Talk:Chloe Cole

wow this is slanted

I looked up this girl not knowing anything about her, because the name keeps being mentioned on Twitter. Figured I'd do some research. This information is written so obviously against her it's crazy. The slant is disturbing to say the least, without even knowing her. Very disingenuous. 24.208.23.248 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Chloe Cole has absolutely no notability outside of traveling across the US to support bans on gender-affirming care, therefore, the article is written based on that. How is the article specifically slanted? It consists entirely of factual content. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep it's stunningly biased. It's amazing how a writer can impute nefarious intent with the slightest twist of a phrase or use of qualifiers. For example:

"According to her testimony..." "Chloe claims" "Chloe has said" "

Why the ubiquitous tone of skepticism over every detail of her life?

Her 'activism' section is uncommonly detailed for someone of her stature. It amounts to a carefully cherry-picked series of incidents (presented with a specious air of objectivity) casting Chloe in a certain light. Lots of guilt-by-association (Proud Boys etc.).

Chloe is a contentious, outspoken figure in a heated culture war, who wades into controversial territory that many people find upsetting. It is the job of encyclopedists, however, to broach such topics with some measure of balance, objectivity and poise. I have my doubts about whether contributors such as "TheTransarchist" have any interest in impartiality.

It is the job of Twitter users, newspaper columnists and future historians to judge Chloe's character. Not Wikipedia authors. 87.114.99.183 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not introduce the skeptical language. Her activism section is not "cherry-picked" (for a start, that's oxymoronic with "overly-detailed"), but a faithful summary of all the reporting done by reliable sources. She has no notability outside of speaking against transgender healthcare, which she is very notable for. If there are sources we missed, feel free to bring them up here. Being trans does not make one inherently biased, but it's interesting you think so (and it's TheTranarchist fyi). Our job as editors is to faithfully summarize the reliable sources that mention her say, which we have. There is no editorializing on her character, merely factual descriptions of her activities. Twitter users are not a recognized judge of character nor a source for Wikipedia, we will include the views of future historians when they come, and the article is already based off of newspaper columnists. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Explaining my skepticism about "Cole"

"Chloe Cole" (if that is even her real name) seems incredibly suspicious. All we know about her is her unverified testimony to far-right websites and in state legislatures. Her parents have not confirmed any of it, nor have any classmates or other family members. She claimed to have an Instagram, but where is it? Her first tweet was in October 2022. For a child of her age, this is wildly bizarre. User:Bharel, I hope this explains my motivations. If you have any suggestions for how to improve the article to include this (in my view, warranted) skepticism, please let me know. 99.65.214.73 (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I get it. But Wikipedia doesn't run on rumors: everything should be verified with reliable sources. If you think someone's sus, that's a discussion for a platform other than Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

But the sources in the article aren't reliable! For the most part, they're the far-right websites that have interviewed "Cole" and given credence to her story, as well as outlets like Reuters that should really know better. We can't verify any of this at all. I have my own suspicions, but the article should only say what we can verify: the name she uses and what she claims, as well as what she has done to smear the trans community and take away our care. 99.65.214.73 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

For the most part this article actually relies on LGBTQ media, progressive media, and some center-left/center-right media, though it often includes that she appeared in right-wing platforms, that is sourced to reliable sources noting she did rather than the unreliable sources themselves. While it's true Reuters coverage was ridiculously un-thorough, and I'll admit to my own heavy skepticism about her story as well, reliable sources do actually tend to take her name and story at face value. I believe one or two state it was her name at birth. Trust me, I read through over 100 articles to write this lol. And Occam's razor suggests her story is true, since regardless of whether she genuinely was not happy with her transition or is an ideological detransitioner, her story could have been weaponized by the far-right all the same, no need for her to fake anything, which would probably have been caught by at least one of the reliable sources by now. If some reliable sources express doubt we'd have no problem including them, and in Reception some doubt over parts of her story is covered slightly, but until a sizeable enough number of them do we have to take her name and some details of her story at face value. In regards to her age and her Instagram account, I don't find it too bizarre, as the account was her personal one from when she was a minor and not particularly noteworthy to explicitly name (and that it "made her trans" is attributed to her rather than said in wikivoice). Also, the right has been searching for the golden goose of a detransitioner who actually transitioned as a minor for ages, so it's unsurprising they found at least one.

@Bharel could you please self-revert for the reasons above? I'm sympathetic to the skepticism but the reliable sources as they stand don't warrant it in wikivoice. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Self revert what may I ask? I have undone my revert right after reverting as I wasn't sure about that one. Bar Harel (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bharel Sorry, to clarify I was referring to the revert of the revert. The original version factually states her name as Chloe Cole, an IP editor changed it say her name is only allegedly Chloe Cole, you reverted then reverted your revert. I appreciate the skepticism but even reliable sources take her name and story at face value so I think we have to as well. I also worry it cheapens the article, as I haven't seen any other article express such skepticism about a public figure's name in wikivoice. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've tried a couple of times, but I have to manually edit and remove it, as plenty of versions went by. I haven't forgotten but I'll do it and revert the anon user's changes, will just take me a little bit of time. I've been away for a few days unfortunately. Bar Harel (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Checked the entire diff, seems to be irrelevant now. ♥

Thanks for your support :-) Bar Harel (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bharel No worries, had to patch it manually since some concerns were raised at BLPN, sorry it took me a while to get back to you lol. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant activism

"Gender-affirming care is supported by health institutes such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and the Yale School of Medicine, who have spoken out against such bans. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have also spoken out against such bans."

Why is this included in the article? It's an article about a person, not about gender affirming care. Icanhasgramr (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the paragraph from the article lead. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that paragraph could be moved to reception? Many sources comment on the medical groups and human rights groups opposing bills she's actively supported, so it seems worth mentioning. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Proud Boys

As there seems to be some guilt by association without actual association, I removed one mention Proud Boys and rephrased another as she commented on their activities that day. If there actions are relevant, they should be covered elsewhere, not in the midst of a biography with unclear connection to the subject beyond proximity.Slywriter (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for trimming it down! The second two reductions I have no notes, for the first, the Nashville Matt Walsh rally, that the Proud Boys were in attendance received widespread press attention which explicitly called out their presence and numbers. A few sources that I believe are in the article mentioned it but I hadn't referenced them, I can't remember if out of oversight or a desire not to over-cite (pun unintended). The Tennessee Lookout (currently uncited) source mentions their attendance and that Cole appeared as well, stating that The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin. As does Media Matters for America (currently citation 14) which states Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals. More covered it, but those were the ones who also noted Cole's attendance that I found with a quick search. Would it be alright to re-add Among the crowds were dozens of the far-right group the Proud Boys, who were eventually separated from the crowd of mostly counter-protestors by state troopers in addition to the above sources? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that she wasn't the organizer, so don't see how the crowd acted and who was present are relevant and due in her biography.

With that said, if you re-add, I'm not going to revert as I want to see if I can find any similar situated BLPs that have Good or Featured status to see how proximate actions of sympathetic, but not allied groups were covered. Andy Ngo is only one I could think of off-hand to look at and is not Good or Featured. In his article, various far-right groups are prominently mentioned because of direct interactions. Slywriter (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Given her comments on them just practicing their free speech and not being able to do anything about their attendance in other cases, I think it's important to document that they're repeat attendees. It's one thing if some proud boys show up at one rally you're the speaker for, another if they've shown up at several. I've re-added the Nashville mention and added the fact that Cole was the keynote speaker at the event. Also, any luck finding similar BLPs for us to reference? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

seems to be entirely historical and nothing stands out as being similar. Haven't looked at good yet, will in a few hours. Slywriter (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You are drawing a connection between Chloe Cole and the Proud Boys that does not appear to be supported by any reliable sources. That's what Wikipedia calls original research. No one should be surprised that members of the Proud Boys were at some of the same far-right events. That doesn't mean that Cole has any influence over them or vice versa. Round and rounder (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not drawing a connection and you should re-read WP:OR. The connection has been drawn in reliable sources, as they have consistently noted that she has spoken at rallies that had a large number of Proud Boys in attendance. To say "she spoke at this event" without any context of who else spoke, who attended, and how the public reacted, is whitewashing. Neither I nor the article have said Cole has any influence over them or vice-versa, just noted times they've appeared together as reported in RS. If no one should be surprised that members of the Proud Boys were at some of the same far-right events, why are you objecting to mentioning that they were? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist Can we have a reasonable discussion about this? Not including that some Proud Boys were at a far-right event is not "whitewashing". It's just a unnecessary detail in an already overly detailed article. There doesn't seem to be any connection between Cole and the Proud Boys other than Cole sometimes speaks at events which some members of the Proud Boys sometimes attend. By including them, you are implying a connection. No reliable source says there is any connection. Round and rounder (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We are not implying a connection by including that they intended, apart from the obvious connection that they attended the same rally, which is indisputable. Reliable sources have repeatedly noted Proud Boys have appeared at the events she's speaking at. We follow RS. We don't exclude details because you think that by mentioning them people will make assumptions. Factually speaking, the PB's attend her events. The only connection one could pick up from her article is that some of her events have been attended by Proud Boys, which is true. How people interpret that is not up to us. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that despite PBs showing up at rallies that feature Daryle Lamont Jenkins speaking, we don't mention them in attendance at his events, interestingly enough, there is no controversy or mention on his page either with regard to the impacts of his doxxing activities. WP:BALANCE WP:IMPARTIAL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how that's in any way relevant here. Is there any evidence they've shown up to his events, and if there is, are they there to oppose him or cheer him on? Two very different things and I hardly think there's any evidence of the latter... His article does need work, and frankly I've got no problem mentioning that proud boys showed up to protest him if we have the sources, but that's for discussion there, not here. Also, his article's lead literally states he has been credited with pioneering the practice of doxing and the article itself mentions his work in that regard so it's certainly mentioned. If you can find reliable sources saying there is a "controversy" about the ethics of him doxxing Nazis, mention them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article and sourcing, I agree, this should be removed. Springee (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also @Maddy from Celeste, @Sideswipe9th, @Tristario since you haven't weighed in on this and I want discussion of this to be in the appropriate section, do you think that we should remove all mentions of PB showing up at her rallies [update: from the body]? Additionally, should we include the fact they were present at her TennesseeNashville rally?

For the TennesseeNashville rally, 3 sources are included in the article, all of which note and place a lot of significance on the presence of the PBs:

• LGBTQ Nation states White supremacists and Proud Boys joined other far-right politicians, pundits, and protestors at a recent “Rally to End Child Mutilation” in Nashville, Tennessee. Some of the protestors held signs supporting death and violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and a Republican elected official was in attendance and One of several Proud Boys flashed a white nationalist hand signal during the event, Media Matters reported.
• Media Matters for America is titled Death threats, Proud Boys, and homophobic bigots: Matt Walsh’s anti-trans rally drew a crowd of extremists and states Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals and Footage from the rally also shows a number of members of the violent extremist group the Proud Boys, one of whom can be seen flashing a white nationalist hand signal as he passed counter protesters.
• Nashville Scene states Among the crowd were dozens of Proud Boys, a notorious American far-right group, who stood in a formation cutting through the crowd. The Proud Boys were eventually separated from the crowd of mostly counter-protesters by state troopers.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

None of these even really talk about Cole in any depth. We can't point our that she has often attended the same rallies as PBs, if we don't have a source also explicitly making that connection while talking about her. What we have here are sources about rallies that talk in some depth about the PBs, and just mention Cole was there too. That isn't enough. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, this isn't about whether we should include their attendance in the lead since I don't think we should on reflection. This is specifically about whether the body paragraph about her Nashville rally (first paragraph of subsection Rallies) should mention their attendance. (I also see I wrote Tenessee instead of Nashville, I'll revise that post) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

derp Right. I think given that the only thing we really know about cole wrt this rally is that she spoke there, our description needs to be very terse as well. As such, and as the PBs apparently didn't do much special to stand out, I wouldn't say it. A more general mention about violent messages from attendants may be in order, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste How's this version?

In October 2022, Cole spoke at at an anti-trans "Rally to End Child Mutilation" hosted by Matt Walsh in Nashville. At the event, various Republican lawmakers announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors and attendees held signs calling for violence against gender-affirming care providers. The event was counter-protested by the Democratic Socialists of America and other groups.123 Media Matters for America reported that one of the Proud Boys in attendance flashed a white nationalist hand symbol.12

• The last sentence seems due since LGBTQNation also reported that MM4A reported that.
• Additionally, I searched for other sources that provided the event SIGCOV and the only other one is The Tenessee Lookout, which also calls the rally anti-trans and stated The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin.
• 3/4 sources providing the event SIGCOV called it anti-trans, with the other 1 calling it transphobic and stating anti-trans activists were the ones who spoke, so describing it as anti-trans seems in line with the RS

For reference the current text is: In October 2022, Cole spoke at right-wing political commentator Matt Walsh's "Rally to End Child Mutiliation" in Nashville. At the event, various Republican lawmakers including Tennessee House Majority Leader William Lamberth and state senators Jack Johnson, Dawn White, Ed Jackson, and Janice Bowling announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors.

• The main changes are 1) not listing all the lawmakers in attendance, 2) giving a desciption of the calls for violence 3) adding the detail that it was counter-protested, 4) noting MM4A's reporting on it, and 5) describing it as anti-trans per the RS.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks mostly fine to me, except that I'm not sure anti-trans is supported when Wikipedia:RSHEADLINES is taken into account. From what I can tell none of the sources explicitly call the rally anti-trans in the body of their articles. A bit of show, don't tell could be appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

MM4A is an activist site ("think tank") with a marginal reliable rating, WP:MEDIAMATTERS, and should not be used in a BLP. Maddy has covered the rest of why this is not appropriate for a BLP with the sourcing provided. Slywriter (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part of WP:MREL or WP:MEDIAMATTERS that says something like "Not for use in BLPs"? Cause what I do see is that use of it in any article, which would include BLPs, is to be decided on a case-by-case basis by editorial discretion and that any statements sourced to them should be properly attributed. In the draft that TheTranarchist posted just above, the sentence based on their reporting is properly attributed to Media Matters. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Simple, head to WP:BLPN and ask about using a marginally reliable source to attribute a statement in a BLP about the actions of someone in the audience and see how it goes. The more contentious the claim, the stronger the quality of sourcing expected is pretty standard for BLPs. Also, 'Should' is not an absolute, though granted usually taken that way. Slywriter (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• LGBTQ Nation: White supremacists and Proud Boys joined other far-right politicians, pundits, and protestors at a recent “Rally to End Child Mutilation” in Nashville, Tennessee.
• MM4A: Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals.
• Nashville Scene: Among the crowd were dozens of Proud Boys, a notorious American far-right group, who stood in a formation cutting through the crowd. The Proud Boys were eventually separated from the crowd of mostly counter-protesters by state troopers.
• Tennesee Lookout: The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin.

Every single source that provide the event SIGCOV notes the Proud Boys were in attendance at the rally. Not including that fact is blatant whitewashing. Frankly, I've no issue replacing the attributed statement to MM4A about 1 proud boy flashing a white supremacist signal with the plain statement of fact corroborated by 4 sources that dozens of proud boys were in attendance. No need to highlight one action of one of their members when we could just note they attended. Heck, we can take out the MM4A source entirely as we only need the other 3 for that statement if you think that's a good compromise. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, 1) that dozens of Proud Boys attended is by no means a contentious claim, 2) that MM4A reported one flashed a white supremacist hand symbol is not contentious, as 2.1) they said it, that's easily verifiable and 2.2) another RS noted they said it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion equals contentious. Regardless, it's a blatant attempt to "guilt by association" as has been said repeatedly since it has ZERO bearing on her activity or actions. She is not a member. She has expressed no support for them. So there is no compromise. This is a WP:BLP, stick to what she has done and what she has said. At this point, choices are move on, WP:BLPN or WP:RFC as we are going in circles, so local consensus is unlikely and policy concerns are real. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not how contentious works. Just re-read all of WP:BLP, it says claims are contentious when they are are unsourced or poorly sourced. Verifiably, proud boys attended the event, there is no absolutely no debate in RS about that. The material is not contentious, you just WP:DONTLIKEIT. You arguing that we shouldn't include that detail doesn't make it contentious. Sticking to what she has done, she spoke at a rally with a large number of proud boys in attendance. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's about Unsourced, which requires no debate. The intro to WP:BLP, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPGOSSIP all talk about being careful. And WP:BITR, a subsection of WP:COATRACK essay lays out why you don't expand beyond the subject into other areas. So, you can claim WP:IDLI but that would be false. My statements are quite consistent with the conservative nature of BLPs expected on Wikipedia. Did she invite them? No. Did she mention them in her speech? Also no. Ergo, not relevant to her biography. If an article is created about the event, then whose in the audience and who spoke is relevant. That's not this article. Regardless, I stand by those are the three options as further discussion is unlikely to achieve local consensus, as I am not the only one opposed and the previous BLPN discussion also had editors raise concerns about dog-whistling and indiscriminate details, which this clearly is. Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP: we must adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, which we do. must be written conservatively - that's why we can just mention that the rally was attended by dozens of proud boys, instead of getting into their actions.

WP:BLPSTYLE: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects - She spoke at a rally, dozens of proud boys attended. Purely dispassionate and factual. That's neither an under- nor over statement, and that's what RS published about the subject

WP:BLPGOSSIP: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. RS? Check. Presented as true? It's completely true and verifiable. Relevant to a disinterested article about the subject? Person wants to know about Cole, article simply states a rally was attended by PB (as documented in multiple RS). Relevant information.

WP:COATRACK (an essay, not policy): A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject - if you're removing the fact that dozens of PB showed up at a rally of hers, you're not giving a truthful impression of what happened at that rally. Also, see WP:WINAC: It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no direct relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require and Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack. - you are objecting to a single verifiable statement, documented in multiple RS, about notable attendees at a rally she spoke at. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll just note if you want to continue working to further improve this, Coles PB connection is based around GAG and LExit. Though of course Cole did work directly with PBs in Miami. Its definitely not a stretch to show the connection in a way that addresses the concerns raised by other editors.

I see you have the two TN rallies. Theres also the Miami Dade County School Board meeting where she was escorted in by and sat with PBs. The CHOC hospital protest had PB security(Louie Flores) and others from LExit were present. RS could be challenging for the CHOC protest as PBs in attendance didn't wear the typical yellow and black so may not have attracted media attention. Most I have for that is self published where we can show its true through video of the event, but not sure about availability of rs.

So its definitely a lot more going on than same place/same time. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I've also seen evidence of her working with them a lot more than RS report, which is a shame but can't be helped. If you could find any RS that I missed that touch on those events it would be great! Until then it would be WP:OR to mention sadly, hopefully a RS picks that up, but until then we've gotta wait. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Springee (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is based on the work of a journalist named Alejandra Caraballo. Unfortunately, this specific info was self published and I am not sure of the RS of raw video footage. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Raw video needs a RS to interpret and show it matters. Alejandra Caraballo is an activist, stretch to call a journalist. And just a note that this line of discussion should stop if no RS are forthcoming as BLP applies to Talk pages as well. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not the argument you appeared to be making though. Saying "MediaMatters should not be used in a BLP" is a very different proposition to saying "MediaMatters should not be used for an attributed statement on the audience composition of an event Cole was a speaker at". On the former, I've checked the policy, guidance, and BLPN archives, and there is no documented prohibition on using MREL sources in BLPs.

On the later however, it is up to editorial discretion tempered by BLP and NPOV. If this was an article on John/Jane Doe, who regularly gave political speeches and made appearances at rallies, where the balance of all sources state the audience are primarily <insert contentious group here> but sources stop short of saying "John/Jane is a <insert related contentious term here>" then we would in the BLP of that subject document the makeup of those who predominantly attend John/Jane's events. MREL sources could conceivably be used in that circumstance, where they are the best available source for coverage of a single event, or as part of a larger source bundle for general coverage on all events.

Bringing it back to this article and applying the same principles. We have some sources, some of which are GREL, one of which is MREL, which in summary state that members of the Proud Boys attended Walsh's rally. We also have sources that in summary state that members of the Proud Boys also attended another event a few months later that Cole was involved with. If this is true for other rallies and events that Cole has been a prominent speaker at, and if the balance of sources covering those events also make note of this connection, then we do have to seriously consider including it in a policy compliant manner.

So the relevant question is not "why are we using a MREL source for this controversial fact", but instead are "how are Cole's rally appearances documented in the balance of all RS that cover those events?" and "is MediaMatters the best possible source for this specific event, or are there better sources that we could use?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith Could you discuss the changes here? I personally am not a fan of the MM4A citation, since I think we should just summarize how RS described the attendees rather than describe one action of one member.

• Tennessee Lookout: The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin.
• LGBTQ Nation: White supremacists and Proud Boys joined other far-right politicians, pundits, and protestors at a recent “Rally to End Child Mutilation” in Nashville, Tennessee. Some of the protestors held signs supporting death and violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth
• Media Matters for America: Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals.
• Nashville Scene: Among the crowd were dozens of Proud Boys, a notorious American far-right group, who stood in a formation cutting through the crowd

How would you feel about updating At the event, various Republican lawmakers announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors and attendees held signs calling for violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth to At the event, various Republican lawmakers announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors. Attendees included some who held signs calling for violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth and dozens of members of the white nationalist group the Proud Boys TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Thanks for sorting out some of the talk page discussion. It was quite a mess. 2. The removal was good as we need to be careful about guilt by association. Unless Cole invited or encouraged the negative behavior in question it shouldn't be in an article about her. Sources about the events that mention both Cole and negative things done by protesters do not establish weight for inclusion of the one in an article about the other. Springee (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree the MM4A section isn't ideal. My proposed change here don't mention any negative things done by protesters or negative behavior, they just mention a notable group among the rally's supporters, who every RS reporting on the event pointed out. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:GUILT. Including the bad behavior of protesters/supporters or even that a group who is viewed as undesirable was in attendance isn't ok unless there is a clear connection between the two. We don't have that here. Springee (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll re-iterate, my proposed change doesn't mention the bad behavior of protesters/supporters. I took a look at WP:GUILT, and I'm missing the part where it says you can't mention the attendees of a rally someone spoke at because it makes them look bad. The clear connection between the two is Cole spoke at a rally, they attended in support of her and the other speakers. We don't say anything more. Arguing that we can't mention a group who is viewed as undesirable was in attendance is blatant WP:WHITEWASHing, since your whole grounds for arguing against it's inclusion is that the Proud Boys are generally viewed negatively.

In fact, quoting WP:GUILT: Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

• The proud boys attending is not negative information about third parties. WP:GUILT would mean listing unrelated things the proud boys have done, which we are not.
• As stated, the nexus is Cole spoke at a rally, the PBs showed up.

IE, WP:GUILT doesn't apply, and there is no policy based reason to not mention the PB showed up except WP:IDLI TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That they were both there is not a sufficient nexus. In an article about the event it may make sense to mention both the speakers and the unsavory attendees. That doesn't mean the speakers and attendees have a nexus to establish weight remember, BLP, err on the side of caution. Springee (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

RE: GUILT Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include... I feel this is relevant. As the reason for inclusion is to give a brief description of the rally, which feels necessary. The meaningful and relevant way of describing a political rally is to mention the views present. I would agree with Tranarchist about WHITEWASHing and no WP to exclude views we find unsavory or a bad look.

As far as bad behavior by some attendees, it seems we're in agreement to not mention this. Though had she acted as an organizer for events I feel it could be included without violating GUILT. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can explain my reasoning in a little more detail. Personally I think the entire mention of Proud Boys (both the one I removed and the second mention just below it) is undue weight and guilt-by-association. However in keeping with the need for greater administrative patrolling in this topic area, I want to avoid getting WP:INVOLVED in an editorial dispute so I'm reluctant to get deeper into the weeds on suggested wording. The sentence I removed was mostly for the statement that one of them in attendance flashed a hand sign. That would probably be relevant in an article about the event itself, but is completely irrelevant to Cole's biography. In this case, the "third party" is the unnamed Proud Boy member, and using White Supremacist symbolism is almost universally considered negative information. Cole speaking (i.e. presumably not organizing or inviting people) at an event is clearly not a "direct relationship" or nexus between the unnamed hand sign flashing person, and sources don't seem to indicate that she had any ability to know about or prevent the person from doing that with his hands. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith I agree about the 1 person flashing a specific hand sign constituting WP:GUILT in this case, I was asking more for your opinion on including the presence of the PB at all, since notable attendees of the rally seems WP:DUE and all RS commented on their presence. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on BLP applying to talk pages and info on RS irt video. I will note that I was mistaken about her profession, she is an instructor at Harvard Law School who has published journalistically in non academic publication. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:TheTranarchist, I'm about to look into this, but I'm wondering if this isn't another case of you attempted to blow up this article out of all proportion. We're talking about a bit player in a fringe field who gets some coverage for some crazy shit but in many ways isn't important, if it weren't for the manufacture of outrage that lives on social media more than anywhere else. Not even a blip on the radar screen of the 2020s. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with this edit by Slywriter. I see now that there's conversation at BLPN and I'm going to take a look. Tranarchist, I've dropped some warnings on talk pages of obvious COI/non-neutral editors, and I saw some unproductive IP edits; if needs be we can semi-protect this to keep at least some of the riff-raff out. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • We posted at the same time lol. Semi-protection would be much appreciated and I'd been thinking of asking for that but the vandalism seemed to abate recently. It would be nice to discuss the page productively rather than expending so much effort on vandals. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Let's see how it goes. If it pops back up I'll happily semi-protect it, and please do let me know if there's sus accounts, like the two that I welcomed/warned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• @Drmies She has traveled across the country to support attacks on transgender rights and healthcare. She has frequently spoken at far-right events in support of that. She has received extensive coverage in RS for those things alone, so naturally the article reflects that. I have no clue where you're getting the manufacture of outrage that lives on social media from. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • And you do not need to retell every detail of each one of those events. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Not every detail for sure, but proud boys attending, especially when noted in RS that they composed a large chunk of her audience, seems due. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
      • You know that the issue is not whether the Proud Boys were there or whether it's noted in reliable sources--the question really is whether it is her audience. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist (talk · contribs), why did you restore the reference to Proud Boys [1]? There is no consensus for inclusion and a number of editors, especially editors outside of this topic area, have noted concerns with guilt by association etc. This is a BLP, when content is challenged it should be kept out absent a clear consensus to include. If you think the Proud Boys are due, start a RfC. The same is true of your restoration of the Tiktok reference. That was recently added by you. The addition has been challenged. Please follow BRD and please self revert. Springee (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

They've noted that with the Nashville mention, not the one you removed. WP:GUILT doesn't apply because Cole directly commented on them. Also, the LA Times explicitly connected them, a source I just added. Even Slywriter, who first created this section, thought it seemed due since she commented on them, and out of all the people on this thread you seem to be the only one who thinks it isn't. Consensus is not in your favor here.

You complained about the Tiktok Reference running foul of WP:GUILT - to paraphrase one of the best movies ever made "I do not think that policy means what you think it means". An independent source explicitly noted their interactions, gave examples, and noted Cole's statements on their interactions and the organization itself. That does not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination meet any part of WP:GUILT. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to show that this isn't a violation of GUILT and that you have consensus. So far that hasn't happened. Do we know the context of her mention of the PB? Did someone ask and she provided a non-committal answer or did she some out and cheer them on? Again, GUILT makes it clear there needs to be a clear nexus and simply saying they have a right to protest is not that nexus. Nor is it a consensus. As for Tiktok, yes, associating her with Libs of Tiktok is certainly trying to create a guilt by association in this space. It's also not a significant fact and thus doesn't have weight. Springee (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious... Let me quote WP:GUILT in full for you, again.

• Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

GUILT means in BLP A, you can't list a bunch of misdeeds by BLP/BLPGROUP B that were unrelated. It means you can't say (1) "John Smith bought a coffee from Jane's Coffee shop" then add "Jane once ran over a dog, and has 20 unpaid parking tickets" sourced to a source that doesn't mention John. It does not mean you can't say (2) "John and Jane worked together on Project X", especially if you don't mention anything else Jane has done apart from collaborate on that project, and multiple sources found it notable they worked together on Project X.

"Cole and Libs of Tiktok follow each other and Cole has expressed support for them" falls into the latter category, not the former.

"Cole attended an event with Proud Boys in attendance who did XYZ at the event, then said they had the right to free speech and to be there and she couldn't do anything about their presence" also falls into the latter category, not the former. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than dealing with your text walls, please show that you have consensus for these additions. Springee (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with TheTranarchist here, for at least one of the two Proud Boys mentions. That the Proud Boys were in attendance at two rallies is verifiable to RS. That Cole commented on their attendance at the Tennessee rally, demonstrates that she knew they were in attendance. Her claim that she couldn't do anything about the group's presence strikes me as somewhat disingenuous however, as at a bare minimum she could have asked them to not appear and/or condemned their actions. By saying she couldn't do anything about their presence was at best an attempt to distance herself from their behaviour, without actually taking any responsibility for it.

When looking at the text of GUILT, I think the text after the or is the correct test to apply here, and not the nexus test. It's clear to me that Cole knew they were in attendance and could have done something to prevent their conduct, even if that something was ultimately ineffectual. However based on the sourcing available all she has done is deny any responsibility for the actions, and avoid condemning them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing the GUILT text: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." Let's start with the reliable sources. We have sources about the event. Are they good sources? MM4A is considered extremely biased and generally a poor source. Nashville Outlook appears to be little more than a 4 person outfit. How much weight should we give any of their claims. The Nashville Scene is the local free paper that mostly does restaurant reviews etc. Again, how much weight should their claims be given? The strongest source is a special interest source that shouldn't be considered impartial in this subject area. That doesn't mean factually wrong but it does mean we need to be careful about how much emphasis they apply to any particular claim. Nashville Outlook draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. LGBQT Nation draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. It hardly mentions Cole, only in the second to last paragraph. MM4A draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. The Nashville Scene draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. Perhaps I missed it but where is the source that shows Cole acknowledging the PB or saying they had a right to free speech? I will presume that in this long mess of a talk page I just can't find it. Now look at what GUILT says. GUILT provides two options via the "or". The first is that we have RSs showing a direct relationship between the parties. We don't have that. We don't have sources that say Cole knew or wanted the PBs to attend or she had any ability to influence them No sources say they wouldn't have come had she not shown up. That kills the "direct relationship"/nexus part, what about the other part? That she knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. Is there any evidence that Cole could have convinced the PBs not to show up or that they wouldn't have shown up if she had said she wouldn't? GUILT applies here (as does consensus, note that NOCON says this sort of thing stays out absent consensus to include). Springee (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That's wall of text is honestly somewhat difficult to read/decipher (in future, it might be good to format and indent separate points) but I'll try and keep the reply short and to the point and address your concerns.

Nashville:

• MM4A is considered WP:MREL, not a poor source but context-dependent, and generally their bias is more noted than any factual innacuracies. They provided WP:SIRS coverage of the event.
• The Tennessee Lookout and Nashville Scene also provided WP:SIRS coverage of the event. Unless there is any reasonable doubt as to whether the PB attended (which 4 sources noted), it's immaterial. If you believe they are unfit as sources generally, take it to RSN.
• The nexus part still applies. Per my earlier example, but slightly modified, "John spoke at event X, notable attendees included A and B" - the X event is a nexus. GUILT says we can't say "and A has 20 unpaid parking tickets". It does not say we can't mention A attended event X.
• Unless we want the paragraph to read Cole spoke at a rally and provide no further elaboration, it seems fairly self-evident that details of the rally such as notable attendees, events at the rally, and positions expressed are warranted.

Tennessee:

• The Scene was the one to report Cole's comments on the PB. It is cited in the article.
• The LA Times also referenced the Scene, stating Cole has addressed public events with right-wingers who have broader agendas, such as opposition to abortion and support of the Jan. 6 insurrection, including Greene and the Proud Boys.
• Here, nexus applies as per my earlier example.
• Additionally, a direct comment on their attendance (stating they have a right to do so) is a direct relationship.

Your attempt to completely remove all mentions of the Proud Boys is WP:WHITEWASHing, against consensus, and, as I stated earlier in regards to WP:GUILT - "I do not think that policy means what you think it means" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having trouble reading it. The summary is none of those sources link Cole and the PB together. That means no nexus which is exactly what many people have told you. The Scene article is not the one you linked above. The Scene's comment about Cole doesn't appear to be something from her presentation, "Cole told the Scene following the rally..." It appears to be part of a discussion between Cole and the Scene reporter. It is not clear if she was asked or volunteered the information. However, it was clearly said in context of questions from a reporter, not as part of her rally presentation. That breaks the weak connection you are trying to establish. That the LA Times commentary article mentions the Scene doesn't make the Cole PB connection any stronger. Look, if you want this in the article start a RfC and get consensus. Else, there isn't consensus for inclusion and hasn't been since at least 15 Feb. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-transgender activism"?

The lead and the infobox currently says that Cole is known for "anti-transgender activism" but is that accurate? My understanding is that she is against gender affirming medical care for children, not against transitioning in general. Is the label "anti-transgender activist" supported by any reliable sources? If not, doesn't this violate Wikipedia policy in some way? Round and rounder (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Round and rounder, is there better wording you would suggest. Only one source says it outright, so think more explanation would serve the reader. Slywriter (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a suggestion, but I think that calling her an "anti-transgender activist" is misleading and probably a violation of the rules for living people so it should be removed until a better description is agreed upon. I would have just changed it to "detransitioner" but this topic area is so politically charged that even straightforward changes seem to be met with hostility. Round and rounder (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Striking comment from LTA sock. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick note, trans kids are not magically not trans people. Campaigning to forcibly detransition people and deny them access to transgender healthcare is indeed anti-trans activism, regardless of their age.

Speaking to sources:

• anti-trans activist[2]
• anti-trans activist[3]
• In addition to Walsh, speakers at the rally included GOP state politicians from Tennessee, who earlier this year passed multiple anti-trans bills (helping to perpetuate mental health crisis among trans youth in the state), and Blackburn, who used the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to push anti-trans talking points. Other speakers included Tulsi Gabbard, Dr. Colin Wright, and Chloe Cole.[4] Note, Cole has pushed for the same legislation as those politicians.
• Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who detransitioned and whom the anti-trans movement has turned into a celebrity for their movement[5]
• He referenced Chloe Cole, a woman who got a mastectomy as a teenager when she believed herself to be a trans man. She has since become an anti-transgender advocate [6]
• We are having this rally out of compassion today, because we have seen what these surgeries and hormones are doing to individuals,” said Rutherford County Turning Point chapter president Hannah Faulkner. “We love you LGBTQ,” claimed Faulkner, who also said, “This is not an anti-trans rally because transgender does not exist.”[7] If you're speaking at a rally and the only defense to being called anti-trans is to say "transgender doesn't exist", that's not exactly a stunning defense...
• After nearly five hours of contentious presentations by six experts and dozens of testimonials, members of the boards cut the public comment period short after letting several anti-trans advocates speak out. ... Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old from California, was among the detransitioners who told of worsening mental health problems, complications after surgery and lax medical care during or following treatment.[8]

That's just a quick search. It expands once you factor in all the bills multiple reliable sources have said were anti-trans and noted that Cole supported. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I was talking about at ANI. You have cherry picked sources with a particular slant. In other cases, you have asociated statements said about others with Cole.

I knew nothing about this person until a few days ago. If she is on record as saying that no one should be allowed to transition, I haven't seen it. If she is suggesting that kids should be forcibly detransitioned, I haven't seen it.

If someone said gay children should not be allowed to marry, but gay adults can, is that homophobic? Round and rounder (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Round and rounder, you seem to be applying a personal standard for what should count as "anti-trans activism". I think we should follow the sources. And so far the reliably sourced "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" sounds like the most precisely accurate description thus far. Newimpartial (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The actual quote from Xtra is "Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who detransitioned and whom the anti-trans movement has turned into a celebrity for their movement..." if that's the source you mean. In any case, I think I'd best bow out of this discussion. If others don't have a problem with it, I'll go along with the consensus. Round and rounder (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Striking comment from LTA sock. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The first one doesn't support the claim even if we assume they are reliable for such a contentious claim. The second one does but we have to ask how much weight we would give such a clearly biased source. The quote provided in #3 doesn't call Cole anti-trans. The same is true of #4. #5 does but again, weight. #6 doesn't say Cole is an anti-trans activist. Transach synthesized the claim. #7 also doesn't support the claim. Springee (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"The second one does but we have to ask how much weight we would give such a clearly biased source."

Wait, wait, wait, you're calling an LGBT news source a "clearly biased source" on the topic of whether someone is anti-trans or not? Is that seriously the position you want to be taking? Silverseren^C 00:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Spring, I didn't synthesize anything, just pointed out that if you're speaking at a rally where the organizer's best defense to being called "anti-trans" is flat out saying "transgender doesn't exist", that's patently absurd. It's like saying, "we're not homophobes, homosexual doesn't exist" - they're not explicitly saying they're homophobes, but their defense is so ridiculous it takes olympian-level mental gymnastics to conclude anything else. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Expanding and listing some more reliable sources mentioning her in the context of anti-trans legislation.

• Kansas, Missouri consider banning gender-affirming care amid wave of anti-trans bills ... [Cole has] have traveled nationally advocating for bans on gender affirming care. Cole is from California.[9]
• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) held an anti-trans rally at the Capitol this week. A whopping 12 or so people attended and no major media outlets covered it. ... The rally was a veritable who’s who of contemporary transphobic trolls, including members of the book-banning “parents’ rights” group Moms for Liberty; members of the anti-LGBTQ conservative think tank Heritage Foundation; de-transitioned young adult right-wing media darling Chloe Cole;[10]
• Anti-trans bigots celebrate proposed Florida rule to bar gender-affirming care under Medicaid ... Under the proposed rule, the Medicaid program would not cover puberty-blocking medication, hormones and hormone “antagonists,” sex-reassignment surgeries and any “other procedures that alter primary or secondary sexual characteristics.” ... Friday’s hearing opened with testimony from Chloe Cole, who said she is a 17-year-old “de-transitioner” from California who underwent treatments, including surgery to remove her breasts, between the ages of 13 and 16. Cole said she supports the proposed rule.[11] Side note, saying poor trans adults, not just kids shouldn't get medical care, is blatantly anti-trans.
• Sens. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, and Mark Steffen, R-Hutchinson, are trying to criminalize hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery for transgender youth. Their bill, SB12, known as the Kansas child mutilation prevention act, would make it illegal for physicians to prescribe hormone replacement therapy or perform gender-reassignment surgeries for anyone under 21 ... He referenced Chloe Cole, a woman who got a mastectomy as a teenager when she believed herself to be a trans man. She has since become an anti-transgender advocate. [12]

Additionally, from this article's body (sources there): Greene did so in support of her attempt to pass the "Protect Children's Innocence Act", which would federally make it a felony to provide any gender-affirming care to a minor, give minors an avenue to sue such providers, prohibit the use of federal funds for such care in health insurance, deport undocumented immigrants who provide such care, and prohibit colleges and universities from offering instruction in gender-affirming care. Cole said that while she doesn't agree with everything any politician says or does, she finds the bill is a cause she can get behind. Cole spoke in support at a press conference Greene hosted for the bill.

So in short, not only has she protested against gender-affirming care for trans minors (which would still be anti-trans regardless), she's protested against it for adults and supported making it a felony to allow trans youth to transition. This whole discussion is silly, as saying trans kids shouldn't be allowed to transition is a WP:FRINGE position that is consistently and rightfully described in reliable sources as "anti-trans". That's not even mentioning how the whole "it's not anti-trans - think of the children!" shtick falls apart when you consider she has supported bills that would make it illegal to provide HRT to even adults (for the record, making it illegal to give a trans person HRT when they're already on it indeed "forced detransition"), make it harder for poor trans adults of any age to access such care, and prevent universities from even discussing such care. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

None of your new sources call her an anti-trans activist. You jump to conclusions then expect others to accept them. Sorry no. This is a BLP violation. Springee (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been unable to find supporting reliability evidence for the inclusion of several of the sources cited here, at least on any Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or otherwise. One of them is considered a tabloid, and the quality of journalism should be considered a political hit job. At this point, I'm incredibly jaded and have become so demoralized that I don't even want to take the time to aggregate or search deeper because I feel it's a lost cause. The entirety of Wikipedia has become a place for activism and outright slander, especially BLPs. I'm of the opinion that we should just let this happen, as it stands Wiki has become less and less reliable over time and finally people are starting to pay attention. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they did, they mentioned her support for anti-trans legislation. You know what the neutral term for someone who campaigns for anti-trans legislation is? "anti-trans activist/campaigner"...

But for some more sources on why these bills she supports are unequivocally anti-trans, see the:

• ACLU
• various medical organizations such as the AAP, AMA, and many others, describing the bills as unequivocally harmful to trans people

@Springee, are you really going to suggest that fighting to stop even adults transitioning is not "anti-trans activism"? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop construction straw arguments. That is tendentious talk page behavior. If you are going to apply a contentious label you need to show it is widely used. Showing that occasional or sources with a strong POV use it isn't sufficient. Synthesizing it's use as you are arguing above is also not OK. Springee (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To which sources are you attributing a strong POV? I am seeing an attempt to characterize sources through oblique insinuation, based on nothing but an editor's personal opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The first two at the top of the section are clearly sources with a strong POV. You can argue they are still reliable but that doesn't negate the POV. Incidentally, when looking at sources that are generally neutral or engaged in simple reporting we don't see her called an anti-trans activist. Going beyond that, a number of Christian related news sites clearly don't call her that. If we are willing to accept the POV of one side I see no reason not to accept the POV of another side. Springee (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

With one side being actual LGBT news sources, which would be close to an authority on what would be considered anti-transgender actions and activities. And the other side you're referring to being religious news sites that have an anti-LGBT bias and no real authority on whether an action is anti-trans? Silverseren^C 21:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are talking about automotive impact on the environment would you consider Car and Driver or Road and Track unbiased? They may be good sources but they are also close to the subject. The problem with their position of authority is they may decide someone who doesn't agree with their POV is anti-transgender while neutral third parties wouldn't agree. And if we are going to say how should a person be publically labeled then yes, I do think we should consider how multiple POVs describe her before we apply a contentious label. Springee (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This comparison implies that there are legitimate stances against LGBT rights. There are not. Snokalok (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Springee, how would you summarize the ways the subject is labelled by sources that are generally neutral or engaged in simple reporting, and which sources would you use to back that up? Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you make a suggestion first. What sources would you consider to be natural to the topic? That is they don't have a bias for or against and are trying to just report the facts. Springee (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have an answer to that; I was basically calling your bluff. And while I'm not the biggest fan of Fox News, I do think the label they apply, "Conservative activist and detransitioner", is one worth considering, though it isn't mutually exclusive with other terms. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so you are saying you don't know what a neutral source would be. What about these two? [13], [14]? Are they neutral? One is a public broadcasting station. Springee (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Springee, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Numerous sources describe her as an anti-trans activist. Numerous sources note her campaigning for anti-trans bills as being what she is most notable for. The idea that fully criminalizing transgender healthcare, not even just with a bullshit "save the kids" argument but even for adults, is not anti-trans activism is a fully WP:FRINGE position. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually not that many sources describe her at anti-trans activist and if you are going to put that contentious LABEL in wiki-voice you need better sourcing. Remember BLP applies here. Springee (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I don't know how you would summarize the characterizations in what you see as neutral sources. The ksl source simply says an 18-year-old activist which, while accurate, isn't especially helpful. The spdb source doesn't give any characterization beyond "former trans kid" and observes that Cole has also spoken in support of similar bills in other states, i.e., laws to prevent transgender kids from getting gender-affirming treatment. So how would you summarize those? Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure she is a conservative activist so much as the conservatives seem willing to listen to her. Call that a pairing of common interest. She certainly is a detransitioner. It's probably best to say she speaks about against transitioning for minors and then list her stated concerns. They may or may not be valid but if she is worth writing a page about perhaps her concerns are also worth covering. Springee (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR, multiple sources have noted her campaigning against trans healthcare for adults as well as minors, stop trying to shift the frame of what she campaigns against. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please FOC, if you want to talk about CIR do it at ANI. Springee (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is as may be, TheTranarchist, but I think her activism against gender-affirming treatment for minors is what has made the subject notable. That can't reasonably be taken to imply that she supports gender-affirming treatment for adults, btw, it simply emphasizes what she is actually known for.

Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to include a top-level statement about her being an activist against gender-affirming treatment for minors, which seems accurate, uncontroversial and neutral. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would fully support that. Thank you for pulling us back and suggesting a compromise. Springee (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd support Chloe Cole is an American anti-transgender activist and detransitioner. She is known for appearing on right-wing media and with conservative politicians in favor of legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for those under 21, criminalize those who provide it, prohibit federal funding or Medicaid for such care at any age, and ban lessons on it in universities.

My worry is that lead will be immediately contradicted by the body, which notes her campaigning against care for those under 21. For example, while it's technically true "minors can't drink in the US", the more encyclopedic summary is "those under 21 can't drink in the U.S", as the precise age limit matters. I find it better we summarize rather than take the average of her actions. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating the relevance of the under 21 aspect. As far as I can tell, most of these proposals cover people under the age of 18, and I can't find any instances where Cole has objected to a bill for not going far enough by allowing treatment for those 18-20. I'm not suggesting that she supports gender-affirming treatment for adults, but it isn't obvious that she opposes it, whereas all sources agree that she opposes gender-affirming treatment for minors. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial here (sorry, that probably made you feel uncomfortable /hummor) Springee (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't support that as it has the same issues we have been arguing over. Also, the "known for appearing on" is not a good way to phrase things. It loads the language as if she is there because she's a conservative and it implies she is known for being a guest vs known for being an activist against gender affirming care for minors. It ideally would be good to say what her positions are assume she has some. Something like "Chloe Cole is an American teen detransitioner. She is known her activism against gender affirming care for minors." From there we can discuss her background and some of the bills she has been involved with. We should not take any specific bill she has supported as a whitnes and imply she supports all aspects of that bill. That would be OR. If we are going to say/imply what she supports we need to use her direct statements. The problem with bills is sometimes people accept what they can get rather than what they might ideally want. It's quite possible she is totally OK with various types of care for adults but her concern about harm to minors, presumably fearing others would end up in her position) drives her to accept the full bill. Put another way, if she supported a bill that narrowly covered only minors it would be incorrect to imply she insists on limiting care for adults. Springee (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it is equally plausible that, as a born-again Christian and a conservative, she privately opposes all gender-affirming care but her speechwriters confine her comments to minors because that's what the communications consultants recommend. We presently just have no way to know. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think teen detransitioner as the primary descriptor in the first sentence hits the mark here. That feels a bit like characterizing Adolf Hitler (damn you, Godwin!) as a WWI veteran first. It's not wrong, but Cole is obviously not notable as a detransitioner (whom there are thousands of), but for everything that came since. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 10:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that the OP is a LTA sock. I've struck two terminal comments of theirs that didn't receive direct replies but left them in case editors had referred to them in later replies and I missed this. I left earlier comments that had been replied to intact although anyone else is free to strike them if they feel this would be better and they can be safely ignored in any case. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

OP has since been banned.

Anyway, the reliable evidence supporting the term "anti trans activist" is overwhelming, the fact that we're giving this much time to a WP:FRINGE position otherwise is insane Snokalok (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of feelings about LA Blade and it's bias/advocacy/leaning, the source is reliable and verifiable for her own quote

  ...Trans men are not biological males, so definitionally, they are not men...

  . Their statement

  Cole’s choice of words, matching that of many anti-trans activists

  appears to be supported by other independent sources and only mitigated by Blaze later

  political pawns for anti trans forces

• Cullman Times has her saying

  ...classic false dichotomy regarding children with gender dysphoria.

• Reuters states

  Cole has begun speaking out publicly in support of measures to end gender-affirming care for minors, appearing often on conservative media and with politicians who back such bans.

• Nashville Scene states

  Cole now advocates against hormone treatments and surgery for minors.

• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gives

  Cole travels the country speaking out against gender-affirming care...

  and that

  Cole recently spoke in favor of a bill proposed in Utah that would prohibit minors from undergoing "sex-transitioning procedures.

• LGBTQ nation itself calls her

  right wing media darling

  and isn't a good source for lede sentence and it's link on the quote is circular to LA Blade.
• Propose Chloe Cole is an American, known for opposing gender-affirming care for minors and supporting bans on such care after her own detransition. She has appeared with politicians supporting such bans in state legislatures and spoken on right-wing media. She is seen as an anti-trans activist.

If I missed a second source that is affirmative and clear about declaring her anti-trans, let me know as then the argument is stronger for it being on the first line. Otherwise, it should be in the second as opposition to gender care for minors is the more publicized position. Slywriter (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a sound starting point. I agree with Springee and others above that 'anti-trans', apart from being sourced to partisan sources, is very uninformative, especially when linked to LGBT rights opposition, as it is now. We have no idea what her opinion is on LGB rights at all, nor any 'trans' measures apart from those relating to underage medical/surgical transitioning. I also question whether 'seen as an anti-trans activist' adds anything if we don't say who sees her that way (presumably not conservatives). Being quibbly, quite a few sources refer to her appearing on 'conservative', rather than 'right-wing' media, but why anyhow is that pertinent? Is there any reason to think that she hasn't spoken to whichever media were prepared to listen - including 'LA Blade'? Like the linkage to 'anti-trans', the linking to 'right-wing' media, seems to be mainly made by partisan sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist, why did you restore "anti-trans activist" here [15]? The above discussion makes it clear that characterization does not have consensus. I think your other recent edits are also problematic but should be discussed in other sections. Springee (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. I also don't understand why we would use a generic description when we can use a specific one. The 'mission' Cole is on is to outlaw surgical and body altering chemical interventions for minors, and sources make that explicit. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her, we have a duty to be accurate about that. Even to the extent that gender-affirming care=surgery and chemicals, why not be specific about what is being proposed/opposed? Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-trans or Anti-transgender rights activist would be consistent with other articles describing people engaged in similar work. Additionally, there is an abundant, nearly endless for our purposes, supply of WP:SIRS sources available to choose from which describe the work she engages in using those words. I'm not sure if there is a decent reason to use such a WP:Vagueness descriptor when a concise more specific one is commonly used and available. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-transgender rights activist would be consistent with other articles describing people engaged in similar work, well that's precisely the point isn't it? What is her 'work'? And why would we use a (fairly crude) generic term to describe it if more nuanced and precise ones are available. AFAIK, the whole of her 'testimony' is against minors receiving surgery and beta blockers/hormones. She has said almost nothing about adults, nor less interventionist measures for minors, but implicit is that she considers adults able to make their own life decisions. Not everyone who thinks children and vehicle drivers should have restricted access to alcohol is automatically a 'prohibitionist', or 'anti-alcohol'. Not everyone who thinks that access to high powered lethal weapons should be controlled is a pacifist nor 'anti-gun'. Contentious, value-laden, labels about people need to be fully individually justified.Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

She's fighting to ban what is overwhelmingly confirmed by the medical community as best practice healthcare for trans kids. You're describing gender affirming care as though it's the same as cosmetic plastic surgery, when actually the medical community as a whole treats it as closer to reconstructive or mitigative, and as fully medically necessary.

So yes, fighting to ban medically necessary care for a minority group, absolutely makes her against that minority group. Snokalok (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What is considered 'best practice healthcare for trans kids' is less clearly established in many European countries. Many are known to be particularly hesitant about surgery and other 'medical' intervention. I believe I am right when I say that Holland and Sweden have better overall success rates than the US, despite greater caution. So 'best practice' is less agreed than you imply - apart from ignoring my main points of 'why would we use a crude description when a more precise one would do?' and 'why do sources only thinly describe her thus'? Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Notably, neither Sweden or Holland have enacted total legal bans on gender-affirming care for minors. There is a difference between greater caution, and legislative interference completely banning what WP:MEDRS consider the best treatment... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think global differences in legislation and success rates are the best way to determine what the consensus on best practice in reliable sources is. Real life has too many complicating factors to consider. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The page is ostensibly about Cole. Only very tangentially about normal/best practice in US or elsewhere. Again we ignore 'why would we use a crude description when a more precise one would do?' and 'why do sources only thinly describe her thus' (as 'anti-trans') Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, the whole of her 'testimony' is against minors receiving surgery and beta blockers/hormones. I Just want to point out that this isn't the case. Cole testified in Florida in favor of a bill that would remove medicaid coverage of trans healthcare for adults. She also was cited in a bill that would ban trans healthcare for adults ages 18-20. Her social media presence, which is a part of her activism, includes targeted harassment of trans adults and anti-trans views that are not exclusive to bans on healthcare for trans minors. If we are to exclude whats fairly standard mundane language, then we will need to find a new and different reason to do so. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, and it would have been more accurate if I had said "the whole of her 'testimony' is about minors receiving surgery and beta blockers/hormones - and most of it is against such medical intervention. Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Source Review

Source list

LA Blade (SIRS): ant-trans activist and her regret has been seized upon by anti-trans forces all around the world, eager to retell and retweet her harrowing story.[16] San Francisco Chronicle (SIRS): something of a celebrity in the anti-trans movement and Cole has become a poster child for right-wing resistance to transgender care, making appearances on conservative media and offering testimony on transgender legislation in several states and The Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for the rights of LGBTQ+ people, is tracking a record 150 anti-trans bills across the country this year.n LGBTQ Nation: anti-trans activist [17] Kansas Reflector: an anti-transgender advocate.[18] WUSF public media: lists as one of several anti-trans advocates[19] Kansas City Star: states Kansas, Missouri consider banning gender-affirming care amid wave of anti-trans bills, notes Cole spoke in favor of the bill [[20]] LGBTQ Nation: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) held an anti-trans rally at the Capitol this week ... The rally was a veritable who’s who of contemporary transphobic trolls, including ... de-transitioned young adult right-wing media darling Chloe Cole[21] Orlando Weekly: Anti-trans bigots celebrate proposed Florida rule to bar gender-affirming care under Medicaid ... Cole said she supports the proposed rule.[22] Wyoming Public Media: Lawmakers nix anti-trans "Chloe's Law" amid warnings of an insurance crisis ... Chloe Cole, a California teenager who has been traveling the country to support bills like the one in Wyoming. Cole has compared gender-affirming surgery to the medical experiments Nazis performed on their Jewish prisoners during the Holocaust.[23] Tennessee Lookout: U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn headlines anti-transgender rally in Nashville ... Also speaking were 18-year-old Chloe Cole[24] Nashville Scene: Anti-Trans Rally Led by Matt Walsh Brings Right-Wing Media Stars to Nashville ... Other speakers at Walsh’s event included ... self-proclaimed “former trans kid” Chloe Cole Daily KOS: Trump’s proposals to ban gender-affirming care for trans youths nationwide are part of a far-right genocidal erasure campaign against trans Americans instigated by the likes of Libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, Gays Against Groomers, DeSantis spokespropagandist Christina Pushaw, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, anti-trans zealot Chris Elston (Billboard Chris), political detransitioner Chloe Cole, and their ilk[25] (per RSP) Reuters (SIRS): Cole has begun speaking out publicly in support of measures to end gender-affirming care for minors, appearing often on conservative media and with politicians who back such bans.[26] (did not mention "anti-trans") LGBTQ Nation: The rally, held at the city’s War Memorial Plaza on October 21, was organized by conservative podcaster and transphobe Matt Walsh. Walsh spoke at the event alongside Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), state lawmakers like state Sen. Jack Johnson (R) and state Rep. William Lamberth (R), former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, a lawyer from the anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, and other anti-trans activists. ... The rally also featured the following speakers: president of Convention of States Action Mark Meckler, founder of Trans Rational Educational Voices Scott Newgent, founding editor of Reality’s Last Stand Colin Wright, and 18-year-old de-transitioned, right-wing media darling Chloe Cole.[27] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Nationally, over 200 anti-trans bills have been introduced this year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.[28]

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

In short, we have RS (including WP:SIRS sources) directly labeling her an anti-trans activist/advocate. We have sources saying she spoke at anti-trans rallies, sources saying she is a celebrity to the anti-trans movement, and more sources noting her campaigning for anti-trans legislation (which the ACLU and HRC also label as anti-trans legislation). Per others earlier, I support both being specific about what legislation she supports and using the description anti-trans activist. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Which of those sources directly call Cole an "anti-trans activist". Please include the full quote, not just a part. The problem right now is you are including sources that don't, per your quotes, support the claim. Take the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. How does this quote, "Nationally, over 200 anti-trans bills have been introduced this year...", the quote you provided as evidence, support that sources call Cole an "anti-trans activist"? The same is true of source 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 2. The others need more complete quotes to evaluate. We have no idea if this is a random list representing a range of views or just a keyword search. Many of the sources are minor or less than idea. Others simply don't support using the label. Springee (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the term as this is a BLP and consensus is not established. WP:ONUS is on editor looking to include, not exclude. Slywriter (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter thank you, my apologies for not hashing it out here first. Could you comment on the newly compiled source list and weight of the descriptor? I know you were partial to including it at least on the second line, with it's placement on the first being contingent on the weight of reliable sources, particularity those directly calling her an anti-trans activist, of which there seem to be 3/4 (definitely 1, 3, 4, and perhaps 14, though @Springee disagrees) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• 1, 3, and 4, directly call her an anti-trans activist/advocate. 14 lists her as one. 1 and 2 also provide her WP:SIRS coverage, and should be weighted duly, as opposed to sources that give her a 1 line mention.
• 3, 4, 5 do not need more complete quotes to evaluate, but the articles are linked if you believe they do and want to offer some
• 6 describes a bill Cole supported as part of a wave of anti-trans bills
• 7, 10, and 11 say Cole was the speaker at an anti-trans rally (ie, her activism includes speaking at anti-trans rallies)
• 8 describes a bill Cole supported as supported by anti-trans bigots
• 9 describes "Chloe's Law" as anti-trans, of which Cole stated support this bill in any way I can
• 12 describes her activism as part of a far-right genocidal erasure campaign against trans Americans
• 13 is just to really drive the point home that RS overwhelming agree that she appears on right-wing media. But since it's relevant, it notes Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender woman, LGBTQ-rights advocate and clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic states those types of detransition stories are “outlier examples being used by many on the anti-trans side to undermine access to gender-affirming care. They aren’t representative of detransitioners on the whole.”
• 14 lists Cole among other anti-trans activists. present at an anti-trans rally
• 15, The MJS, states Panel of right-wing activists claim schools are 'sexually grooming' children by teaching gender identity, and The event comes at a time when Muskego-Norway, Germantown, Arrowhead and Waukesha school boards have enacted policies that prohibit staff from referring to students by their preferred name and/or pronouns without express parental permission. Nationally, over 200 anti-trans bills have been introduced this year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. .. Accredited medical organizations such as the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, American Psychiatric Association and Yale School of Medicine support gender-affirming care for youth, meant to treat a diagnosable condition called gender dysphoria, which causes psychological distress from feeling one's biological sex does not match their gender identity. ... among the panelists was activist Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old from California who "destransitioned" at 16 years old. Cole travels the country speaking out against gender-affirming care - ie, describes her as a right-wing activist known for opposing gender-affirming care, which it notes medical consensus finds necessary to avoid causing trans kids psychological distress.

In general, in a discussion of whether "anti-trans activist" is an appropriate label, sources saying the person in question speaks at anti-trans rallies and supports anti-trans bills supports that claim. We are not solely looking for sources which call her an "anti-trans activist" (of which there are several, including WP:SIRS coverage), we are looking for sources that provide weight to that descriptor. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I will assume that you are correct about 1,3 and 4 calling her an anti-trans activist. 5 is marginal since it refers to a group but when it names her it doesn't say "anti-trans activist". If you are going to apply a contentious label it needs to be clearly applied. This fits into the category of compatible with but not direct. 6 as you say describes a bill. Unless Cole=the bill, this doesn't support the label. 7, 10 and 11 fail for the same reason as 6. Participating in a rally that is called anti-trans doesn't mean the label was applied to her. You are using SYNTH to presume that anyone speaking at a rally that was called "anti-trans" by sources that may or may not be objective or specific in the use of the term should themselves be viewed as anti-trans. That is not acceptable sourcing for a contentious label. 8 is a non-starter. Cole could be supported by Nazis, Stalin and Mao all at the same time. That doesn't mean we apply fascist to her. 9 Chloe's law is not a person. Cole is a person. Chloe's law != Cole. I hope that difference is obvious. 12. Daily KOS is not an acceptable source. Beyond being an obviously crap source (we haven't asked about the quality of the other sources), calling the general activism she is associated with anti-trans doesn't mean you can apply the label to her. 13 is again a stretch to justify text you want to include rather than an obvious summary of the source. 14 the quote you provided doesn't show what you claim. Note: "The rally also featured the following speakers:...". That is where it mentions Cole. Note that I would be very reluctant to accept LGBTQ Nation's labeling of a person they see as the opposition. While we might accept their statements of fact, subjective labels are another matter. Lat leaves us with 15 which again doesn't say Cole is anti-trans. You have to stretch to apply a generalized label to each panel member and even there it doesn't support anti-trans. As a follow up to all this, how did you find these sources? Did you do a keyword search including the disputed label? I ask because above I listed an assortment of sources that I found with a simple news search only for Cole's name. The sources are presented in the order I found them off the first two pages of articles (excluding clearly unacceptable sources). Note that most don't call her anti-trans. If we are going to apply a contentious label it needs to be clearly and commonly used even when we aren't searching for it. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Springee (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

For 1, 3, and 4, no need to assume, that's what the link is for...

For 5, this is a silly argument. Sources are not in the habit of stating say "XYZ advocates including XYZ advocate 1, XYZ advocate 2, XYZ advocate 3", explicitly repeating "XYZ advocate" for each person in the list which they already said is composed of "XYZ advocates".

6 describes a bill, which Cole has supported, as "anti-trans". This is like saying, "just because a person supported a bill opposing gay marriage, that doesn't mean they oppose gay marriage, since the person is not a bill... "

7, 10, and 11 are acceptable for the same reason as 6. For example, arguing whether "this person opposes XYZ" belongs in the lead, a source that says this person supported bills opposing XYZ or spoke at rallies opposing XYZ is not discountable because it didn't say "generally, this person opposes XYZ". Read WP:NOTSYNTH, and WP:SYNTH for that matter

8 describes supporters of a bill as anti-trans bigots, and notes Cole supported that bill. I don't see how that's a non-starter

9 see 6

12 I'll strike the Daily KOS from the list per RSP

13, like I stated, was more to show that even WP:SIRS supportive of her note she appears on right-wing media. But I'll strike that as we're focused on her anti-trans activism

14 states Walsh spoke at the event alongside Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), state lawmakers like state Sen. Jack Johnson (R) and state Rep. William Lamberth (R), former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, a lawyer from the anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, and other anti-trans activists The source then describes the activities of Walsh, Johnson, and Gabbard. It characterizes those not specifically named on that list as "anti-trans activists", and after discussing those on the list, refers to the other speakers present (AKA other anti-trans activists), including Cole. Wrt I would be very reluctant to accept LGBTQ Nation's labeling of a person they see as the opposition - as others have explained earlier, your personal opinion that LGBT sources are too biased to be trusted for commentary on LGBT issues has no place here

15 calls her a right-wing activist, refers to "anti-trans bills" that are being passed, notes how they are considered to be harmful to trans people by WP:MEDRS, and notes that Cole supports them.

In regards to how I got the sources, I keyword searched "anti-trans" AND "Chloe Cole", since this is a discussion of whether "anti-trans activist" applies. Frankly, if I extended the search to "transphobic" OR "harmful to trans people" and etc, the evidence would be even more overwhelming.

AFAICT, you only listed 2 sources, neither of which say she's not an anti-trans advocate. The first doesn't provide Cole WP:SIGCOV, it just notes she supported the bill, of which notably also says The South Dakota State Medical Association said the bill will cause physicians to compromise their medical judgement for what treatment is in the best interest of patients. "Access to care for transgender people is an important means of improving health outcomes. Receiving care is linked to reductions in the rate of suicide attempts, decreased rates of depression and anxiety, and decreased substance use in transgender people," said Lucio Margallo, president of SDSMA. "These positive health effects extend to children and adolescents as well.". The second does not provide WP:SIGCOV, it calls her an activist without specifying for what. Additionally, it quotes medical experts saying that the hardline ban on gender-affirming care for minors which she supports would be detrimental to the health of transgender minors. IE, neither of the sources you gave as examples give WP:SIGCOV or contradict the label "anti-trans activist", and both reference medical professionals/WP:MEDRS stating that the bans on care she's supporting are not evidence-based and would be detrimental to the health of trans youth. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"I keyword searched "anti-trans" AND "Chloe Cole"" That explains a lot. You set out to prove what you wanted to prove yet even then you aren't proving it. Remember to add that label per LABEL the standard isn't "well sources don't prove it wrong". It's that sources commonly describe her as such. Springee (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What is this argument even supposed to be? You set out to prove what you wanted to prove - that's the whole bloody point and somewhat WP:BLUESKY. Are you really taking issue with me creating a list of sources that describe her as "anti-trans" or state she attended "anti-trans" rallies or supported "anti-trans legislation" to show it's widespread use, by searching "anti-trans", because I didn't list every single source that's ever mentioned her for you?

WP:LABEL state unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, which I just listed examples of. Anti-trans activist is also not inherently Value-laden and in fact quite neutral, as people can support or disapprove of "anti-trans activism" without disagreeing that's what it is. WP:BLPSTYLE, which it links to, states Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (emphasis mine, since you seem to think RS describing her actions as "anti-trans" don't count...)

And that was a wonderful way to skirt past the fact the two sources you offered as counter-evidence didn't provide WP:SIGCOV and in fact both mentioned medical experts saying the bills she supported were harmful to trans youth... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

When applying a contentious label you need to show that it's commonly applied (perhaps you should take this question to BLPN). That is, if I pick some random source that are likely to apply that label to the subject. For instance, if the NYT called her a "trend setting teen" (example only) would you suggest we use such a label because a RS applied it? Of course not. You could rightly point out that the label was used only once even if the one source was strong. In a case like this we can find some sources that use the label. How do you decide when something moves from "we can find it with a keyword search" to "widely applied"? This is particularly true if a source gets a fair number of name hits. It may be commonly applied by sources that include the keyword "anti-trans activist". However, we would need to show that it's commonly applied among a broad range of sources, not just ones that have the keyword. That is why you need to search without the keyword and see how often the label comes up organically. You did a selective search, that doesn't prove "widely"... especially when less than half of your sources actually apply the label. Again, if you think this is wrong, raise the question at BLPN. Springee (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's see what happens when one doesn't put their hand on the scale and just searches "Chloe Cole", oh look the first nine sources (12 but let's ignore daily caller, daily signal and Daily Mail) do not describe her as anti trans or even come close to using those words.

NBC Bay Area, Fox News, the horror but also a valid source,NYPost, yet seems pretty straightforward reporting, Catholic News Agency,Chronicle, Fox News via Yahoo, and [KATV]. So let's hear more about how that label is clear and easily applied despite 12 sources to 1 using it in a simple review of a Google search. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• WP:FOXNEWS: There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science.
• WP:NYPOST: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics
• The CNA is discussed in a section below, where past RSN discussions have found it unsuitable for anything controversial.
• NBC bay area doesn't provide Cole's activism WP:SIGCOV, but it states The American Medical Association also has a clear stance on gender affirming care for children, urging governors to oppose any legislation interfering with a family’s decision and said it could have “tragic health consequences.”
• KATV states A well-known "detransitioner" is suing doctors for allegedly "blindly ramrodding" her through the gender transition process, giving her puberty blockers, hormones and a mastectomy without first obtaining proper informed consent. Chloe Cole, a California teen who once identified as transgender and ultimately underwent several gender change therapies, has become a household name among those discussing the harms of transgender ideology and activism.

I think this further strengthens the case for "anti-trans activist" if anything. Of the first 12 sources you found, only 3 were reliable. The Chronicle provides WP:SIRS coverage of her work and says she is a celebrity in the anti-trans movement and Cole has become a poster child for right-wing resistance to transgender care, making appearances on conservative media and offering testimony on transgender legislation in several states. NBC Bay Area doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV of Cole's activism herself (though it does of her case) but it does describe a WP:MEDRS stating that the kind of legislation she backs is considered harmful to trans youth. KATV doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV coverage of Cole's activism (though it does of her case), and even then states she's become a household name among those discussing the harms of transgender ideology and activism - plainly stating that she is a household name for those who consider "transgender ideology" (a rebranding of gender ideology) and transgender "activism" harmful.

Additionally, we should make a SIGCOV table to assess the sources and determine their weight, since hopefully we can all agree an article on her and her history of activism should be weighted more than a one-line mention of her.

P.S. Slywriter, could you fix the links you provided? A few are broken. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:BLPN, I'm not seeing much reason why "Anti-trans activist" should be used. It could be done - it's not an entirely unreasonable description - but it just seems like an unnecessarily contentious and uninformative way to describe her (and probably not completely WP:NPOV as from my own brief search most sources didn't explicitly describe her like that). Although Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch does not explicitly say you couldn't describe someone that way, the general guidance it gives - Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking lends some support for an alternative description which could probably still convey roughly the same thing, but in a less contentious and more informative way

I think it could be included in the lede attributed in some manner eg. "Media outlets such as X and Y have described her as an anti-trans activist or advocate". I don't see an issue with that Tristario (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario I could support "has been described as an anti-trans activist", though I think we have enough we don't need to specify each one and can just cite the statement to them. However, I think that it might be simpler and cut the gordian knot to say Cole is known for supporting anti-trans legislation that would legally prohibit the provision of gender-affirming care to minors, since regardless of how sources characterize her herself, they strongly support characterizing the legislation as anti-trans. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough about this Cole and this subject to say what the best description is, but that would be an improvement at least. It still doesn't seem that clear to me though - what makes legislation anti-trans? That could mean a lot of different things, and it's a potentially subjective phrase. Eg. Are the bills doing other things that are anti-trans besides prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors? If so, then preferably those should just be summarized and that should be clearer. If that's all the bills are doing and that's why they're considered anti-trans - then it'd be better to just describe what the bills do and then say that Cole or the bills have been (widely) described as anti-trans (or something roughly like that - that wording could probably be improved)

In regards to the sourcing - WP:HEADLINES should be kept in mind, it seems some sources say anti-trans in the headline, but are more specific in the body of the article, and we should be following what they do in the body of the article. Tristario (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I just performed a google news search for "Chloe Cole" and got different results. Considering the first 12: 1) Fox (1), 2) Chronicle (1), 3) NBC Bay Area, 4) Fox (2), 5) Chronicle (2), 6) Wyoming Public Media, 7) State of Reform, 8) KCUR, 9) National Review, 10) The Missouri Times, 11) KTVB, and 12) the Epoch Times.

We can start by discounting 1, 4, 9, and 12. I've no clue as to the reliability of 7.

• 2 and 3 were covered above
• 5 is a podcast titled The anti-trans culture war hits the Bay Area which says The case, brought by an 18-year-old who says she's de-transitioned since receiving gender-affirming care from Kaiser, is part of a backlash against transgender rights that's playing out in California's courts
• 6 describes "Chloe's law" as an "anti-trans" bill" and states Chloe Cole, a California teenager who has been traveling the country to support bills like the [anti-trans] one in Wyoming.
• 8 states Cole testified in favor of a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors, and notes that an ACLU spokesperson said “People will die. Families will suffer,” and quotes other medical experts criticizing the bill for the harm it will cause trans youth
• 9) For a start WP:NATIONALREVIEW, but it doesn't provide Cole WP:SIGCOV, just saying she's planning to sue Kaiser and states Chloe Cole, for example, says she was put onto the tran assembly line at twelve, given puberty blockers after her parents where threatened by doctors that she would commit suicide, and had a double mastectomy at age 15.
• 10 doesn't describe Cole at all, just notes her support of the SAFE act (the ridiculously anti-trans one though it doesn't use the word), notes she said she regretted treatment, and that neither her nor the other detransitioner mentioned ever recieved care in Missouri.
• 11 states In support of Rep. Skaug's bill, detransitioned speaker Chloe Cole accepted an invitation from the Idaho Freedom Foundation - a self-described conservative think tank - to speak Thursday at the Idaho statehouse. and Cole's experience received sympathy from Preston Thomson. He is the father of a 16-year-old transgender girl. The Thomson's live in Idaho; however, their experience with gender transition runs contrary to that of Cole. "If someone is trying to push [gender-affirming surgery] on [Chloe Cole], that is deplorable," Thomson said. "I don't know any parent, or very few even trans kids, who are trying to jump to a surgical intervention rout. We did not have pressure from the medical community at all." ... Under Rep. Skaug's bill, Lynn would not be able to receive her puberty blockers or hormone treatment. It would be a major step backwards for her mental health and well-being, according to the family. It also states in reference to the bill However, LGBTQ+ youth have consistently had a greater risk for depression and suicide. According to The Trevor Project, a national nonprofit, states its mission is; “To end suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning young people.” The project estimates that over 9,000 LGBTQ+ youth seriously consider suicide annually. ... Additionally, the National Institute of Health compiled 27 studies and found of the nearly 8,000 patients who did have gender affirming surgeries - both male and female - 77 had regrets.

So by my count, the first 12 results show that she has been described as "anti-trans" and is known for pushing "anti-trans" legislation, which leading health and human rights bodies have stated are detrimental to transgender youth. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You're absolutely right in all of this. Fighting to ban medically necessary care for a minority group, is anti-that group. This shouldn't be hard, and the idea that LGBT news sources are in any way biased only works if one thinks that opponents of LGBT rights have any valid points, which they objectively don't. Snokalok (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Many LGBT news sources are biased, just as many (socially) conservative and/or religious sources are biased, albeit in opposite ways. Being aware of that isn't disregarding either, and neither 'camp' of course has 'medical' or expert credibility in their own right. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is you're putting them on equal footing. The neutral point between "no bigotry" and "yes bigotry" is not "some amount of bigotry", it's "no bigotry". In this case, the LGBT sources represent "no bigotry", while the right wing sources represent "yes". Snokalok (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm putting them on an equal footing to the extent that they both tend to share the beliefs of their 'target audience' ie are equally pre-disposed to adopt particular 'positions' - ie bias. But that doesn't make either inherently unreliable, certainly not as to their views. My own views differ from either and are less 'absolute' than either, so I don't think all (social) conservatives are bigots, nor that all LGBT sources are inherently the opposite. This whole topic area is plagued IMO by black/white divides - off wiki as much as on. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A target news audience can easily be predisposed to adopt racist beliefs as well (as we've seen happen throughout history), that doesn't mean we should give racism an equal platform with not-racism. When we put our neutral point somewhere between Tucker Carlson saying LGBT people want to rape your daughter and LGBT people themselves asking to be allowed to exist in peace, then where does that our neutral point? We shouldn't change our idea of neutral just because the fascists became more fascist. Snokalok (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A targeted activist audience can easily be predisposed to assume all who oppose their POV are doing so in bad faith. That doesn't mean we should give bias equal platform with impartial sources. Springee (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIASED makes it clear that bias is allowed in sources and sometimes biased sources are the best possible source. Though not explicitly stated, I'd assume that taking a non neutral stance on WP:FRINGE views, as the LGBTQ sources provided do, is well within WP:RS. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

When making subjective claims about a BLP subject biased sources are often not good. Springee (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a good comparison to ask ourselves is, if an activist who frequently marched with Proud Boys and advocated for a return to segregation called themselves a "race realist", and only left wing sources called them a racist, would we call them a "race realist" or would we just state the obvious and call them a racist? Snokalok (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are inventing an example rather than looking at the facts at hand. Springee (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really, it's pretty comparable. The article subject marches with Proud Boys, and advocates for bans on what every major medical association agrees is medically necessary care for a specific minority group. It's not unreasonable to state that that makes her activism anti-that minority group. Snokalok (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You are making a bunch of claims but not supporting them. Your opinion is fine but this is why we have NPOV policies. Springee (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Then allow me to grab you some sources.

[29] American Medical Association

[30] American Psychological Association

[31] American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American College of Obstetricians and Gynos, American Osteopathic Association, and American Psychiatric Association

[32] Endocrine Society

[33] British Medical Association]

[34] World Professional Association of Transgender Health

Would you like me to continue?

This is not a biased point of view, this is the WP:MEDRS standard, and the fact that Cole is advocating against what countless medical orgs agree is necessary care for trans people, makes her an anti-trans advocate. Snokalok (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked for the research papers (in particular review papers). That the laws as passed are bad (I'm not a fan of any such absolute laws) is not the same as showing data that supports a position. Springee (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You asked for support to my claims. My claims were that every major medical association agrees that it's necessary care, and that Cole marches with Proud Boys. Both have been substantiated (I can grab more medical orgs if you want). Snokalok (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

article subject marches with Proud Boys - covered by sources

advocates for bans on what every major medical association agrees is medically necessary care for a specific minority group - covered by sources

You are making a bunch of claims but not supporting them. - they are stating fully verifiable information

Your opinion is fine but this is why we have NPOV policies. - right back at you

That being said, the racist - race realist dichotomy works better with gender-critical - anti-trans, though AFAICT nobody's ever bothered describing her as gender-critical TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh and here's the proud boys source [35] Snokalok (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what about "anti-trans" is subjective. Its the common verbiage for this type of political engagement. Much like pro-life and pro-choice, people involved in those forms of activism have their critiques of the terms. I have my own terms I would employ in my writing instead of anti-trans, that come from a place of support for trans rights, but it is still the common neutral descriptor and feels like a good fit here.

I'm having trouble finding WP:BLPRS regarding bias in sources, but am open to it being a looser best practice or explicitly stated elsewhere. If there is concern over LGBT sources, it could easily be addressed with any of the many sources provided by TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ or others not yet mentioned here. Since the term is in such wide use, I'm certain myself or others could identify sources which address your concerns. Filiforme1312 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

To that point, RS that aren't LGBT focused regularly call her legislation "anti-trans", her rallies "anti-trans", and note that there is an overwhelming consensus among reputable medical organizations that the legislation she pushes is detrimental to trans kids. Even then, there is actually no issue with using LGBT sources, though some insist they should be discounted... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

neither 'camp' of course has 'medical' or expert credibility in their own right. - so what about the WP:MEDRS sources such as the American Medical Association saying such bans are harmful to trans kids? Or organizations such as the HRC and ACLU? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tangent about whether the ACPeds is WP:FRINGE

Neither LGBT nor conservative sources have medical or expert credibility in their own right, I thought was fairly self-explanatory. Medical experts obviously have expertise on medical matters - but even that is not universally accepted iro trans treatments. You yourself sought to discount the views of a qualified endocronologist because he belonged to the 'wrong' medical association. But even so, it takes quite a number of leaps of logic to get from AMA thinks treatment delays can be harmful to Cole=anti-trans activist. It's WP:SYNTH at best IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) It is pretty universally accepted, it is not just the AMA, but dozens upon dozens of other medical organizations, who unequivocally say that the bans Cloe supports will have detrimental effects on trans kids... Also, I sought to discount the views of a qualified endocronologist because he belonged to the 'wrong' medical association? Are we referring to the same person here? A singular individual, Laidlaw, who was only quoted in an unreliable source, and belong to the American College of Pediatricians, a WP:FRINGE organization that advocates conversion therapy and was created because they believe that gay couples should not be able to adopt kids? How the hell does that outweight the positions of dozens of actually credible medical organizations? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Not universally accepted]. Wikipedia is more than the US, so kindly keep you what's the hells to yourself and stop actively seeking to paint an BLP in a negative light to fit your personal agenda. Slywriter (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Are you arguing that the American College of Pediatricians is not WP:FRINGE? Also, where in the source linked (which is not a systematic review) does it anywhere state that all gender-affirming care for minors should be completely legally prohibited? Or state a country has enacted such policies? The source itself state The discourse is polarised in the US. Conservative politicians, pundits, and social media influencers accuse providers of pushing “gender ideology” and even “child abuse,” lobbying for laws banning medical transition for minors. Progressives argue that denying access to care is a transphobic violation of human rights. There’s little dispute within the medical community that children in distress need care None of the countries mentioned in that article have fully legally prohibited gender-affirming care for minors - there is a huge difference between the extra gatekeeping they support and full legal prohibition Cole and other conservatives do. Stop actively seeking to paint an BLP in a negative light to fit your personal agenda - stop actively seeking to whitewash a BLP and misreading sources to fit WP:FRINGE apologia. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Laidlaw is a member of what the enwiki community considers to be a WP:FRINGE advocacy group. Laidlaw's individual perspective does not outweigh the mainstream medical view on transgender healthcare, which is that gender affirming care is the correct way to support trans people of all ages, and is supported by all of the organisations that both TheTranarchist and Snokalok have listed earlier in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I never suggested Laidlaw as an authority on ANYTHING except his own views and basic medical understanding consistent with his profession (M.D.) - and never suggested using him or the publication as a source AT ALL. You dismissed Laidlaw as not being reliable iro him having verified Cole's medical history - what she was prescribed and when, ie you thought he was incapable either of being honest or of understanding basic medical records that probably any first year medical student could understand. Pincrete (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Pincrete are you sure that you're responding to the correct person when you said you thought he was incapable either of being honest or of understanding basic medical records that probably any first year medical student could understand? As I don't believe I've said words to that effect anywhere in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Not you, TTA, further up. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Is Laidlow incorrect in stating other countries are reevaluating the care? If the BMJ suddenly not a reliable source? And yes, I see the intent but notice that the article lacks the term, fringe except with attribution near the end. I don't care to use Laidlow as a source but when positions are stated as being universal, yet a reliable source published content showing that other countries are re-evaluating, terms like universal don't cover it. There's plenty to say about the subject without applying a label that is more expansive than how unbiased reliable sources have covered them. Slywriter (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Seriously? I guess we can't consider a source reliable now unless there is a Wikipedia article about it containing the words "generally reliable for factual reporting". That's just not how editorial discretion works here. As shown in the thread linked by Sideswipe9th, consensus among wikipedians is clearly that this is a fringe political organization. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Are other countries outright legally banning all forms of gender-affirming care for minors? If not, it's irrelevant. The BMJ article is not a secondary source, it is a primary one (see WP:MEDRS) and even then it does not once recommend that gender-affirming care should be legally banned or reference a country that has done so. It states that such bans are something conservatives are lobbying for, and then says there’s little dispute within the medical community that children in distress need care, giving examples of countries that have made such care somewhat harder to access, but not outright legally banned it. Even if we discount the ridiculous argument that LGBT sources are too biased to comment on LGBT issues, other sources have frequently stated 1) Cole speaks at "anti-trans rallies" 2) Cole supports "anti-trans legislation" and 3) reputable medical and human rights organizations have stated the bans she is supporting will be detrimental to the health of trans minors. Additionally, if we put aside the BS "think of the children" argument, how exactly is campaigning for Medicaid to not cover trans healthcare even for adults not "anti-trans"? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC) What is the question we are discussing :) ? Springee (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) You're right, when we're debating how FRINGE ACPeds is we've lost all track of the question. @Maddy from Celeste @Sideswipe9th could you comment on whether the sourcing supports "anti-trans activist"? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Remember that we need to sources to say it, not just be compatible with the label. We are dealing with a BLP label so Synth is not acceptable. Springee (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Sources do (and yes, LGBT publications count). Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH. If sources say a person is an anti-LGBT activist, and other reliable sources consistently say they hold "anti-LGBT rallies" and support "anti-LGBT legislation", that does add weight to the descriptor. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC) You are selectively ignoring the part about "widely used". You haven't shown the label is applied to her widely, especially outside of activist type sources. This is a BLP so we err on the side of caution. Applying a broad yet vaguely defined label is not caution. Springee (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the link, where Wikipedia does not call them fringe. As to the rest, consensus seems against your label, so guess my position isn't white washing after all but good try. Slywriter (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) It's important to remember that the enwiki community has a different definition of fringe than our sources generally do. The community consensus on ACPeds is that it is a FRINGE organisation, though we clearly do not call it that in the main space. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether Blade would withstand WP:BLPN scrutiny is debatable especially when higher quality sources like Retuers have avoided the term. SF Chronicle supports nothing. LGBTNation is same issue as blade. Kansas Reflector appears to be a glorified blogs journalist have complete editorial control per their own ethics statement, so unusable in a BLP. WUSF certainly says several anti trans but it fails to actually identify her as one. KC Star, WP:SYNTH. Orlando Weekly guilt by association, WP:SYNTH. Wyoming Public Media supports Day ng anti gender affirming care but not anti trans. Tennessee Lookout, if they dont't explicitly call her anti-trans, then how can we? Same for Nashville Scene... These are all WP:SYNTH and WP:OR where they match an expected worldview, come close enough to saying it, so a false belief arises that we can skip the ambiguity and just say it. Daily KOS explicitly avoids saying it and Reuters says "anti gender affirming care" so again no right for us to make the leap This is a a BLP. Need high quality sourcing to define someone's views without equivocation or attribution and frankly the Blade and LGBTNation are not those sources. And yes, sources need to say it. Synonyms and interpretations run the risk of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as objectively she is "anti gender affirming care to minors". Any statement beyond that is wordsmithing to fit the subject into a more restrictive and inflammatory definition and wrong. 19:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) … … Timestamped, but left unsigned by Slywriter … This note added by Pincrete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

[outdent attempt no. 2] In my opinion, based on the sources here, anti-trans is supported. I also think that it is maybe the best concise descriptor for the subject's activities. I wouldn't call it essential to describe her as such – a combination of other terms to similar effect is also reasonable and fine by me – but that is where my preference lies. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, yet let's see Reuters makes clear the lack of science behind the recommendations. As does the Swedish National Health Board. So no, she isn't anti-trans for having gone through surgery and having concerns and sharing those concerns. Write what she has said and supported, which is focused on minors and gender-affirming care. And sideswipe, they are too biased to take a label they apply to a person with little support and use it without attribution in the lede as a defining characteristic of the person. A label which appears to even lack a clear definition to apply as ADL's definition would not apply, also hard to apply transphobic as no hate is shown (only perceived) or shall we use the vague and useless wikictionary definition of "against trans people". Sorry, but a term that doesn't have clear meaning and can be misunderstood by readers based on their own belief of the words meaning shouldn't be used to describe a BLP, when specifics are available. Concise is not an excuse to be inaccurate.Slywriter (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter, the idea that gender-affirming care for minors should be made illegal is wholly WP:FRINGE. Reuters is not a WP:MEDRS source, and even then it quotes/references many medical experts and reputable medical organizations saying such care is necessary. The National Review is also not a WP:MEDRS source, and the Swedish National Health Board added more gatekeeping, they did not legally ban all gender-affirming care for minors. We'll take it to RSN if we have too, but LGBT news sources are not too biased for the label anti-trans/anti-LGBT, if anything they're more reliable. The ADL defines anti-trans as The marginalization and/or oppression of people who are transgender and/or nonbinary (identifying as neither a man nor a woman) based on the belief that cisgender (gender identity that corresponds with the sex one was assigned at birth) is the norm. - the government stepping in to ban what medical consensus finds best for trans minors absolutely fits that description. As does banning medicare for trans adults, IE, treating the healthcare needs of transgender people differently than the general population... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

and yet she has expressed no belief that 'cisgender is the norm'. So, the ADL definition fails. As to the rest, again all of that can be covered without a simplistic label of "anti-trans" in the lede. And no, an LGBT source labeling someone "Anti Trans" is not a better source. Not when other reliable sources avoid using the term.Slywriter (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, for a definition to apply the person must explicitly state it in the exact same wording... Unless she is campaigning for cisgender minors to not be able to make any health decisions, or for cisgender adults to not receive Medicaid for care deemed medically necessary, she is targeting transgender people in a way she doesn't target cisgender people. Her campaigning against the right of minors to transition is by default supporting the idea that cisgender is the norm, since she believes that minors should be forced to go through cisgender puberty (ie considering it normal) and campaigns against their right to go through a transgender one (ie considering it abnormal). LGBT sources may not be better, but they are not a worse source as you seem to believe (especially when they are WP:SIRS), and regardless, other reliable sources do use the term "anti-trans" to refer to her rallies and the legislation she pushes. This is getting ridiculous... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion this discussion may be going around in circles. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

And sideswipe, they are too biased to take a label they apply to a person with little support and use it without attribution in the lede as a defining characteristic of the person. Slywriter could you please rephrase and clarify what you meant here? I've re-read my previous comments, and the context to which they were replying and I don't see how this point relates to what I previously said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon my own review, no idea. Going to guess I misattributed a statement to you while scrolling in edit mode. Struck your name from above. Slywriter (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not sure what the rest of the sentence is in reference to, even devoid of it being a reply to me but thanks for doing this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

New Lede Discussion

WP:NOTFORUM should be kept in mind, some of this conversation is getting into forum territory. As far as I can see, most people on this talk page seem willing to accept an alternative wording to "anti-trans activist" in wikivoice, so I think this discussion should focus on finding a compromise that people can accept. Preferably it should be one that follows WP:LEDE (summarizes important content from the body with appropriate weight) and is informative and clear Tristario (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as alternative wording, I have not heard any issues with "anti-trans" that has not already been addressed and resolved here in the talk.

There were some concerns about sources used, though they fall within WP:RS and WP:BLPRS. This was addressed by simply using one of the other sources already provided. The main concern that Cole may only be accurately described as "anti-trans" if her work also targeted trans adults was based on a misconception as the article in its current form demonstrates just a few of the ways her work has done this.

At this point, what we are left with is the standard terminology doesn't feel great to some, so lets invent terminology of our own. Stylistically this will only worsen the issues with the already clunky lead. Since standard precise language exists, we should use it. Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no, the issues with anti-trans have not been addressed and resolved. I think editors who have longer experience with more topic areas will recognize that. Springee (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think editors who have longer experience Springee please do not personalise the discussion like this. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. I will note that editors with less than a month of experience may not be the best at judging when consensus has been reached. Springee (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I am new to the nuance of WP, though I have published academically on this topic more broadly. My intent was not to declare a consensus, but more check in. Given the start of the discussion was initially based on the misconception that her work only targets trans kids and not trans people generally.

I also see extensive back and forth on sourcing, but it seems to have devolved into advocating in favor of WP:FRINGE views and recent political policies in small countries over longstanding WP:MEDRS consensus. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned why I don't think it's a very good description here. I don't see why a compromise can't be found on this, and I think that's what the discussion should be focused on. Tristario (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, my concerns with the current lead is that it is unnecessarily specific and contradicted by the body, which demonstrates her political engagement in opposition to trans healthcare and trans people generally. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that as it stands the lede isn't summarizing the body very well and it is a little too specific. Those are both things which should be improved. One possible approach could be to list the various forms of advocacy she has taken that are covered in the body - rallies, speechs, advocating for bills, and the positions they've advocated for - allowing suing healthcare providers, prohibiting gender affirming care etc. Then naming some of the people or groups she's had significant involvement with. Then saying that media outlets such as insert examples have described her as an anti-trans activist. That kind of outline could give a good overview of what she's known for, her positions and associations, and how she's been described. Tristario (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So there are 3 main things we have to include:

• she's a detransitioner / some details of her transition and detransition (at least nobody's arguing about this part lol)
• her legislation and the specifics (primarily against gender-affirming care for minors and per Marjorie Taylor Greene and Florida she's also against federal/public funding for gender-affirming care at any age.)
• her rallies/panels (two of which have been attended by proud boys, so that's probably due, though someone removed that well-sourced detail from the Nashville rally...)

In regards to the latter two, sources consistently describe her rallies/legislation as anti-trans, so saying sources such as the Los Angeles Blade, LGBTQ Nation,Kansas Reflector, and WUSF News have called her an anti-trans activist

• 1) is unwieldy considering I believe there's at least 4, 6 if you include celebrity of the anti-trans movement(Xtra Magazine;San Francisco Chronicle)
• 2) is discounting that some are WP:SIRS and
• 3) doesn't accurately represent sources A-W describing the rallies/legislation as anti-trans too. Since RS commonly refer to those as anti-trans, we should too, but we'd be repeating ourselves when we could just say she's an anti-trans activist once then list what she's supported (activist who has supported anti-trans legislation against XYZ and spoken at anti-trans rallies against XYZ vs anti-trans activist who has supported legislation against XYZ and spoken at rallies against XYZ).

Considering that, here's my proposal:

• Chloe Cole (born 2003 or 2004) is an American anti-transgender activist and detransitioner. She is primarily known for advocating for legal bans on gender-affirming care for minors before state legislatures and in right-wing media, panels, and rallies which have been attended by Proud Boys. Cole has also supported legislation that would prohibit the use of public funds for gender-affirming care for adults [and prohibit colleges and universities from offering instruction in such care]. According to her, she began transitioning at 12 and detransitioned at 17, after having undergone puberty blockers, testosterone, and a double mastectomy.

Note, the brackets are because I'm not 100% set on including and prohibit colleges and universities from offering instruction in such care in the lead, since while it's true and important context she only seems to have done that once, while the public funding has been twice.

The Proud Boys have verifiably attended at least two of her rallies, notably there is no other group RS have said to be present at her rallies twice

And in terms of being anti-trans, I also can't help but note at the Tenessee rally (which RS described as anti-trans), she called the trans community a "cult" and the organizer said they can't be anti-trans because transgender does not exist. (which should be as patently absurd to anyone as saying "we're not homophobic - homosexual doesn't exist"...)

I also think it's important to note, by my count only 4 people have wholly objected to the term anti-trans activist being used to describe her (not just said there might be better terms) - one of them's a blocked sockpuppet, and the other 3 have argued variously/overlappingly that 1) LGBT sources (even SIRS) are too biased for us to weigh them like any other source 2) it is WP:SYNTH to point to multiple RS calling her an anti-trans activist and dozens more saying she supports anti-trans legislation/speaks at anti-trans rallies, which is very much not SYNTH, 3) that she's only focused on minors so it isn't anti-trans, ignoring her support of bills restricting access for adults too, and 4) defended the American College of Pediatricians. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sourcing for "anti-trans activist", it's actually a bit worse than I realized, those aren't very strong sources, three of them are passing mentions, and one uses it in a subheading (see WP:HEADLINES). A group simply attending her rallies also doesn't seem due for the lede, especially if it's the only group being mentioned. I also think introducing someone as a "detransitioner" sounds a little odd, and I also think not everyone may immediately recognize what that means

I don't have strong views on this so I will probably not continue to take part in this discussion. I think that wikipedia works well when people try to find a compromise and take account of eachother's concerns, and I hope that's something that can be done here. Tristario (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a good proposal. Again it includes anti-transgender which is a claim that is not sufficiently supported. I also think we need to be more careful about what she is actually opposing. I think "for miniors" is clearly established but is she against all types of gender affirming care or just medical interventions? This source [36] includes both medical and non-medical care. If we are using her support of various bills as proof (not a good idea in general) what do the various texts of those laws say? Conversely, what does her testimony say/focus on? If activist/special interest sources like LGBTQ Nation are overly broad in their claims vs her testimony then we need to consider that when citing them. Finally, the mention of the Proud Boys should be entirely removed from the article as a guilt by association mention. It has absolutely no place in the lead and the suggestion to include it so prominently would only serve to make this look like SEO attack article trying to associate someone with a despised group. Springee (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Gender-affirming care without the medical interventions is nothing. The whole point of GAC is developmentally appropriate medical interventions based on respecting the person's wishes. LGBT sources are not "activist". Tristario said naming some of the people or groups she's had significant involvement with - only the Proud Boys have been noted to be repeat attendees, so I didn't know which other group to include. However, while I can agree it probably isn't due in the lead, removing the fact Proud Boys have attended her rallies and been violent from the body, which is covered by RS, who often note they were a large chunk of/the majority of attendees, is blatant WP:WHITEWASHing TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case we should be clear that it's medical gender affirming care, not something broader given at least one source says such care can be non-medical. I said activist/special interest. That's either or. Regardless, if they claim something that isn't true to the actual text of the law we need to treat their claims with additional caution. As for the PBs, there is no evidence that she associates with them. Pushing a guilt by association narrative in a BLP article is a serious problem and may need to be addressed on a noticeboard. Springee (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1) given at least one source says such care can be non-medical. - which source are you referring to? And gender-affirming care without any medical aspects is no longer gender-affirming care. As @Sideswipe9th put it the correct and current umbrella term for the surgical and HRT options that Cole opposes is gender-affirming care.

2) if they claim something that isn't true to the actual text of the law we need to treat their claims with additional caution - which source / falsity are you referring to?

3) As for the PBs, there is no evidence that she associates with them. - sources don't say "she associated with them", they say they've attended her rallies in support, which is verifiable and neutral and certainly belongs in the body, since RS have noted their large presence at her rallies. The PB's supporting her doesn't mean she supports them and nowhere in the article does it claim she does nor have I stated it should. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. For the source see the link I provided in this edit [37] 2. This will require more review of the sources, I will try to do it later. 3. When you put the association in the article you imply the connection. If you can't understand that then you shouldn't edit a BLP article. 4. Please stop bludgeoning the talk page. Springee (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So for (2) you're saying you haven't any reason to believe they are misquoting, but because you insinuate they might be, we should somehow care? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I do have a concern but not the time to investigate it. If the source says the bill prohibits all gender affirming care and I have a source that says "gender affirming care" includes both medical and non-medical then we should check to see what the bill itself says. If the bill only talks about medical then either the source saying "prohibits all" is being careless with wording or is over starting the facts. Either would be an issue for reliability. To check this we need to both review the law itself as well as the claims in the source. Springee (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"gender affirming care" includes both medical and non-medical - once you remove the medical care, it is no longer gender-affirming care. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that your opinion or a sourced fact? If it's a fact then all who recieve such care must recieve all parts or they didn't recieve the care per the logic you have outlined. If the law only covers part of the care then that should be clear. If the source doesn't make that clear then they aren't being accurate in their coverage. Anyway, I'm going to stop replying until I can look into this more. Note that their isn't consensus to change the lead at this time. Springee (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Gender affirming care refers to a model that specifically includes various forms of medical care as options. Transgender health care would be a good place to start if you wish to begin to familiarize yourself with the topic. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The details do matter here. I'm fine with saying "gender affirming care" but we should be clear about which parts. Springee (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

1) Ah, the one that does not mention Cole and is not a WP:MEDRS? But it's nice you linked a source that say Those supporting anti-transgender bills often argue that individuals may express regret after undergoing medical interventions, and hormonal therapies may also affect their bone health or fertility It also states that Gender-affirming care can best be defined as the psychological, social, and medical healthcare designed to affirm individuals’ gender identities. - opposing the medical healthcare is opposing the care, since you are no longer affirming but questioning individual's gender identities and forcing them to go through the wrong puberty.

2) what Madeline said

3) No more connection is implied than the fact they showed up. "It might make the person look bad to accurately describe the attendance of her rallies" is not based on wiki-policy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

TTA, no one is going to defend grotesque things said by others at ANY event.

I really don't think you are the best person to summarise the views of people you strongly disagree with, but as you have done so I will respond.

AFAIK, no one has discounted LGBT sources, but I do think they ordinarily would be WP:WEIGHTed - as would also happen with very partisan political/religious sources. But by my count, even giving LGBT sources full weight and discounting most/all 'opposing' political/religious sources, the numbers don't add up, and certainly don't reach the 'near universal level' that is usually required to apply a contentious label in WP:VOICE.

I wholly endorse that many arguments offered are pure SYNTH. Put crudely, by analogy, not everyone who opposes Israel or speaks in favour of policies that may harm Israel is automatically an anti-Semite. We need it to be said explicitly to be framed as an attributed accusation, and need it to be nearly universally said explicitly to be framed as a fact.

The fact that she focuses on minors and particular treatments IMO should be made VERY explicit, but it has little bearing on whether she is generally described as anti-trans.

Finally, I know nothing about that US paediatric association EXCEPT that it is a legitimate professional association AFAIK. Also AFAIK it is not a FRINGE organisation in WP terms, but has an alternate (albeit minority) viewpoint. More importantly however, this is ostensibly a BLP article about Cole, it is not a "winner takes all" WP:COATRACK about which view of care generally prevails in US or elsewhere. Being a WP:RS for factual matters has little to do with whether one holds the majority viewpoint on this or any other matter. But my partial 'defence' of that paediatric association and that MD has no bearing whatsoever on whether she is anti-trans. Neither I nor anyone else has sought to argue anywhere AFAIK that those MDs don't call her anti-trans, so neither should we, or to use them as a source for anything. In fact AFAIK, no MDs have labelled her either way. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've offered before, but we can take "should LGBT publications have less weight for the label anti-LGBT/anti-trans to RSN". We don't need to discount political/religious sources, simply sticking to RS we have 1) she supports anti-trans bills, 2) she speaks at anti-trans rallies 3) medical bodies have stated her proposed bills would be harmful to transgender youth 4) she has even supported policies to make gender-affirming care harder for adults to access.

Read WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH. By analogy, it is not everyone who opposes Israel or speaks in favour of policies that may harm Israel is automatically an anti-Semite. We need it to be said explicitly to be framed as an attributed accusation, it is sources say she is an "antisemitic activist", and sources frequently say she speaks at "antisemitic rallies" and supports "antisemitic legislation".

• Per WP:SYNTH: "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article - and she supports anti-trans legislation, therefore she is an anti-trans activist fits that.
• WP:LABEL links to WP:BLPSTYLE, which states Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources

The fact that she focuses on minors and particular treatments IMO should be made VERY explicit - I agree, but those "particular treatments" are known as gender-affirming care, as others have already explained. Further, in my proposed lead, you see it explicit that she is primarily known for advocating for legal bans on gender-affirming care for minors, but that dprimarily knownoesn't mean we can't mention the other things she's supported

So far, 3 people have tried to explain to you that the American College of Pediatricians is a WP:FRINGE organization, both in terms of the fact they support conversion therapy and oppose gay couples adopting, which should make it obvious, and the fact community consensus is very clear they are a WP:FRINGE organization. Stating it is a legitimate professional association AFAIK. Also AFAIK it is not a FRINGE organisation in WP terms - is classic WP:IDHT. WP:MEDRS have stated that the bills she supports are harmful to transgender youth, saying that doesn't count because they don't use "anti-trans" is missing the forest through the trees.

All that being said, here's a proposed alternative lead:

Chloe Cole (born 2003 or 2004) is an American conservative activist who has been described as an "anti-trans activist" and "celebrity of the anti-trans movement". She is primarily known for advocating for criminalizing and legally banning the provision of gender-affirming care to transgender minors before state legislatures and in right-wing media, panels, and rallies. Cole has also supported legislation that would prohibit the use of public funds for gender-affirming care for adults. According to her, she began transitioning at 12 and detransitioned at 17, after receiving, progressively, puberty blockers, testosterone, and a double mastectomy.

Wrt conservative activist: like I said earlier, if Fox and Reuters both state someone's a conservative activist, it's hard to argue otherwise. A lot more sources call her a right-wing/conservative activist on every side of the political spectrum so that seems due.

@Tristario I know you've said you want to step away but you seem to have a very level-headed approach to this - I've tried to compromise more with this version, what do you think? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This lead suggestion is not acceptable. She is not a "conservative activist" and putting "anti-trans" activist in the opening sentence is not ok. Again it gives the strong impression this article is aimed at SEO rather than being IMPARTIAL. The same applies to the "celebrity" comment. The bills supported part is also just back doors to try to include disputed content in the lead. This is even more problematic since you removed details about one of the bills here [38] Springee (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite a lot of sources call her a conservative/right-wing activist. I did not put "anti-trans activist" directly in the opening sentence, I put that she has been labelled one there, which the majority of people discussing have found to be an acceptable compromise. Two separate sources have called her a celebrity of the anti-trans movement. Has she not been described as such?

Also, I love how you can say I removed details about one of the bills, linking to a diff where I re-added details about the bill that someone else had removed... If you want to take issue with someone removing details, take it up with Pincrete, not me TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. I wouldn't personally say "conservative activist", but it seems like an acceptable and accurate term at least, and less contentious than "anti-trans activist". Also, I do think something about her detransitioning should probably be put in the first sentence of the lede (though that might make the sentence too long), I just don't think she should be called a "detransitioner".

I would also put the part about "anti-trans activist" or "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" further down in the lede eg.

"Chloe Cole (born 2003 or 2004) is an American conservative activist who is primarily known for advocating for criminalizing and legally banning the provision of gender-affirming care to transgender minors before state legislatures and in right-wing media, panels, and rallies. Cole has also supported legislation that would prohibit the use of public funds for gender-affirming care for adults. She has been described as a "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" or an "anti-trans activist". According to her, she began transitioning at 12 and detransitioned at 17, after receiving, progressively, puberty blockers, testosterone, and a double mastectomy." Tristario (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that somehow mentioning her detransition could be due in the first sentence, and "detransitioner" is a poorly defined concept (most of those who've detransitioned usually just say they detransitioned or did so temporarily, while "detransitioner" tends to be used as an identity similar to ex-gay), perhaps ... an American conservative activist who describes herself as a "former trans kid and is primarily known for..." works? That's fairly self-explanatory and I don't see how it could be contentious. Also, if it seems too much of a run-on sentence, we could split it into ..."former trans kid". She is primarily known for... Putting the "described as ..." after her activism seems like a good place for it.

I also think we might want to be a bit more specific as to her transition/detransition as we say she received 3 different treatments over a 5 year time period. I'd write that like:

According to her, she told her parents she was a transgender boy at 12 years old, was prescribed puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, and a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16. At 17, she detransitioned and reverted to using her birth name.

With that, I think the proposal looks pretty good! Only other note is I'd say described as a "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" and an "anti-trans activist", as opposed to or.

Putting it all together with sources, how does this look?

Chloe Cole (born 2003 or 2004) is an American conservative activist who describes herself as a "former trans kid" and is primarily known for advocating for criminalizing and legally banning the provision of gender-affirming care to transgender minors before state legislatures and in right-wing media, panels, and rallies.[1][2] Cole has also supported legislation that would prohibit the use of public funds for gender-affirming care for adults.[1][3] She has been described as a "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" and an "anti-trans activist"[1][3][4][5]6]. According to her, she told her parents she was a transgender boy at 12 years old, was prescribed puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, and a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16. At 17, she detransitioned and reverted to using her birth name.[1][2] TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we need the last two sentences, beginning from "According to her, she...", in the lead? Based on the current relative section sizes, we say far more about her activism than her personal life and medical history. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if we should keep it remove it to be honest. While we say much more about her activism, we do say a bit about her transition/detransition, and it seems relevant context for the lead, her notability, and activism, and isn't given undue prominence. I'd be fine with removing it, keeping it, or splitting it into its own short paragraph in the lead, leaning towards one of the latter two. I expanded it from the previous version since it inadequately summarized her transition timeline and seemed to leave a lot open for interpretation. If we could shorten it without sacrificing relevant information that would be ideal. Perhaps we could change it to according to her, she said she was trans at 12 years old and received puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later, and a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16. She detransitioned at 17. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think something roughly along those lines seems pretty good. But I think introducing her as saying she describes herself as a "former trans kid" - that also sounds a little odd. And I don't think we need the kind of detail about telling her parents she was a transgender boy (seems like a very specific description to include in the lede) and the ages of treatments. I also prefer "or", sources aren't generally using both of those descriptions simultaneously. But don't have strong feelings on that Tristario (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It's kinda funny how apparently the most difficult part of this is actually how to mention her detransition lol. Perhaps this works?

Chloe Cole (born 2003 or 2004) is an American conservative activist who is primarily known for ... She has described as a "celebrity of the anti-trans movement" and an "anti-trans activist". Cole describes herself as a "former trans kid", having transitioned at 12 years old[, received gender-affirming care from 13-16 years old,] and detransitioned at 17.

• brackets are because I'm not sure if we should include

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks quite good in my view. As always, possibly it could be adjusted here and there. But I don't see any significant issues with that Tristario (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The existing lead is better as it better follows IMPARTIAL. First, Cole is not a conservative activist. Conservative's may be interested in her message but sources don't consistently call her "conservative". Activist against gender affirming care (the scope needs to be clear) is more specific and clear. The "described as" is a backdoor way to include a description that otherwise would fail LABEL. There is no reason to include it as it isn't any more specific than the previous description. I would suggest something direct and IMPARTIAL Chloe Cole is an American activist who opposes gender-affirming care for minors and has supported bans on such care following her own detransition. She has appeared with politicians supporting bans in state legislatures and advocated for such bans in the media. She says that, after telling her parents she was a trans boy at 12, she started puberty blockers at 13, testosterone a month later and underwent a double mastectomy a month before she turned 16. She detransitioned at 17. Springee (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Springee's also (largely) works for me. and I agree that there is no indication that Cole is a 'conservative activist' or indeed what her politics are at all. I would endorse that 'the scope (of the gender affirming care) needs to be clear somewhere. Partly because 'gender affirming care' as a term is so 'umbrella-ish' that it is unclear what is specifically being spoken about/against (medical transition - or surgery, hormones and puberty blockers). Partly, the term is borderline medical WP:JARGON, which many people won't understand. Lastly it is one of those 'pro choice'/'pro-life' terms that are so 'value-laden' that they are fairly obfuscatory. The various 'described as's - including her own - seem to add nothing material. How is her describing herself as a 'former trans kid' lead-worthy? AFAIK only two sources mention it.

Cole is obviously the darling of one 'side' of this debate and fairly disliked by some on the other 'side'. Both 'sides' are probably best kept out of the lead. Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the summary from Springee is respresenting what various reliable sources have said about Cole that well, or summarizes the body of the article that well. I do think that how reliable sources have characterized Cole (or aspects of her) is informative information. Perhaps you or Springee could propose something which takes into account the concerns that Tranarchist and others have raised, which I think are valid Tristario (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Which facts do you think aren't being adequately mentioned. Note, we should avoid putting subjective labels/claims in the lead. This is why we avoid things like "she has been described as...". This is especially true when relatively few sources describe her as such. The same is true when people want to put loaded language in the lead. The ARBCOM case that lead to many of the BLP rules and consideration started with a clear message, "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."[39] Loading the lead with contentious descriptions of her or the media outlets that are currently willing to listen to her can fail IMPARTIAL and thus is a violation of the do no harm mantra. That said, I'm open to knowing what information from the body should be added to this lead suggestion. Springee (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently I don't think the lede captures such things as the groups and people she has engaged with, the associated rhetoric, how it's been received, how it's been described by reliable sources, and the things she has advocated for. Those things are variously covered in reliable sources and the body.

I agree that subjective labels should be avoided, but they can still be informative when attributed. Tristario (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the who she associates with is that can lead to guilt by association comments. Often people like Cole are with these groups not because they are really happy with that side but because they are at least listening. Alan Dershowitz has talked about this noting that he used to be invited on both left and right leaning news programs. However, since defending Trump the left no longer wants to hear what he has to say (according to him). The problem with the subjective labels is they use loaded language. We can show rather than (attributed) tell. Again, this comes down to do no harm and be IMPARTIAL in our telling. Springee (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you propose something (or an outline of something) which can show these things then? Because we still need to summarize this information somehow, and follow WP:NPOV ie. represent what reliable sources say Tristario (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need anything more. The article isn't that long and the lead adequately summarizes the main points without picking sides/violating IMPARTIAL. Note that IMPARTIAL is part of NPOV and the critical parts of the article body are in the lead. Springee (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate representation of WP:IMPARTIAL. You can still attribute things, describe disputes and viewpoints according to WP:IMPARTIAL. In fact, it seems to be saying that's something that you should do, just in an impartial manner and tone. Tristario (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This would work for me. It does a great job of addresses my concerns with the wording re her transition and detransition. Filiforme1312 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• comment - I would like to change this section title to "Lead" since that is what this section is about, not "lede" which is news like. --Malerooster (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I was originally planning to name it "lead" instead of "lede", but have never been sure which to use lol. Since Tristario started off linking to WP:LEDE, I thought the latter more appropriate. While I don't have particularly strong feelings either way, I find it best not to rename sections once published, especially if the meaning's still clear. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think we have bigger problems to worry about than the Engvar issue of lead vs lede on naming talk page sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  True lol - I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on the current lede proposals! Any issues/concerns with either mine/Tristario's or Springee's that you can see or think of a way to reconcile? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still coming to an opinion on those two choices. When I have one, or an alternative I'll be sure to share it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts about the slate article quote being wp:undue

In reception, there is this bit of prose:

In January 2023, an article in Slate stated that the stories about detransitioners "that go viral turn out to have cleaned up the untidy bits, where the detransitioned person explains they believe they experienced gender dysphoria the same way other trans people do, and decided to detransition due to their newfound moral or ideological beliefs", listing Cole as an example.[25]

I have removed it, believing it is undue. This article isn't about the subject of this BLP or anything they have or haven't done, and doesn't actually tell us anything about the subject of the article. It feels like excessive cruft/coat rack. User @Licks-rocks:, believing that it does in fact add value, has added it back. I still believe this particular prose is unwieldy and noninformative, and I'm not sure what we are supposed to learn about the subject of this article by reading that quote. I'd like to leave it here for discussion. Very Average Editor (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Here we go, this is the talk page entry about the prose I mentioned. If you would like to direct any questions to me about changes to that text, please do it here instead of in comments to other editors to help keep things easier to read. Very Average Editor (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Your reverting me caused me to double check the source and that article looks a bit too much like an opinion piece for my tastes, so disregard. The article does make a large enough mention of cole to be eligible for inclusion besides that point though. I think a specific call out by name is probably enough to warrant inclusion in most cases. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

After reading more, I think we should discard the Blade source used here entirely. The author has advocated for violence against the subject of this article. [40]. I don't think it would be appropriate to have entire sections of their bio based on an article by someone who "condones any and all violence" against the subject of the BLP... Very Average Editor (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I do hope you intend this as a joke. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

While this journalists activism is certainly of concern, that is something the editors at her publisher will have to address. The problem I have with the inclusion of this article as a source for BLP is without more context is appears to be a violation of NPOV. In addition, it has no nuance or exploration into _why_ they've made that claim about Chloe, the author sort of just tosses Chloe into a pool of activist names whose actions or beliefs she doesn't agree with (simply because they go "viral"). It's hardly objective, and with BLPs one must take into consideration the tone and characterizations leveraged towards a living person. Wikipedia isn't a battleground. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'd support inclusion of this prose if there were other secondary sources that covered Chloe's position more in depth. User:Licks-rocks do you know of any other articles or reliable sources that cover how Chloe has or has not experience dysphoria in more detail? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This is frequently a problem when we try to use what could be viewed as off hand mentions in articles from RS. In scholarly writing we wouldn't accept a significant claim from a source that doesn't offer evidence. Saying X is Y without offering the why basically makes it an off hand comment. As an example, in the Ford Pinto article a number of sources said Ford did a cost benefit analysis that weighed the cost of fixing a problem vs paying out lawsuits. This was often repeated in sources as it had become an urban truth. However, the few sources that actually looked into the case showed it wasn't true. If a RS says Hudson Hawk was a movie failure is that a reliable reference? If they don't provide evidence (reviews, profits etc) then no, is not. Returning to this case, a RS may reference something as an example but if they don't provide evidence how much weight should we give it? This appears to be a case where an off hand claim is made about the subject but no evidence is given. If the claim is contentious or value laden then we need not just the claim but the evidence. Springee (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree with you, Springee, about editors evaluating the evidence an RS offers in support of its characterisations - that way madness lies. However, I also don't prefer anti-transgender activist based on meagre sourcing, particularly when we can be more precise. Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I was only talking about the source supporting this bit of content [41]. I took that to be the discussion in question here. I wasn't thinking of the other issue regarding the use of "anti-transgender activist". I think your compromise proposal was a good path forward in that area. Springee (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This subthread has also addressed the Blade interview and other facets of the topic. I try to keep an open mind about what it's supposed to be about. :p Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the most antagonistic arguments are the ones when we can't keep track of what we are each actually arguing about! :o Springee (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc, I'm not sure what you're asking about this article's subject and dysphoria.

As far as labels go, I find Fox News's Conservative activist and detransitioner [42] to be an unusually apposite phrase, but Fox News is sadly not a reliable source in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm requesting if there is another source which explores the subject in better detail directly with regards to Chloe. As I mentioned, she seems to have been "lumped" into a crowd here without any nuance or framing as to how Chloe belongs in that particular group. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources that give Chloe the most bandwidth are simply not very good sources, e.g., The New York Post and The Daily Signal. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what the Slate writer is saying about Cole's "newfound moral or ideological beliefs" or what "untidy bits" have supposedly been "cleaned up", nor by whom. I wonder if they do. Given that the writer seems happy to imply some sinister "moral or ideological" undercurrent, but cannot name it, why are we echoing the insinuation at all?Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed this Slate piece as, it did not appear to say anything about Cole herself, apart from a vague insinuation that most detransitioners had some "newfound moral or ideological beliefs" which motivated them, so she must do as well. Also there appear to be general agreement above that it was WP:UNDUE. It was restored with the edit reason 'Just because you don't like what they said doesn't mean that a RS didn't say it about Cole. Well RS say all sorts of things about all sorts of people, we aren't obliged to include the more scurrilous or vague ones. It has nothing to do with me not liking what Slade said.Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It literally said Cole was an example of the quoted description. The quoted text and even source never convey a vague insinuation that most detransitioners had some "newfound moral or ideological beliefs" which motivated them, it is very particular that this comment refers to those who actively campaign against transgender healthcare and go viral for it. The whole article is explicit that the kind of narrative promoted by Cole is wholly atypical of the majority of cases of detransition.

The full quote from Slate is So how should we think about detransition? Mainstream audiences seem drawn to a very atypical type of detransition story (the right-wing media seems to find a new one about every six months, while the mainstream rediscovers detransition every couple of years), one where a cisgender person falsely believes themselves to be trans, takes steps that permanently alters their appearance, then finds they’re unhappy living as another sex, feeling intense regret that they’ve made a “terrible mistake.”
The thing is, in my years of work covering trans issues, I have never come across a story that continued to fit the pattern of a cis person who made a mistake after I’ve read all the smaller, less viral interviews the detransitioned person ever gave. There are detransitioned people whose stories have been presented that way by reporters, but the stories that go viral turn out to have cleaned up the untidy bits, where the detransitioned person explains they believe they experienced gender dysphoria the same way other trans people do, and decided to detransition due to their newfound moral or ideological beliefs. This group includes Chris Beck, Chloe Cole, and all or almost all the detransitioned people whose stories have become popular in the mainstream. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, it speaks of most 'campaigners', rather than most 'detransitioners'. It still says nothing at all about what actually are Cole's "newfound moral or ideological beliefs" or what "untidy bits" have supposedly been "cleaned up", nor by whom. Throwing generalised mud is no different whoever the target, or target group are. It's basically a "trust me she's fishy". Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This claim has a number of issues and since this is a BLP we should err on the side of exclusion. First, Slate isn't the best of sources for a claim that basically suggests Cole's motives or claims are less that truthful. However, Slate's reputation alone isn't sufficient to decide this question. The bigger issue is this is almost a throw away accusation in an article that doesn't focus on Cole. This is like an article that is largely about corporate greed and not caring about customers mentioning "Ford deciding it was cheaper to pay out lawsuits vs fix the Pinto". It makes for a nice pointed example but no evidence is provided to support either the claim against Ford or Cole. In the case of Ford the scholarly evidence is that the popular claim is false. So when a writer at Slate makes a claim that implies Cole is not being honest we need more than just "Slate said so" before we include it in a BLP article. There needs to be evidence, examples etc. So long as we don't have that it needs to go. Springee (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree this is not appropriate in a BLP. It is not clear why the author is particularly authoritative on the subject's medical history, and merely throwing the subject in as what the author seems to believe is an example of the general issue the author is discussing is really ancillary to a biography of the subject. Rlendog (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Reactions

Firstly, if one reads the "Reactions" section one would get the impression that all rections to her testimony have been negative? I'm no great fan of many of the conservative outlets that have covered this young woman's commentary, but they presumably reacted as much as more critical ones and they are at least as WP:RS as to their own 'reactions' as the sources currently used. This is mainly a WP:WEIGHT matter, rather than a WP:V issue. You cannot name a section 'Reactions' and then only include the critical/sceptical parts of the critical/sceptical reactions.

More specifically, apart from doubts about the 'Slate' claim explored above, why do we have: "The Los Angeles Blade noticed that trans adults on Twitter were critical of Cole's claims. One such criticism was the fact that surgery can take years of planning and preparation and is not done on a whim" Apart from the obvious matter of wondering when anon tweets became 'notable' and 'reliable', the source hardly says this: "Since her emergence on the public scene in April, trans adults have been digging into Cole’s claims. Some note the fact that surgery takes years of planning and preparation and is not done on a whim or under pressure" - The LA Blade then links to a single tweet making the "years of prep" claim. Why is this anyway important? Some tweeters doubt her veracity? So we have to record and amplify tweeter's scepticism, but ignore much else in that source and others. Pincrete (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC) … I don't know how WP:RS this outlet is, but this source specifically quotes an endocrinologist 'debunking' many of the 'doubts' expressed in the Blade article and affirming Cole’s testimony. Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

CBN is likely not going to be accepted as a WP:RS, however, one might argue that Blade isn't a suitable source for contentious claims on a BLP either. I agree with your opinion regarding the "Reactions" section as well. How can we clean this up and bring in differing viewpoints, do we just have to wait until a source that is considered reliable gives differing perspectives? Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources there include 1) reactions to her specifically 2) RS commenting on her reception in outlets supportive of her. I think you're right we should probably add more, but summarizing a past similar dicussion I had: we can't cite Breitbart for their own opinion on a subject, we have to have a reliable source discussing Breitbart's opinion.

In regards to twitter, that wasn't my wording and you're right it could be cleaned up.

In regards to CBN, past RSN discussions have seemed to find it shouldn't be used for anything controversial. If there are no better sources for "Forbes pulled the article because of factual inaccuracies" than CBN, which sources that to the Daily Wire (of which RSP says There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting) we shouldn't include it. Michael Laidlaw, the endocrinologist in question, is a member of the American College of Pediatricians, a profoundly anti-LGBT group known for it's misinformation. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing that the CBN source be used to counter 'LA Blade' - doing so would only create a "she says - he says" ping-pong about matters of questionable importance. The CBN piece merely adds to the impression that our claim that "trans adults on Twitter were critical of Cole's claims" is hearsay at best. That claim says nothing other than that some people don't believe her, though about what is not really made clear. Is there anything that anyone ever says publicly that isn't questioned by at least one person on social media?

I wouldn't want to use the CBN piece for that purpose, because it isn't worth doing, but since when did an endocrinologist cease to know about medicine because he belongs to the 'wrong' pediatric association? AFAI can see, he was confirming nothing other than that the account of Cole's medical history which is in the public domain is (broadly) accurate. That also isn't a confirmation that we would want to use here, since any claim that Cole was not being truthful should be much better and more clearly sourced than the vague insinuations offered at present. Pincrete (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the questionable sentence. A related issue is what is this section for, and is there are better title? "Reception" sections are usually in film, book, event etc articles rather than BLP articles. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Responding to this and this here, so as not to add even more off-topic conversation to the "anti-transgender activism" section.

When it was pointed out that medical organizations by overwhelming consensus agree that gender-affirming care is the right option, you tried to portray a false controversy departing from MEDRS with your comment Medical experts obviously have expertise on medical matters - but even that is not universally accepted iro trans treatments. You yourself sought to discount the views of a qualified endocronologist because he belonged to the 'wrong' medical association.

When another editor told you Laidlaw/ACPeds was fringe, you replied You dismissed Laidlaw as not being reliable iro him having verified Cole's medical history - what she was prescribed and when, ie you thought he was incapable either of being honest or of understanding basic medical records that probably any first year medical student could understand. - I pointed out he is a fringe doctor. Notably, he doesn't verify her medical history and barely comments on what she was perscribed and when.

You initially stated in this section that I don't know how WP:RS this outlet is, but this source specifically quotes an endocrinologist 'debunking' many of the 'doubts' expressed in the Blade article and affirming Cole’s testimony

• The only doubt you'd referred to was: Since her emergence on the public scene in April, trans adults have been digging into Cole’s claims. Some note the fact that surgery takes years of planning and preparation and is not done on a whim or under pressure Laidlaw doesn't mention this point at all...

When I pointed out Laidlaw was part of ACPeds, a FRINGE group, you replied since when did an endocrinologist cease to know about medicine because he belongs to the 'wrong' pediatric association? AFAI can see, he was confirming nothing other than that the account of Cole's medical history which is in the public domain is (broadly) accurate.

• For a start, ACPeds is literally known for misusing or mischaracterizing [scientific research] to advance ACPeds' political agenda
• What Laidlaw directly responds to in the source was Ennis's statement that Endocrinologists generally do not prescribe puberty blockers and testosterone simultaneously; typically, someone would get puberty blockers prior to experiencing puberty, and testosterone would be prescribed thereafter. Cole tweeted that her doctor did not follow the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care.
• He states My experience in reviewing transitions and detransitions is that the clinicians and other health care providers involved in medical care often do not follow even WPATH’s ill-conceived guidelines, These gender quacks don’t understand basic endocrine physiology and prescribe whatever toxic concoctions they dream up. Unfortunately, young people like Chloe [Cole] pay a heavy price for this experimentation on our youth.
• For reference, in the LA Blade interview, Cole says she was perscribed Lupron at 13 (February 2018) and took it for about a year, followed by testosterone for about 2 years starting a month or so later (the source is unclear whether that was a month after she started Lupron or after she finished it, Reuters confirms it as a few weeks after starting)

So you said he "debunked" criticisms/questions mentioned by Ennis. You referred to a section he didn't even speak on and removed it. What he (a WP:FRINGE doctor) directly spoke on (to the GUNREL daily wire) was Ennis saying puberty blockers and hormones usually aren't prescribed simultaneously - he acknowledged that she was correct according to WPATH's guides, the standard for trans healthcare, then offered his un-evidenced opinion that medical providers often do not follow them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What Cole opposes

In quite a number of cases, the soutce is explicit that Cole has opposed surgery and hormones/puberty blockers specifically for minors - however our article implies that she opposes gender-affirming care in general (or gender-affirming care for minors) without being specific. The distinction is material IMO, although the more partisan sources are sometimes less precise about this. I have amended those instances where I am able to access the source, which is often the local news source. I cannot access all sources because of my location, or other reasons. Just bringing this to other's attention. Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to this change, I've reverted it. The correct and current umbrella term for the surgical and HRT options that Cole opposes is gender-affirming care. It's no longer referred to as "sex reassignment therapy", "sex reassignment surgery", and definitely not referred to as "chemical therapies". Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No I wasn't referring to that change, but it is pertinent. The term I was using was Medical transition, my motive being that whilst the generic term for all recognised treatments relating to 'trans' people is 'gender-affirming care', this includes evaluation, counselling and such like. The opposition expressed by Cole is solely to surgical treatment, puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. Also I believe that some of this terminology and the distinctions are less familiar in Europe, where I live. I appreciate that there are sensitivities here, but I'm looking for a way to be precise without being too cumbersome or crass. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears that Cole is concerned about treatments that are irreversible. Springee (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "treatments that are irreversible"? Is there a source that says it or is that just your opinion? She supports banning puberty blockers, the whole point of which is being reversible. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think my statement is clear. In reading the sources in general it appears that Cole is concerned about irreversible treatments. Of course a specific source would be required to put that claim into the article. Springee (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

dlthewave, I understand that it is not known whether puberty blockers are wholly reversible. There are obvious practical and ethical difficulties in establishing what immediate and long term effects they have. Regardless, Cole has made it clear that she is opposed to surgical treatment, puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. That she thinks this because she believes these can cause permanent changes, would simply be a 'personal motive'. Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS disagree, they consistently state the whole point of prescribing puberty blockers is that they can be reversed. Besides, Cole has never seemed concerned about the irreversible effects of the wrong puberty on trans kids. Not prescribing blockers or hormones are not some neutral option, they force trans kids to go through irreversible pubertal changes they explicitly do not want. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Well that isn't what the linked article says - which is presumably MEDRS consistent. Unknown long term effects would be a reasonable summary of what is said there. Medical care doesn't work like that, and nor do people giving 'testimony' as to their own experience. We all except a witness to truthfully record what they know, not to accept responsibility for matters outside their experience. The 'jury' evaluates the balance of competing evidence, in this case that is a mixture of lawmakers and public opinion. Doctors - as far as possible - are expected to do no harm and to treat patients as individuals, not decide which group is statistically more 'oppressed' or 'distressed' and to treat with that consideration uppermost. Whether that was done with adequate care and 'safe-guarding' in Cole's case is pretty suspect. We don't need to pitch Cole - and others like her - against trans people, as though only one group can be humanely served. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Chronology errors

I recently watched a long interview with Cole, in that interview she said that she had had various problems at school and was diagnosed with mild autism at around nine. She continued that she hit puberty relatively early and had all sorts of negative feelings and experiences relating to being female, but had no psychological or counselling help between about 9 and 13, but spent a lot of time on social media and sometime before the age of 13 she became convinced that she had GD and subsequently told her parents. They/she consulted 2 psychologists from the same provider and fairly soon was she diagnosed as gender dysphoric and given medical treatment.

We render this as her being diagnosed as gender dysphoric at aged nine and telling her parents at 13. Ours is accurately what the source used (San Fran Chr- mainly about the lawsuit) says "that Cole was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at age 9 and was treated at Kaiser clinics in the Bay Area between ages 13 and 17".

The lawsuit ITSELF says: "Chloe began to go through puberty earlier than most of her peers and experienced bullying and teasing by her pears as result. She also had difficulty at school and trouble with social interaction and learning. On September 12, 2012, at eight years old, she was diagnosed with Disruptive Behavior Disorder. On November 26, 2013, at nine years old,she had a diagnosis indicating an “encounter for school problem.” On October 9, 2015, she had a diagnosis of ADHD. She received no mental health counseling related to her social and behavioral problems at school and was never diagnosed or treated for autism spectrum disorder, though she had multiple indications of being on the autism spectrum.

The lawsuit and interview seem to (broadly) match - while our and the San Fran Chronicle put the GD diagnosis at 9 and omit any mention of autism or other problems and don't 'explain' the seeming 4-year gap between diagnosis and seeking treatment.

I appreciate that neither the lawsuit, nor my memory of an interview can be used as WP:RSs but am just alerting others to what is possibly a significant error in the San Fran Chronicle's 'timings'. Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Stolen Innocence" panel

I just re-wrote the paragraph on the "Stolen Innocence" panel and removed the other mentions of the other panelists who attended since they didn't seem to be covered in RS. A quick question, I know the WP:POSTMIL is generally unreliable, but WP:GUNREL states The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, linking to WP:ABOUTSELF, so could this article (written by one of the attendees), which this RS links to stating the organizer of the panel gave a statement to, be used for:

1. stating Scheduled panelists included representatives of Gays Against Groomers, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and the Partners for Ethical Care
2. changing Eventbrite reportedly unpublished the listing due to violating their policies on "Hateful" content - Eventbrite reportedly unpublished the listing after the event due to violating their policies on "Hateful" content

Loath as I am to ever cite the Post Millenial, for anything, this seems like some pretty uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF content that fills in a little context RS portrays confusingly (one would assume reading Eventbrite unpublished the listing that it was done before, not after, the event). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't really have an issue with the edits, but the sourcing is problematic because WP:ABOUTSELF means using PM to discuss PM. So, KATV fine but Post Millennial is not as they are not the subject of this article. Not sure whether WP:LOCALCON or WP:RSN would be needed to allow one-off use of a GUNREL as it would be an WP:IAR. Slywriter (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That isn't covered under WP:ABOUTSELF since it involves a claim about third parties. And if it isn't covered by a reliable source it's WP:UNDUE Tristario (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Real last name

So I just opened the lawsuit she filed against Kaiser to read as it was linked in a bunch of sources such as this one, and apparently, Cole is only an alias as her legal last name (and middle initial) is mentioned in the document. Should we include this per MOS:LEGALNAME? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, we can't use public documents as sources Tristario (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Since WP:BLPPRIMARY states Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source and since this is a lawsuit she's the defendant in I thought this counted as WP:ABOUTSELF which has been covered in WP:RS I thought it might be due, good thing I ran it by here first lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why WP:DEADNAME really needs to be more inclusive. Outing people's non-notable names should have a clear "do not", rather than forcing editors to untangle multiple policies to figure out when legal/birth names can be used and what level of sourcing is needed. But yeah, if all we have is a court document, that's not enough. Also, if no one else is talking about it, it's not Wikipedia's place to break the news. Slywriter (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly DEADNAME should apply to any person (not just living and recently deceased) who changed their name, for any reason, and where their prior name(s) are non-notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with that for the record, I was more so wondering out loud if we should and it's due (because of Wikipedia' labyrinthine naming policies) rather than saying outright we should. I now see it's up to independent sources to ascertain whether Cole is a public alias or a name she goes by personally as well (I was thinking the situation was akin to Posie Parker v Kellie Jay Keen, who sources at first referred to as Posie, then started saying Posie real name KJK, then started saying just KJK more often, though we are clearly in the 1.25th step of that 3 part process lol). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's funny, I was just thinking KJK was a good counter example to this. I see itas a four step process. Step 1 is that the subject, and people close to the subject know that the subject's name in the media is different than their name in their personal life. Step 2 is that through some sort of action on the part of the subject, that isn't doxxing or self-doxxing, it becomes known that the name in the media is a pseudonym. Step 3 is that reliable sources start disseminating the subject's actual name alongside their pseudonym. And step 4 is that the subject's actual name supplants the pseudonym.

We're now at step 2, through the court filing it's known that Cole's name is a pseudonym. If we get to step 3, then we can look to including that name in the article. And if we get to step 4, then we can move/rename the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The 4 step process certainly captures it better than the 3 step one! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY very clearly applies to this, as does WP:BLPNAME. Court filings are not an expression subject to WP:ABOUTSELF, which is limited to social media comments, personal blogs, and at a stretch uncontroversial appearances in self-published sources by others (eg podcast or YouTube interviews). For now this cannot be included.

However if this name starts to be widely published by reliable sources because of this filing, then we can discuss and look into either including it or moving this article should the primary name used by sources swap over. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

LA Times lawsuit opinion

While the recent LA Times article does appear to contain facts about Cole's lawsuit, the writer's opinion that the lawsuit is "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care"[43]. That is clearly opinion, not fact. It may be (and I think it is) true that the lawsuit is being used as part of a bigger narrative but implying that Cole is filing the lawsuit for that purpose is not acceptable. This is effectively using an opinion in a BLP and not acceptable. Springee (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering it's a column written by a business reporter, I do not see how any opinions and assumptions made by the reporter can be used. Slywriter (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not an opinion piece but a news article, and the author gives various pieces of evidence and details throughout to support their claims. It is attributed, verifiable, due, you consistently arguing that any coverage that's vaguely critical or details that reflect negatively on the subject even when well covered by reliable sources should be kept out of the article is getting tiring. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hiltzik, Michael (2023-03-02). "Column: A transgender patient's lawsuit against Kaiser is a front for the conservative war on LGBTQ rights". LA Times. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

"Column" is in the headline. How can you say this is not an opinion piece? Levivich (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the LA Times labels their opinion pieces "Opinion" https://www.latimes.com/opinion

• For example: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-02/california-uc-berkeley-ceqa-housing-environment

This is labelled a story in their business section. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-03-02/transgender-patients-chloe-cole-lawsuit-against-kaiser-lgbtq-rights TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The author's opinion is just that, an opinion even when if the article isn't labeled as such. Springee (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A column which expresses opinion and is not merely restating facts is an opinion piece and this opinion piece is by a business reporter with no credentials that show they are qualified to discuss the topic. How LATimes labels matters not, what matters is how Wikipedians label the source. Slywriter (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Columnist content is typically subject to WP:RSOPINION. This change to the content is fine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

How is the opinion of a business writer WP:DUE in a biography about a former transgender youth? Genuinely don't know the reporter, so happy to learn he also regularly covers these issues or some other reason his opinion should hold weight. Slywriter (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the article provided WP:SIRS coverage of Cole in general and the lawsuit more specifically. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's third party commentary on Cole's lawsuit, written by a Pulitzer winner, published in a major newspaper. The business link is pretty obvious to me, Kaiser is a major US health insurance provider and is a party to this lawsuit. This also doesn't seem to be Hiltzik's (the author) first column on transgender related issues, with his earliest column that I can find with a quick search being published March 2015, and with many others being published since then. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist. That's a reason for the facts to be reliable. His opinions are just that and the evaluation is whether his opinions are WP:DUE, which just writing a column doesn't satisfy. Kamala Harris is someone lots of people have opinions about. There are zero of them found in her article. It's just not how good BLPs are written on Wikipedia.

Sideswipe9th, thank you for that. I'm on the fence, but going to review some FA and GA BLP articles to see how usually handled. As stated above, Vice President Harris, whom thousands of opinions have been written about, includes none. Slywriter (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've not done a full source survey of Kamala Harris, so I'll take your word for that. However I think you're framing it the wrong way. The value of the Hiltzik piece is not his opinion on Cole, it's his opinion on the lawsuit and that lawsuit's broader position within the broader narrative of anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ legislation and attacks within the US at present. That distinction of lawsuit over person, is why we only have quotations that apply to the lawsuit and not of Cole herself.

When you do go searching, I think you'd get the most value looking for BLPs that involve noteworthy non-criminal legal action brought by the BLP subject that have had larger ramifications beyond the case itself. For example, something that perhaps brought about changes (in whole or in part) to equality law, employment law, consumer protections, or where the case itself was the first test of a new law. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps in future that might be more relevant, but at the moment Cole is not as notable as Harris so there's more weight to the coverage that exists. If in future there are a large amount of WP:SIRS commenting on her, this specific article may be more undue, but at the moment there aren't many so this stands out.

In regards to the specific text, it's not just a passing mention/description, but quotes that accurately summarize the article's contents. The theses, in effect.

The context of Cole’s lawsuit bears close scrutiny. It’s part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights, in which the health of transgender youth is exploited as a pretext for bans on gender-affirming care. It resembles the right-wing attack on abortion rights, another movement that cynically masquerades as an effort to improve healthcare but actually exposes millions of Americans to injury and death for strictly partisan purposes.

• It states In this case, too, the targets are not only the patients themselves, but their families.
• Notes various states/republican lawmakers banning various types gender-affirming care to varying degrees (from criminalizing doctors to families to misrepresenting evidence)
• Notes comments from medical organizations and LGBTQ Advocacy groups, healthcare providers, and research groups that these aren't evidence-based but partisan attacks
• States Cole is one of a handful of self-described detransitioners who have been flown around the country by anti-transgender activists to speak in favor of treatment bans. Their presentations aim to persuade legislators that second thoughts are common among transgender patients, as though to suggest that gender-affirming treatment is a sham. - then state In fact, studies indicate that only 1% to 2% of transgender individual “detransition,” and that often happens because of discrimination and other social pressures, not because the patients genuinely feel they have made a mistake about their gender identity. and reviews the medical consensus
• States Cole has addressed public events with right-wingers who have broader agendas, such as opposition to abortion and support of the Jan. 6 insurrection, including Greene and the Proud Boys and Her lawyers include San Francisco attorney Harmeet Dhillon, a veteran courthouse culture warrior who has brought lawsuits promoting gun rights, upholding voting restrictions, and opposing mask mandates. In January, Dhillon ran unsuccessfully for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.
• Generally provides a lot of evidence of right-wing attacks on LGBT rights, Cole's own connections to the right, and how right-wing lawmakers often call for bans on gender-affirming care based on concerns of healthcare

Cole’s legal complaint incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field.

• The article specifically challenges the lawsuits assertions about John Hopkins and Tavistock and the results of a 2011 swedish study, providing evidence that the descriptions of developments in treating gender-dysphoria aren't actually based on what happened
• The lawsuit states John Hopkins shut down due to negative results, the article notes that the person who shut down the clinic did so on expressly ideological grounds and Hopkins re-opened in 2017
• The lawsuit states the same with Tavistock, the article notes that Tavistock wasn't actually closed down, and the plan is to move to more regional clinics due to being overwhelmed so that it's easier for people to access care rather than more difficult
• The lawsuit states the 2011 study found that "transition treatment does not improve long-term mental health for transgender individuals." The article notes the study compared trans people after surgery to cis people, not to trans people who didn't have surgery, and concluded “No inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment,” and “Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment.”

In short, whether one disagrees or agrees with the argument, it's a fact-based article that provides evidence of its claims and makes a case for it, as opposed to just stating those things without elaborating further. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is it characterizes Cole's motives as political. While the lawsuit is certainly being held up for political reasons, to claim that Cole is doing it for political reasons is pure speculation and not appropriate for a BLP article. This feeds into an issue that —Ganesha811 made at the ANI thread with respect to IMPARTIAL[44]. When editors seek out just the negative claims and present them only in that light we end up with a biased article. When we start putting all the parts together, a Tiktok claim sourced to a marginal source (LA Blade), the emphasis of a negative opinion implying Cole's motive may be political rather than a basic tort claim, the emphasis on including PB members even if Cole had nothing to do with their appearance. All this stacks to make an article with clear, negative bias. Springee (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Where does the quoted text actually characterize Cole's motives as political? the lawsuit is certainly being held up for political reasons - that's what the quoted text says. It speaks to the lawsuit. The article speaks to Cole's role and efforts, but that isn't actually referenced here (though, since it's WP:SIRS, its comments on Cole are probably due in reception).

@Ganesha811, care to comment on whether this is due? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't generally edit in this area. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 fair enough. I just thought since Springee improperly pinged you to claim this source/usage is indicative of the issues you raised you might want to comment either way. Sorry to disturb lol, happy editing! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, the LA Blade is WP:SIRS. The interactions with Libs of TikTok have been regarded as due by others here. The inclusion of PB has also been considered due, with a clear consensus that the Tennessee rally is due and wiki-policy based debate to whether the Nashville one is (though containing some stretched interpretations of WP:GUILT). That the PB shouldn't be mentioned at all is against consensus. None of the issues Ganesha811 raised in that diff are the ones being discussed here.

Also, as the majority of WP:SIRS sources are critical, see WP:FALSEBALANCE, and generally the whole of WP:NPOV. If the majority of sources, particularly WP:SIRS have a negative outlook, it is our job to represent that, not WP:WHITEWASH the article to make it seem like they aren't. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

SIRS is a section of NCORP; what does SIRS have to do with NPOV? Levivich (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT WP:SIRS also applies to BLPs. But to be more specific, sources that provide WP:SIGCOV should be weighted more than 1-line mentions. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to compartmentalise the lawsuit from Cole's political advocacy and rally commentary. Those three things; advocating for laws that ban gender-affirming care, making speeches at political rallies, and suing the healthcare providers who provided her with gender affirming care, are inextricably linked. Cole's actions as a whole have already made this political, and her lawsuit cannot be seen in isolation from her advocacy against gender affirming care.

With regards to IMPARTIAL. If reliable sources discuss the subject of an article in an overwhelmingly negative or positive tone, then per policy our own content will reflect that. To do anything else is to be non-neutral, because we as editors are deciding that the way sources are covering the subject is wrong and we are inserting our bias into the articles.

Returning to this article, it is my understanding, from the sources I have read on Cole and her actions, that sources that we consider to be reliable are pretty strongly negative in their coverage of her and her actions. And our article has (at times) largely and accurately reflected that negativity. The handful of sources I've seen that I would describe as positive are all from sources we consider unreliable. If this is not the case, and there are reliable sources that describe her positively, then I would suggest that when you or any editor who wishes to assert this article is non-neutral should provide sources that support that assertion. In this regard, you're making a NPOV challenge, and not a WP:V challenge so WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN do not directly apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I half agree with the idea that if sources are negative about a subject our article should be as well. We have to ask, are they negative in tone and in subjective phrasing etc or are they bringing up negative facts? We don't and generally shouldn't follow the emotional tone and biased/loaded language of our sources. We should follow their facts. If those facts present a negative picture so be it. A great example is the biograph of Hitler. Clearly a very bad person. However, the wiki bio doesn't choose to use loaded language or load the lead up with subjective labels etc. Instead it states facts. Facts like under his leadership Germany started a war and millions died as a result of that war and the actions of the government Hitler created. Here, we have sources that are politically opposed to the various ideas/laws Cole supports. Rather than engage her concerns/arguments the sources often attack her via ad hominem, guilt by association etc. That doesn't mean they are wrong to oppose her views but they aren't good sources if they can't report on her actual arguments. That in tern means this article will suffer because readers here can't know what she said/argued, only what her opponents said about her. For that reason we need to be extra careful in how we handle these sources. This is like getting evidence against a person from a witness who stands to benefit from a conviction. It doesn't mean the witness is lying but they might be presenting a colored view of the situation. Springee (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than engage her concerns/arguments the sources often attack her via ad hominem, guilt by association etc. That doesn't mean they are wrong to oppose her views but they aren't good sources if they can't report on her actual arguments. - Can you provide any examples of WP:SIGCOV that actually does this?

For the record, "anti-trans" is not an ad-hominem, especially if sources discuss how her actions hurt trans people (to your Hitler example, another point to Godwin, he is described as promoting antisemitism, we don't argue that antisemitism/antisemitic are loaded words and ad-hominems). You state engage her concerns/arguments, but notably you don't mention her actions, which are more important. Sources saying she frequently works with the right to far-right are not "guilt by association", they are accurately describing what she does. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)