lawsuits. I could list these but I feel the bigger possible bias is how I selected these articles so it's not worth it.

  Also the Paxton and Kavanaugh articles have Legal issues sections. These primarily discuss criminal or civil actions by government agencies I think always without naming although AFAIK these often have names too. Again I'm fairly sure this is common when the case isn't notable. And if you agree with this practice, there's the interest question why you feel it's important to give the name of a civil lawsuit between parties but not when someone is charged with a crime or sued by a government agency.

  Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe we should be including the name of more of these lawsuits. I have never seen a consensus against naming them. This is also different from most of those other cases; the subject here is the one filing a suit with the goal of it setting precedent. Makes much more sense to name than many of those examples, which are just the subjects getting sued by various people. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how you can claim that for Paxton and Abrams at a minimum. Possibly also for Sheeran although I haven't looked into the details and it may be whoever sued Sheeran that was trying to set a precedent. And also many of them are the subjects suing other people albeit not with the goal of setting a major precedent. Note that I think the consensus point is missing the key issue here. We don't name the lawsuits in all those examples because it's not important information. I suspect most of the time no one even considers it. So far IMO no one has satisfactorily articulated why the name of the lawsuit is an important part of our coverage of it when the lawsuit itself isn't notable. I'd note that I can recall any time we've ever even had this discussion on BLPN before. While I'm not accusing any particular editor, I'm deeply concerned that one of the only times editors seem to care about including the name is when it raises possible privacy issues. While I acknowledge that this also means when there is no such concern, if an editor adds it it's likely no one will object so it doesn't make it to BLPN, I think it's hard to ignore the perception we don't generally name lawsuits except in this one case where it raises privacy concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I should mention I think historically we did have questions how to handle the Jessica Yaniv. But IIRC, the initial concern is what to do about an article on her lawsuit as she was considered non notable but our article on the lawsuit would name her at least in the title. This doesn't seem to be an issue any more as we have an article on her but not her lawsuit. Indeed it looks like we don't even name her lawsuits (although I didn't look that carefully). Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  (EC) A probably final comment to avoid bludgeoning repeating what I said above I don't think making it easier for readers to search details is a good reason to name the lawsuit. If we want to make it easier for readers to look at the lawsuit itself, we should link to the lawsuit. I personally consider adding a convenience link fine. If editors feel it violates BLPPRIMARY, I don't think we should name it as a compromise. I'd also oppose including one source over another just because it names the lawsuit or links to it but am not sure we should do the opposite either. I'd note my criminal case point is even more topical here IMO. If we aren't willing to link to the lawsuit for BLPPRIMARY reasons, readers will need to find it themselves e.g. by reading secondary sources that's perfectly fine. Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  If editors feel it violates BLPPRIMARY, I don't think we should name it as a compromise.

  To be clear this is based on secondary sources, not primary. I think the nature of the paywall may have lead to this misconception. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the more appropriate BLPs for comparison would be Jane Roe, Jim Obergefell, or Mildred Loving. Though those cases differed in they sought to uphold rights. Its easy to look at this as a small medical malpractice case, but i think that's myopic. When looking at the attorneys representing her, their specialties and the context of her political goals this seems to be an attempt at something larger. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  (Okay yes I violated my final comment above). I disagree. None of those involved non notable cases so they're irrelevant here. There's a reason I kept repeating non-notable. I'm perfectly fine with us linking to the case if it becomes significant enough that we have an article on it. A better example is Yaniv's various lawsuits particularly her BCHR but I'm even more sure now that the current version of our article doesn't actually give the case name anywhere in the body. Although even there, we have to be careful about making comparisons per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd argue Yaniv case received significantly more coverage. Perhaps this will change for Cole's case but per WP:CRYSTALBALL we need to handle the article as it is not what it may one day be. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  We don't have any policy or guideline that says "don't name cases unless they are notable enough for their own article" though. Your whole argument here is just the negative-case of OSE, really. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  As far as notability, Obergefell may have existed on wiki prior to being the big supreme court case it is today. I feel like I remember it receiving news coverage while at the state district court level, but looking into that and how it was handled feels like a big project. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/650333542 - Created two months after SCOTUS granted certiorari. Slywriter (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I support naming the suit in part because its a major part of why she is notable. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is it? AFAIK this article has existed long before the lawsuit and the majority of the coverage is on her other activities. While the lawsuit is a continuation of those activities, I don't see any evidence she needed the lawsuit for it. I'm not convinced there be any significant difference in her notability if she'd never filed the lawsuit. E.g. AFAIK many of those using her story as cover for their transphobic bills etc mention her story rather than her lawsuit, indeed many of these were from before the lawsuit. Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  (EC) Just wanted to clarify that I don't think any of the discussions on BLPN were about whether to name the lawsuits, but about instead whether to discuss them or what details. Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Pretty much agree with Nil Einne's comment above. It's not very common to name non-notable lawsuits in Wikipedia articles (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). And the majority of reliable sources reporting on Cole's lawsuit don't explicitly name the title of the lawsuit either. Some1 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (lawsuit)

• I'm opening this RfC following the discussion here which has failed to reach a consensus. Some have raised concerns about privacy, but as she chose to file the lawsuit under her real name, and publicized the lawsuit, those concerns don't really hold up. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ellicould you not violate BLP with the question? The lawsuit should not be in the title. Please correct or I will request an admin do so. Slywriter (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Including the name of the lawsuit on this talk page does not "violate BLP". We are discussing whether to include certain content in the article; it makes sense that that content be present in this RfC. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Shoe on the other foot test. If the lawsuit title included a trans person's dead name would you be ok with it on the talk page? Please don't say this isn't a DEADNAME issue as that isn't my question. Springee (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  You're implying a cis person using a pseydonym and a trans person changing their name are equivalent. They aren't; not in general and not in Wikipedia policy. The shoe doesn't fit on the other foot because shoes and feet aren't symmetrical. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's evading the question Springee (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I prefer: "pointing out an inapplicable argument". ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  It would depend on the specifics of the case! If a trans person filed a lawsuit that is discussed in some level of detail in their article (not just mentioned in passing), then including the title of the case would be reasonable. Also, will note that deadnames are usually a first name thing, while this concerns the person's last name. The first name is much less relevant to the title of a legal case than the last name (shortened versions tend to not include first names, but almost always include last names). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Administrator note: based on the conversation linked above, and our general policies on linking of primary sources where privacy is involved, I have redacted the name of the lawsuit itself. I originally closed the discussion as being inappropriate, but unsurprisingly was called out on it. I have thought about it and do suppose the question can still be asked. My original closing statement is below (hence the out-of-order timestamps). Primefac (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a back-door, POINTY way of trying to get around BLP. Please stop pursuing this avenue. We do not need the name of the lawsuit to know she filed one. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Primefac: When I added the content to the article, I cited the title of this lawsuit to a reliable secondary source, not to a primary source. Having the title administratively redacted "poisons the well" a bit in the mind of people who may come across this discussion, since doing so presumes such content is already inappropriate (when that is not the case). I appreciate your reconsideration here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would place no objection to cleaning up the RfC language so that redacted is not part of it. Perhaps "Should the "Lawsuit" section contain the title of the lawsuit as published in San Francisco Daily Journal?" Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Slywriter: sure, I've updated the text. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Slywriter: Your claim that Source was used for no other reason and claims that the full title of the lawsuit is relevant are not persuasive. is outright false. The source is also used for other contextual information on the lawsuit. Including the title of the lawsuit does not violate BLP and you have not actually demonstrated how it does. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also like to ask which policy-based bar of widely reported you're referring to. I think you mean WP:BLPNAME, but that's limited to private individuals which Cole is not. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cole's name has been reported in at least three sources, which feels pretty wide. The the secondary source for the lawsuit and a Washington Times article. The Washington Times should not be used for contentious claims, though I don't think someone's name is contentious. Additionally, there is The Post Millenial, though we should avoid that one since there are preferable sources. I'm sure there are BLPs with less sourcing for using the subject's name.

  I do agree that she is in no way a private individual. Filiforme1312 (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Diffs don't lie: Special:Diff/1145622077, so nope not outright false, in fact the opposite and explicitly true that it was added for that sole purpose. And the full name of the lawsuit being excluded does not hamper a reader from seeking the information on their own. As to the rest, she is a victim who has filed a lawsuit and deserves whatever privacy protections Wikipedia can provide. And no mistake with any links I've posted as she is borderline notable and would not have a wikipedia article except for the questionable circumstances that lead to the creation of this article. Slywriter (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Slywriter: that exact diff disproves what you are saying. Do you see how I added an additional sentence, also cited to the Daily Journal, in the next paragraph?

  She is an activist, not a private figure who has been the unfortunate victim of a crime. WP:AVOIDVICTIM clearly does not apply here, because her notability does not [stem] largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Her notability stems from her being an outspoken activist. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Does WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME not apply to Cole's immediate family? We already had someone link to Cole's grandmothers Facebook page that has since been redacted, and I'm not going to speculate on the motivations for that. IIRC, she has publicly inferred that her pseudonym is to protect her families privacy, I might be mistaken in this regard. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Does WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME not apply to Cole's immediate family? we are not naming any of her family members here! We are naming her, an outspoken activist. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, missed the largely irrelevant statement added that has nothing to do with her. As to the rest, you have your opinion and I have mine on her notability and extent of outspokeness. Though denying she is a victim of the hospital's actions when she is suing precisely about her treatment by them is a curious positon. It's also the root of her activism. Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  She's testified in front of numerous state legislatures, given interviews, etc. Her notability is entirely due to her activism; the "second person to file a particular type of medical malpractice lawsuit" is not typically something that confers notability (if said lawsuit were independently notable, but she was not otherwise as an activist, then AVOIDVICTIM could be said to apply, but that is not the case here). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Can you walk me through how you feel WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies? I'm not sure I see it in this case, but maybe we're reading it differently. Filiforme1312 (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  She has a pending lawsuit concerning mistreatment and malpractice while she was a minor. At this point in time, she is a victim. Slywriter (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion that lead to AVOIDVICTIM is about excluding identifying information about victims of sexual assault and the topic covers victims of crimes. It feels like a stretch to apply this to medical/surgery regret. Filiforme1312 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Including the title of the lawsuit does not violate BLP and you have not actually demonstrated how it does. I agree, but no one has attempted to answer how adding her 'real' name benefits the article or is necessary to understandimg that a lawsuit has been initiated by/on behalf of her. Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the title of the lawsuit useful when seeking information about it, for example from public records? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to use wiki as jumping off point for more research into a topic. So if I was interested in her case finding the name of it here would be useful. What we have now isn't more useful than a news article and doesn't feel encyclopedic to me. Filiforme1312 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Could those in support of including the name comment on why they think The "NINETY DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE" document here appears to have redacted the name in question?. That suggests to me that the lawyers think there may be a privacy interest here. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think that is pretty clear that Cole does not want that name public. Springee (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Barnards.tar.gz: This says nothing meaningful. If this indicates that they knew she didn't want the name shared at that point, then this also indicates that she changed their mind when they filed the lawsuit (otherwise they could've attempted to file under a pseudonym). Elli (talk | contribs) 12:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are you sure they didn't try but were unable to? Why not err on the side of caution? Springee (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee: This information is public and easily available, regardless of whether Cole wants it to be or not. It is public because of her own actions, and it is pretty obvious that she knew said actions would make the name public. The only thing we are doing by not including the name here is inconveniencing our readers (who would have to click through to the lawsuit or otherwise research her more); we are not actually protecting her privacy. Anyone who would wish to find her name to do potentially nefarious things would have no trouble doing so, regardless of if we have it in our article. Hence, "erring on the side of caution" here only makes our article worse, with no upside for anyone. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  What benefit does having her birth name in the article bring vs. the harm it could bring to her, and by extension, her family? How does including her non-pseudonym name improve the quality of the encyclopedia other than reducing the effort it takes for potential harassers to find that information? How are we sure that there weren't legal barriers or timing considerations with her lawsuit that compelled her to file the suit under her birth name? Why would she include her pseudonym in the filing along side it? These are all questions that so far, have gone unanswered. Hence, why we should just err on the side of caution. There is nothing encyclopedic about revealing an activists birth name who has gone to considerable effort to not disclose the identity of her family name outside of a single court proceeding. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Having her name in the article doesn't have a potential for any harm, because it is so easy to find otherwise! Just Googling "chloe cole real name" will find it for anyone who wants to know. Someone who would bother harassing her to an extent that would cause harm would not be deterred by needing to do one trivial Google search. I've already explained why it's useful: if someone wants to research the legal case, having the case title makes it significantly easier to do so. That is a clear benefit to our readers, many of whom may want to further research the legal case here, beyond what we cover in our article.

  Why does her court filing include her pseudonym? Probably because that's the name she's used for most of her advocacy, and she wants the case to be clearly tied to her in the media. If anything, that's more of an argument for inclusion. She is clearly not trying to hide her association with this case. We do not need to answer all your questions about why this case was filed the way that it was to include the name. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Of course, not all my questions need to be answered. I wonder if the same logic can't be applied to the lawsuit in question, "someone can just google it -- chole cole lawsuit". That aside, I'm still not convinced we should include it because I don't see how including the name of the lawsuit, which includes her non-common name, rises above the concerns of WP:BLPPRIVACY, specifically around the lack of widespread usage AND reasonable assumption of consent.

  Interestingly enough, if one does Google "chloe cole lawsuit" not a single headline in almost 5 pages discloses her real name. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Someone could Google any of the information in our articles to find out more. We could just include a list of links and have no content at all. We choose to include information in our articles because it's useful to our readers; it being easy to find elsewhere is not a good argument for exclusion. That searching "chloe cole lawsuit" does not readily help people find the actual lawsuit should be a further indication of the usefulness of including the lawsuit's title; searching said title pulls up the case's listing on UniCourt as the first result. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  If readers want to read the lawsuit directly, they might just click on the citation itself as, as far as I can tell, no one is arguing against its inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Including a more prominent link to the lawsuit, and to a lawsuit tracker like UniCourt, would be a reasonable compromise here. Though again, at that point, what are we really protecting by keeping her name out of the article? Anyone who wants to see it is only a click away. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think youre overstating what it takes to find her name. I just google chloe cole and can find it in a couple results in the first page. No need to intentionally seek it out. I think were now at four potential RS that include it as well. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  No reason to ping me when you are replying to a comment in a thread I'm obviously watching. Springee (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not adamant on inclusion, though I lean that way as a default position. But I don't think we should read anything into a demand letter sent by parties to litigation, such documents naturally attempt to frame a discussion in a non-neutral way, and influence the narrative in their favor. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I redact names by default when making public use of other people's legal records in regardless of desires for privacy. Most people do. I would be shocked if any firm uploaded such a thing to their website without redacting their client's name. Theres no reason to read that deeply into this.

  To me the way she navigates reads more like a branding thing than privacy. Theres a lot of privacy measures activists routinely take that cole has not. Her name is widely available online and is used by multiple sources. Filiforme1312 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think it'd be best to avoid "internet sleuthing" of this sort, and stick quite strictly to reliable secondary sources only when discussing this matter. Levivich (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation needed?

Is an additional citation needed for the line "Cole's views on gender-affirming care for minors diverge from those of most major associations of medical professionals, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and WPATH"? The current citation supports the content, but a cn tag was recently added by Tospik, along with the note "needs citations both to primary sources regarding those positions (eg those of the AAP) as well as which of Cole’s opinions are in conflict with them". I think the secondary source citation is sufficient, and I think we should remove the tag Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see a good reason to add at least 5 primary sources (4 for the bodies, 1+ for Cole's opinion) for something that's already succinctly covered by a secondary citation. I'd support removing the tag too. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the existing source is even more explicit than I was expecting. If someone could provide a primary source suggesting that it's wrong then we might have a question, but as it stands, the source we have is more than sufficient. Loki (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the question isn’t whether the secondary source makes that claim. It’s whether that claim is supportable based on the primary sources they refer to. And it’s not. It is at best dubious. Please see my other comment. Tospik (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A qualifier describing this as “According to the Sacramento Bee” was removed because “there's a huge amount of coverage about their views, which are contrary to the immediately preceding sentence.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1146210090

1) there is a single source constituting this “huge amount” 2) and there is a single source that says her views contradict those of major medical establishments (note of pedantry: It shouldn’t say “most” because *most* medical organizations don’t have a position on care of trans youths. For example, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Rheumatology, American College of Otolaryngolgy, etc., etc., do not have general positions on this issue). Either revert the qualifier to indicate that it’s the opinion of the politics beat writer for a regional paper in Northern California, or make clear what the contradiction is. It’s not self evident from what’s written in the source. It reads as opinion…which it is.

In fact, it’s dubious when investigating the secondary source’s references. Eg they link to This statement by the AAP. It contains extremely vague recommendations like:

“The AAP recommends taking a “gender-affirming,” nonjudgmental approach that helps children feel safe in a society that too often marginalizes or stigmatizes those seen as different. The gender-affirming model strengthens family resiliency and takes the emphasis off heightened concerns over gender while allowing children the freedom to focus on academics, relationship-building and other typical developmental tasks.”

Is that in conflict with Cole’s statement that children cannot consent to medical transition? It’s not, because no mention of drugs or surgery is made in the AAP’s recommendations. The simply recommend an “affirmative” approach. It is entirely possible that the AAP has said something that is explicitly incompatible with Cole’s position on minors’ consent to physical transition. If so, it should be cited here. Tospik (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It also mentions "Supporting insurance plans that offer coverage specific to the needs of youth who identify as transgender, including coverage for medical, psychological and, when appropriate, surgical interventions." Also, it's just a summary of their full policy statement, which does endorse the use of some drugs and surgeries. This sort of deep dive into the source's sources is rarely wise, unless there's some extraordinary claim. Cole's views being at odds with the views of WPATH or the main American medical organizations is anything but. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to how support for gender affirming care is anything other than explicit support for medical transition. Do you know what gender affirming means in a healthcare context? Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no issue with the sourcing and content nor a need to over-cite. Slywriter (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)