Talk:Chloe Cole

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"[1]. 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[2]. 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)

Seems like a motte and bailey argument. Again, consensus is policy here. If you want to establish it, start a RfC. Few editors will refuse to accept the outcome of a independently closed RfC. Springee (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean "Springee agrees". Three editors have found it due. @Slywriter is on the fence. Please self-revert. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop acting like a policy expert. There's concern and a discussion is happening, it doesn't have to be settled here and now and the default is going to be exclude while discussion occurs. For formal binding decision, open RfCs and the community will spend 30 days discussing. After all, we have WP:NODEADLINE. Slywriter (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Is standard wiki-policy really if 1/1.5 person/people disagrees with inclusion of a RS then it must be excluded and we should take it to RFC? Their main objection seems to be WP:IDLI TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The way it generally works is if the question is a pure editor preference/numbers game then typically a 2:1 ration is a clear consensus. This is a rule of thumb but a safe one. If the question comes down to quality of arguements and neither side is convinced by the other then a RfC and independent closing should be used to establish the state of consensus. Springee (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No. It's a fair question, and one that I would also like an answer to. You're asserting that sources are not engaging with her points and are attacking her. That's a pretty strong accusation to make against sources that the community consider reliable. Of the sources that provide significant coverage of Cole, which ones are doing this? And which ones are not? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

First, we have a range of sources. Second, no source is universally reliable and few are universally unreliable. That said, when dealing with a biased source (and bias doesn't mean bad, just a clear POV on a subject) we need to try to separate the facts from the POV. In this case the sources don't report much on her actual statements. Some of the sources put a lot of effort into characterizing her but little effort is put into asking her views and reporting them. That makes it harder to provide readers here with insight into her motivations etc. When we look at say the LA Times article, it doesn't take much to see the loaded language and the writing to persuade/convince rather than writing to inform. Any time we have writing to persuade we need to be careful. In particular we need to make sure we aren't reporting the writer's feelings on the subject vs the facts of the subject (that takes us back to show don't tell). Springee (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources are not under any obligation to report much on her actual statements. Her actions are more important. Even then, the LA Blade both discusses her statements and her actions and the LA Times discusses her statements and what she talks about. The LA Times literally takes the statements in her lawsuit and responds to them. Provide examples of WP:SIGCOV that you find suitable and SIGCOV you don't. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be easier to understand your objections on specific sources if you could please explain them. You've said that there's an issue with the LA Times piece using loaded language, that at least gives me something to look for in relation to that source. If you could please do something similar for the other sources that provide significant coverage of Cole, that is name/link the source and where you believe it is demonstrating a clear POV on the subject that is colouring our content, then I will be happy to review those sources with your objections in mind when I wake up tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is likely confusing because we have a lot of cross pollinated discussions going on here. As for the LA Times article, it reads like an opinion/commentary article. I'm very concerned with how the opinions of the writer are being presented here as if they are facts or some type of consensus expert view. While I agree with the opinion that this lawsuit is going to get (already has been) pulled into the larger debate over gender affirming care for minors, it's not fair to Cole to present it as if that was her objective without other evidence. Consider two cases, case 1, Cole's lawsuit is rock solid. Does that make it more or less part of the larger political debate? If we assume her lawsuit is rock solid would it be fair to present it as if it were just a political stunt? "part of a concerted right-wing attack on LGBTQ rights" suggests that the lawsuit wasn't filed because Cole was harmed but for purely political purposes. Do we have evidence of that? Conversely, if Cole's lawsuit is total crap, then we should cite sources that evaluate the merits of the case itself (and to some extent the LA Times article does that but not as a legal scholar might). It's fine to say, broadly the case has become part of the debate on this subject. What we should not do is even imply that Cole filed the lawsuit for political rather than basic torr reasons absent clear evidence to that end. As for the mention of other sources, the general point is we need to be careful when using biased sources. Biased sources may be factually correct but their framing or inclusion/exclusion of information may be such that it moves from reporting to persuading. We should not include the persuading part. Springee (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if these questions are answered somewhere already, it's a lot of text here. Is Hiltzik's column the only opinion about the lawsuit (so far), or are there other commentators who have rendered opinions about it? Is Hiltzik's column or opinion cited by other RSes with any frequency (not this particular column, but his columns in general)? Levivich (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hiltzik's column is the only one I've seen on the lawsuit so far, if there are others I was not able to find them yesterday. As for his other columns being cited by other RS with frequency, yes other factual reporting and columnists do cite his column in various contexts on various topics with some regularity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's due to include an attributed sentence about Hiltzik's opinion/analysis of the lawsuit, subject to a few caveats. Because the BLP subject is the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and she has publicized the lawsuit herself (press conference), and because I don't think the lawsuit is notable enough for its own page, this article is the right place for reaction/analysis/whatever of the lawsuit. If the lawsuit ends up being notable enough for its own page, then opinions about the lawsuit might need to be moved from this bio page.

Los Angeles Times is a major newspaper, probably something like top 5 in the US, and any regular columnist at LATimes is going to be a 'pundit whose opinion matters', like a columnist at NYTimes or WaPo. Assuming Hiltzik is of that caliber of pundit (one of the top in the nation), then I'd say his opinion is generally WP:DUE for inclusion. And if it's the only opinion/analysis of the lawsuit, then yeah, let's tell the reader about it. It may be that more analyses of the lawsuit are written in the future and an updated look at the RSes changes the DUE calculus, but for now, since it's a current event and sources are slim, and if it's the only analysis and it's by a reputable pundit, then I think it improves the article to tell our reader about this guy's opinion. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I put up a notification at WP:RSN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved to WP:NPOVN#LA Times in Chloe Cole article in regards to the Kaiser lawsuit TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved that to WP:BLPN. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:Fringe

I'm not seeing anywhere in the article where it is currently pointed out that Cole's position on Transgender health care is against scientific consensus. Just that she wants it banned. Per WP:FRINGE, doesn't this article need to at least mention the current consensus on healthcare best practices regarding transgender care? --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do any sources explicitly say "Cole's position are fringe"? If not we shouldn't per SYNTH. Springee (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do any sources explicitly say "Cole's position are fringe"? - in those literal exact words? No. In paraphrasing by pointing out medical consensus is against such bans? Yes. There is no part of WP:FRINGE that says a cited source has to literally use the word "fringe". TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There is also no part of WP:FRINGE that says sources have to say X person specifically believes in something that is against scientific consensus by the way. If someone believes in fringe positions, WP:FRINGE applies. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A paragraph to that effect was originally included in the lead but removed here. There is a minor discussion of it above in the talk page section #Irrelevant activism above. I'll go through the sources and collate/list the medical/human rights organizations which have opposed her bills and add them to reception. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend against that. That's backwards editing (see my userpage). This is a biography about a teenage political activist. It's not the place to prove her policies right or wrong. Find the best sources about Cole and summarize them. That's it. We shouldn't do investigative reporting, trying to fit every detail in. There is already too much detail. See drmies' post on the page from three weeks ago. And when you explicitly say that you are going to find who opposes her bills and add them in, that's oppo research and you're announcing your bias. You should be looking for anything, positive or negative, support or opposition, and adding it in neutrally. Don't announce you're doing oppo research, please. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PROFRINGE. The fact that multiple reputable medical and human rights organizations have directly challenged bills she has supported, calling them non-evidence based and harmful to transgender youth, is incredibly WP:DUE in the article. The only real question is do we 1) for each bill in the legislation section say which organizations opposed it or 2) do we say which have opposed them in a paragraph in reception. I lean towards the latter, since many opposed multiple bills and that would be more concise and informative.

It is not backwards editing, that's what the sources say. Find the best sources about Cole and summarize them. - both the sources giving her passing mention as supporting bills and the sources providing WP:SIGCOV of her/her activism explicitly note that.

To be fair, I think we should also list those who have supported her bills (once again, either per bill or in reception). Though for the supporters I think per bill is better. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A biography article is not the place for content about others' reactions to legislation that the bio subject advocates for (except to the extent sources describe reactions to Cole not reactions to something Cole supports or opposes); we have lots of other articles about trans rights and anti-trans legislation. The only way to do this right is to collect the best sources about Cole (not passing mentions) and summarize them (forwards editing, not backwards editing)--the good, the bad, and the ugly. This biography should not be used as a platform to advocate for or against Cole or her political views. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPFRINGE: Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must also comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:BLP#Balance).
There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.

So what part of that, particularly the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy says we shouldn't make sure that we cover how WP:FRINGE her activism and positions are?

Also, see the section I added below, where all articles providing Cole's activism WP:SIGCOV are pretty clear that her positions are fringe. Generally, the WP:RS used in this article make it clear her positions are fringe even when it's just a passing mention, but I thought it prudent to stick to SIGCOV. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE doesn't just magically stop applying because it's a BLP article. there isn't a whole segment in there about how to deal with BLP articles for nothing. A biography might not be the place for content about third parties, but it is certainly not the place to leave FRINGE views uncontested. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding of WP:FRINGE. Theres been a lot of pushback to including things vaguely critical that I dont feel holds up to the RS cited, though I'm admittingly new to this. David Duke might be an example of a BLP for a figure known for bias and FRINGE(this isnt a comparison). Over there you don't see this strong aversion to WP:DUCK like we see here, with not including critique or not using the term anti-trans even with abundant WP:BLPRS. I think this has had the unintended effect of making this article read like a play by play of her political work and less encyclopedic Filiforme1312 (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

How do we handle this when people are talking about anti-abortion activists/laws etc. Medically speaking I don't think anyone is going to claim access to abortions results in worse outcomes for the mother. Certainly some of the anti-abortion laws, even if they are accepted to be mortally correct, can cause serious issues for providers who aren't trying to provide unfettered access. I don't think in any case articles would say, "Senator X's anti-abortion view is fringe." In an article on the subject of opposition to gender affirming medical interventions for minors it would be appropriate to discuss the state of medical knowledge on the subject. It wouldn't be in this case. I think that would be particularly true given that Cole does appear to have been harmed by the transition process. Springee (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats a good point. Anti-abortion activists, though generally focusing on the fetus, do cite known risks to the mother associated with various abortion procedures. Some even go so far as to use them as scare tactics. The fake clinics are particularly guilty of this. I feel this is a fitting analogy and I would address them both similarly.

I don't think using the word fringe in the article is the way to go. Rather, to bring to bring this article in compliance with FRINGE, I would look to the divergence between Cole and the consensus of most all major medical and psychological professionals associations. This is already indicated through RS, but keeping WP:MEDRS compliance in mind as well. Essentially this conversation is about medical procedures and if or when they are appropriate for patients. Filiforme1312 (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is link to the parent article on the subject. I don't think this clearly fits fringe since RS have noted there is little data on the long term effects of the choices. Additionally, when these questions mix both moral issues as well as pure medical (as is the case of abortion discussions) it's harder to claim fringe. Springee (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Springee, Certainly some of the anti-abortion laws, even if they are accepted to be mortally correct, I suspect you mean morally.

I'm struggling a bit with some of the issues you both raise - being fairly new to this topic area. The overlaps between medical normal practice based on medical data and moral/ethical concerns and then how to apply WP 'reliability' (including fringe) policies. Cole's 'stance' - certainly in terms of the proposed banning of all medical intervention in all circumstances for all minors - is at variance with most major medical and psychological professional associations' assessment in most 'western' countries. How we record that variance, within a context of a BLP, without invalidating the fact that - if 'her story' is broadly accurate - it seems like a fairly spectacular failure to apply medical procedures (that are) appropriate for patients. Sources are RS or MEDRS based on the nature of the claim surely? A statistical or other data-based claim can fail or pass MEDRS, and bad or good statistical claims can be pressed into service to support 'moral' arguments, but ultimately any 'moral' argument is just that. Reliable medical or other factual info does inform, but cannot decide moral questions, whether for individuals or societies - whether that be the ethics of abortion or the appropriate 'age of informed consent' to treatment such as was provided to Cole.

Apologies if this is a bit FORUMmy, I think that there has been a tendency in prior discussion to treat sources as not factually reliable if their moral stance did not accord with medical normal practice, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I don't disagree with Springee's post immediately above. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some people seem to be thinking I'm taking a moral stance on her position here, which I do have. I am not. I am pointing specifically at her continuous opposition to the WP:MEDRS best practices regarding trans care. She can claim her doctor didn't follow them all she wants, but she cannot then turn around and oppose all MEDRS-supported trans healthcare without crossing into WP:FRINGE. I checked, and the claim that puberty blockers cause lasting damage is also WP:FRINGE and not supported by MEDRS. Puberty will resume once puberty blockers are stopped, that's the whole point. Ergo, WP:FRINGE applies here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to include who paid her travel expenses in the article?

See this removal[3], which was reverted. I summarized the removal by saying it was "not biographical." I guess that might be debatable, maybe. But it has to be WP:UNDUE. Such a minor detail; probably a few hundred dollars. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as due but it's also not something I would be overly worried about. If that were the extent of issues with this article it would be in good shape. I can see why someone might think it's DUE and unlike some of the other discussions, this is directly about Cole. Are there other examples like this in BLPs? Springee (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a minor detail, as sources have stated she has received funding from anti-trans organizations and in past she has denied it, so we should accurately describe whether or not she has. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is the source for the claim that she has denied it? Was that source from before or after this payment was claimed to have occurred? Springee (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Mathematicians and scientists get grants all the time. Yet if I go to, for example, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Albert Einstein, or Gil Kalai, there is no mention of any grant money. I get it that this is less than some of the other issues with the article. But if we can't even fix this one, we have a problem, as it's so WP:UNDUE. At any rate, short of a source going into a funding controversy, this is still badly WP:UNDUE, as the source for it is a sentence in the middle of an article in The Kansas Reflector. Some WP:OR related to an argument about funding is not sufficient to bring it in. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Comparing science grants (which are public information by the way) to payments by FRINGE lobbying organisations is rather poor form, in my opinion. I think you can figure out how those are different yourself. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

We are writing a biographical entry about this person in an encyclopedia. The relevant policy notes that articles should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject... a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. I tend to think that the funding for that particular trip is not warranted in this biographical entry, along those lines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

she has received funding from anti-trans organizations Oh please. She is a 17 or 18 year old student whose travel costs were covered! It screams attempted mud-slinging IMO. That she testified for a bill is material, that her travel costs were paid by supporters of the bill isn't IMO and trivialises the whole issue. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If she had received funding from a pro-trans organization, then it might be DUE. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You guys really don't think it's relevant at all that her activities are directly paid for by an activist organisation? --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it depends entirely on the level of coverage that piece of information received by reliable sources. From the sourced article, this seems like a minor point. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Her travel expenses don't really rise to the level of "her activities". A more appropriate question to ask is she being paid to appear (similar to how Bill Clinton is paid)? If the answer was yes, it's possible that it'd be appropriate if the funding were significant in monetary terms or across a long enough timeline. Based on the policy Red-tailed hawk quoted above, it doesn't seem notable enough to include, regardless of the organization. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you surprised that her activism would be paid for by an activist organization? Levivich (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Travel and speaker’s fees are fairly normal. If there is significant coverage and/or the group paying is notable, it should be included. Filiforme1312 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Notating here that User:TheTranarchist will not be able to reply to this, due to a topic ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Detransitioner as opening sentence?

This edit defines Cole as an American detransitioner who has become an activist known for opposing etc. I'm not sure if there is any policy on this, but I'm not wholly comfortable with defining her primarily in terms of her 'trans status'. I agree that the thing which she is known for is supporting measures to limit treatment for minors, where she testifies as a detransitioner, and 'detransitioner' is often how she is described. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As I once said higher up on this talk page, detransitioner isn't really the primary source of her notability. Yes, it plays into it, but she's notable for her activism, not for the mere fact she detransitioned. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur, while I disagree with some of the more controversial adjectives that were used in her lede, she is well-known for being an activist AND having de-transitioned and there are likely enough sources to support this. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree that activist is better supported and more appropriate. Cedar777 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. I feel the mention of her detransition status should be placed after the mention of her political advocacy for healthcare bans for trans people. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the current sentence is good. Both are really important is saying what she is an why her voice has been notable above the others voices who oppose gender affirming care for minors. I also agree that it's her activism that made her notable rather than her detransition. Springee (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The Economist piece that was just added to the article introduces her as "Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who has become a voice for detransitioners in America..." I think that is actually what she's notable for: being the detransitioner suing her doctors. Levivich (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that is actually what she's notable for: being the detransitioner suing her doctors, not as yet I'd say. At present she's notable for being the detransitioned minor opposing medical transition for minors. The court case COULD alter that, as could her own actions and comments. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Platform

There is a one sentence section about a gofundme account, but mysteriously the section is named Platform. I am unsure what the intent of this section name is/was supposed to be. Should the sentence be made part of another paragraph, the section renamed, or possibly, nothing? Very Average Editor (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It was me that moved the sentence, only because it clearly wasn't 'Personal life'. I'm not even sure that it is worth keeping since the source used merely records that to that date almost no one had contributed. An apt move or removal would be OK with me. Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

CPAC 2023

Cole's participation at CPAC 2023 was recently added [4]. I agree that her participation was DUE but I'm not sure that putting a reporter's assessment of the overall discussion rather than Cole's specific comments is due. What do others think. Springee (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think the final sentence "which reporters described as a call for genocide against transgender people" should go. The "reporters" turn out to be one from Media Matters: "John Knefel of Media Matters called it “eliminationist, genocidal rhetoric”, which isn't quite the same as "a call for genocide" - though it's near - and one other reporter using "elininationist". Mixed feelings about how to deal with the rest of the content. Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My hope was to fine tune wording as more RS is published so this should be resolved shortly. A brief description of the event that she spoke at, which reflects RS, is WP:DUE. Right now, RS's general focus is on the rather clear call for genocide that occurred.

I hope I misread and we are not debating on this talk whether eliminating a group of people constitutes a genocide. That would be alarming. Genocidal/eliminationist are synonyms. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If Chloe Cole did not call for genocide, this BLP shouldn't be using that sort of wording. There is clearly contention about whether this is related to her directly at all. Very Average Editor (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Filiforme1312, Knowell actually said it was "transgenderism" that should be ""eradicated from public life entirely". I appreciate that this is "eliminationist rhetoric" and is highly incendiary, but it isn't a literal "call for genocide" against anyone, nor do the sources use that term. But it's been removed anyway since it is one or two reporters commenting on someone-other-than-Cole's words. I could have lived with part of that text, but have no strong feelings either way. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that putting a reporter's assessment of the overall discussion rather than Cole's specific comments is due I think you have wikipedia's sourcing policy backwards here. In general, wikipedia prefers secondary sources summarizing information rather direct quotes from primary sources. see WP:PST

Until a secondary source reports on it, a quote usually doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Cole's specific comments don't belong without a secondary source for them. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

We need to be cautious when adding what is clearly a reporter's opinion on a topic vs their reporting of the facts of the topic. It's certainly better if we have a source that says, "X said this... The reaction is Y". We don't always have that, especially in heated culture war topics. It's one of the things that is difficult in this area and why we need to be careful about treating normally reliable sources as reliable for specific claims. I think Pincrete illustrated why we need to be careful when sources summarize for us (not that MM4A is a good source for reasons exactly like that one). Springee (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Panel Description

In this BLP, we have the following prose:

In January 2023, Cole was one of 5 panelists who spoke at an event titled "Stolen Innocence: A Panel on the Insidious Ideology Infecting Your Children's Education" hosted by the local group Parents on Patrol. The panelists stated that schools were "sexual grooming" students by teaching them about gender identity and sexual orientation.[6][25]

Did Chloe Cole say this? Who said it? Should it be attributed to her here? It seems unlikely she said this. The source hand waves over it. Thoughts on keeping or removal? Very Average Editor (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless this (or another RS) explicitly attributes the comments to Cole, it should probably go. Panels often cover a wide range of topics of which many people on the panel may or may not comment on them. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn't attributed to her here, though? It's attributed to the panelists, and sure enough, the archived version of the since-removed Eventbrite listing for the event reads "Please join this panel, nationally recognized experts on the subject of the sexual grooming of children, for an in depth discussion on how schools are grooming our students." (emphasis mine) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:C05F:E793:493:5B57 (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Or for an active link, here, on the website of "Gays Against Groomers." 2600:1700:87D3:3460:C05F:E793:493:5B57 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those are RS, not that it matters though because they (nor any one else) attribute any particular quote by Cole. I believe it's OK to mention she was on this panel, but without a RS that specifically calls out what Cole said the prose doesn't belong on her BLP. It looks like an editor already rectified this, which seems inline with policy. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The way I read the source is that the entire panel agreed about this, or that that was a summary of the message they sent together. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In this discussion I see one editor favoring inclusion, and yet other editors keep re-adding this text to the article. That's now how this works folks, WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:BLP, the whole alphabet soup... don't just press the undo button because you agree with it. Come here and state your reasons and see if there is consensus for the addition. Levivich (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That said, I think it's a fair inclusion, because as I read that source, it's talking about all members of the panel. So that's now two editors favoring inclusion, still a minority. Levivich (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well with @Snokalok, 3, and I think 2600:1700... also may favour inclusion. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

After re-reading the source, I agree, the prose was fine. However, I still object to its inclusion based on WP:BALASP. Specifically: should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject... a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

I feel a brief summary of the general message of a panel is as proportionate as participation in the panel itself given that the article's significance is due to her activism. Had she been a famous chef and this a one off event, I could see an argument for it being disproportionate. For that, I favor its inclusion. Filiforme1312 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the phrasing "the panelists stated" is the issue. It's not the fact that they said it that's due, rather I think it's due as a description of what the panel was about ("how schools are 'sexually grooming' children by teaching them about gender identity and sexual orientation"). So maybe something like In January 2023, Cole was one of 5 panelists who spoke at an event titled "Stolen Innocence: A Panel on the Insidious Ideology Infecting Your Children's Education", about schools allegedly "sexual grooming" students by teaching them about gender identity and sexual orientation. or something like that. Levivich (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that's a reasonable compromise, thank you @Levivich. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good by me Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh thanks for letting me know about this talk! Snokalok (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And yes, I favor including Snokalok (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Include. Speaking under that topic was a choice she controlled, unlike who might be in the audience listening.Slywriter (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Implemented, thanks everyone. Levivich (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Heads up

Someone just replied on Twitter to Chloe Cole, stating: "We are slowly fixing your wiki page (as much as we can without balanced sources). Two activist editors were banned in association with it. We're winning, their vitriol and unhinged rhetoric stands out as badly as they do." Cole then thanked the poster.

There is no personal information on that account and nothing that can potentially be linked to any particular editor, nor am I accusing this of being written by any particular editor, so I am under the impression that posting about this does not violate WP:OUTING (please let me know if I'm mistaken). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:C05F:E793:493:5B57 (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue in this topic area generally and something to be aware of when editing. See the talk pageKellie-Jay Keen-Minshull for further examples. Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM I suspect many controversial figures suffer from this issue, I'm not sure how pulling in Cole's tweet timeline serves any purpose other than to stir up WP:DRAMA. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to use the high traffic template, like at the top of Talk:Gays_Against_Groomers? 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 23:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, is the page high traffic though? I believe we can ping an admin to find out, but I’m not familiar enough with that process to facilitate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

For comparison, The "gays against groomers" account has 88k followers and was considered high enough traffic, while Cole's account has 135k followers. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 01:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=Talk:Chloe_Cole ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see how there was a much larger spike at the traffic for gays against groomers. Thanks for clearing up how the decision is made. If there's consensus on the issue in general, it should get closed imo. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 01:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That template isn't about this page having high traffic, only that it was linked from a high traffic website. I think Cole's account definitely qualifies. Loki (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to use page views as a gauge for how much of an effect the link had. In this case there might've been a slight increase in traffic, but not a spike. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 01:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV template

Based on the massive books that are being written above I think a NPOV template is overdue here. I also want to note that since last I looked, the article is starting to look more and more like a puff piece, which is concerning. Forget my comments about WP:FRINGE, I can't find a single mention of any of the many criticisms she has received about her position or her affiliation with other groups or anything else in the entire piece! --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks: Please list specific issues for your NPOV tag. "Puff piece" and "many criticisms" isn't really specific enough to respond to. What aspects of the topic do you feel are missing, and what RSes support those aspects as DUE? What aspects are overrepresented, and what RSes support those aspects as UNDUE (or less DUE)? For example, if you think there are criticisms in RSes currently cited in the article that aren't mentioned in the article, please list those. If you think there are RSes that should be included that aren't, please list those. We need a sort of "to-do list" to go through to clear the tag. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this has gone from being a COATRACK , primarily about Cole's 'fellow travellers' and their rhetoric, to being a bit anodyne. I can't point to specifics, but one minor detail is that the recent adoption of 'The Economist' as the main source (and removal of many LGBT, local and other sources) means that I, and many readers can't verify the content (££$$). I realise that policy allows use of paywall sources, but it's a pity that others have been removed IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Far from a totally remedy to the issue, but in my locale libraries provide digital access to some of these sources online or by app. May be worth looking into for others who've experienced this barrier. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources you're referring to because I haven't read all of the recent edits to the article (though I've removed some sources myself recently). In any event, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to add a second, non-paywalled source to "piggyback" onto a paywalled source. The second source might not be a great source for the content on its own for whatever reason, but if The Economist supports the content on its own, then there's really no harm in adding a second free source even if the second source is of a lower quality. Levivich (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The point of a cleanup template is to identify specific issues with an article that can be corrected by an interested editor. Slapping a NPOV template on this article does not help to identify or correct any issues that may exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the template, if not about the general coverage. Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

“ opposes gender-affirming care for minors ”

I feel we should drop the “for minors” at this point for the reason that, her advocacy in support of the Florida medicaid change and description of gender affirming care in general as “not medically necessary” was in no way with regards to only minors. Snokalok (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY the thing to do is probably to add more about her general opposition to gender-affirming care to the body first; the lead can then summarize that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Prior to some recent contributions, I would have agreed. As it stands, I feel we have surpassed that point. I've compiled a list from the body of instances of opposing access to gender affirming care that are not exclusive to minors.

Body includes

• declaring gender affirming care not medically necessary in Florida
• removing medicaid coverage in Florida
• prohibit use of federal funds for gender-affirming care
• prohibit federal subsidies for health insurance covering gender affirming care
• prohibit colleges from providing gender affirming care
• existing source(Woodward, Alex) does not make the distinction of just minors.

Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems these are related to the use of government subsidies and funds towards services for all age groups, not an outright ban. Have RS given coverage to the association between Cole and completely denying care to legal adults? If so, let's summarize in the body and that can inform the lede if there is enough weight. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I see three different prohibitions on that list. Kcmastrpc, so yes, she is opposing gender affirming care to all age groups. Which is what the question being asked was. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The majority of articles that I can find outline her position on minors. Can you point me towards the sources that specifically cover her positions on denying adult care? Is there enough reliable coverage to drop it? Keep in mind WEIGHT and SYNTHESIS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, if you look at the body you’ll see she has advocated in favor of banning both Medicaid and private health insurers from covering such care for all ages, which easily fits the definition of “opposes access to” and, given that it’s the US and that makes it unfeasibly expensive for almost everyone, one could make a solid argument for that policy qualifying as a direct ban. Snokalok (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The text is "prohibit the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care or towards health insurance covering it for all ages" not all "private health insurers". But the main point isn't any one bill or measure, but the bulk of coverage, which is certainly still on 'minors' AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

All health insurers take federal funding, characterizing it as federal funds going towards X when it’s really “all of these entities are now banned from doing X” is misleading at best and reductive at worst Snokalok (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, it’s like universities. Sure, some unis are private, but they all still take federal funds, and if the government says “all unis that take federal funding must Y”, then they still have to Y Snokalok (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how this relates to Cole's position on the matter, we aren't mind-readers, we don't know her beliefs or understanding of the law. Until such time a reporter asks her and she answers we should stick to what a large swathe of reliable sources have already established -- she's against procedures for minors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A point of clarification. The proposed language is "opposing access to", not "supporting bans on". Filiforme1312 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so “opposing access to gender affirming care.” Period, fits fairly well then Snokalok (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I still see the bulk of the coverage as relating to issues with minors. No objection of course to expanding the 'general' issues in the body. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the bulk is, but looking at the info in the body, she’s advocated for bans on both medicaid and private insurance from covering gender affirming care for adults, which in the US is effectively a ban on the care for anyone who’s not incredibly wealthy. For that reason, it would not be accurate to limit the description in the summary to only minors. Snokalok (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

See above, AFAI can see the most draconian measure would ban federal funds being used for private insurance. I'm UK, but imagine proscribing what insurance companies could themselves do would probably be illegal. Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not, for what it’s worth, but because private insurance *is* the American healthcare system, all private insurers take federal funding, so it’s in effect a ban on private insurers from covering it Snokalok (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The majority of Americans are on subsidized marketplace healthcare plans. Additionally, these plans are not separate from non-subsidized plans. They are referred to as qualified plans, meaning they can be purchased with or without subsidies by individuals or businesses. The bill includes language prohibiting qualified plans from covering trans healthcare. While proscribing what insurance companies can offer may not be legal, they are dependent on subsidized plans to be competitive and viable. Further, medicaid in many ways sets the standard for medical necessity in the US.

An outright ban at the federal level is not feasible for a variety of reasons. Through control of federal funding; however, it could be mostly accomplished.

Regardless, I am not sure I understand the logic behind keeping "minors" in the title. In the event she travels to the UK to advocate against access to care would we extend the logic in the following way?

opposes access to gender affirming care for transgender American minors Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware of how US healthcare was funded. Thankyou Pincrete (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Politics make strange bedfellows. Clearly the majority of sources have said her concern relates to minors. This is consistent with some of the quotes we have. So does she support the FL bill because it gets what she wants for minors and she is willing to accept the collateral damage it does to adult coverage or does she really want adult coverage blocked as well but she simply neglected to mention it in the past? I think the former makes more sense. Additionally, it seems very unlikely we would be wrong in claiming the former. What if we are wrong in claiming the latter? Springee (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable question to ask, but facta non verba. Even if the former is true regarding her personal beliefs, the fact is that her actions themselves more accurately reflect the latter. At no point has she made any indication that she didn’t support the adult portion that she did advocate for. Snokalok (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that, based on the evidence here, that her actions support the latter. Springee (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we make an RfC then? Snokalok (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, see below Snokalok (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Her opposition to medicaid coverage generally is included in one of the sources we are currently using (Dawn Ennis LA Blade).

For example, Cole frequently tweets at and is retweeted by staffers in Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office. She tags Democratic opponents of their Republican boss and denounces Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, which the DeSantis administration has banned. Which is interesting, since her Kaiser medical coverage reportedly paid for her own medical transition, including her surgery. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait until the discussion extends beyond this specific bill. Until then we should err on the side of not claiming more than might be her actual position. Springee (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean the discussion isn’t the bill, it’s what to put in the summary, and trying to get GAC banned from medicaid for adults is a pretty solid example of opposing access to GAC for adults. Impoverished adults of you wish to be more specific, “minors and low-income adults” Snokalok (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

All jests aside, “minors and adults on medicaid” might actually be a reasonable compromise here for now Snokalok (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is. Again err on the side of not over starting her position. Springee (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

We already have multiple sources in the body directly stating her advocacy on multiple occasions against medicaid coverage for adult GAC. What may I ask do you find unsatisfactory Snokalok (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm following. We have RS stating she opposes GAC for adults and she has engaged in political advocacy to that effect. Filiforme1312 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, you need to show that her support is something beyond her interest in the minors part. Springee (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And again, the body of the article already shows ample support for banning medicaid coverage on multiple occasions, both for MTG, and directly testifying in favor of a florida policy to do solely that. Snokalok (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The body of the article shows she clearly is focused on GAC for minors. Springee (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

“ In July, Cole testified in favor of a Florida bill that would deny Medicaid coverage for any form of gender-affirming care for transgender people of all ages and establish that they aren't a "medical necessity".”

“ In September, Cole spoke at a press conference organized by Republican Congresswoman and anti-trans activist Marjorie Taylor Greene in support of her "Protect Children's Innocence Act". Cole said that while she didn't agree with everything any politician says, this bill which "protects children from the harm" that she endured was a cause she "could get behind". The act would make it a felony to provide any gender-affirming care to a minor, prohibit the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care or towards health insurance covering it for all ages, and prohibit colleges from offering instruction in such care.”

These are multiple instances of advocacy against GAC for adults on medicaid. Please, WP:DROPTHESTICK. The body is unambiguous in her advocacy on this matter. Snokalok (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The FL bill I've already addressed. The MTG bill seems clear, she is interested in the aspects that relate to minors. Her quotes are clearly about minors, not the parts of the bill that relate to adults. Compare that to the number of times we have her talking about minors specifically. The drop the sick comment could equally be applied to you. Let's instead assume good faith. Springee (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And again, we can’t speculate on her reasons without an RS saying them. This is what RS all say she’s advocated for. That’s more than enough.

Suggestion:

we change “opposes access to” to “has advocated against access to”. That way, it’s about deeds, not beliefs Snokalok (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Again no. Even in advocating for the bill that includes adults, of her specific advocating is related to minors then minors is it. We should not try to force for this. BLP: err on the side of caution. Springee (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying that she only advocated in regards to minors? Snokalok (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You are suggesting the more expansive claim. The onus is on those who wish to expand the claim. Springee (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, and my claim has been thoroughly verified by the RS in the article. Your speculation regarding Cole’s internal thought processes does not hold up under them. Snokalok (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's clear you're not going to convince each other, so how about you two wait for more input, or start a neutrally framed RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think an RFC is premature at this time. It is highly likely Cole and her views will be covered by a wide range of sources in fairly short order. The actual lawsuit against Kaiser was filed 2 weeks ago . . . DeSantis publicly named Cole in recent days . . . so there will be more eyes on this subject and inevitably more RS coverage. We need to be cautious of the pitfalls of WP:RECENTISM and wait for multiple sources to clarify a given point. Cedar777 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that it's reasonable to say based on the sources that Cole opposes access to trans healthcare for everyone, not just minors. (I wouldn't go so far to say that she opposes transition in general yet, but that's not the question.) Yes, she's more known for opposing transition for minors specifically, but that's also not the question. We clearly have sufficient sourcing to say that she publicly opposes both. Loki (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some things about the the sentence we are discussing that should be noted in thinking about language and editorial decisions. I do not understand the discussion to be about her opinion irt what forms of trans healthcare should be banned.

Opposes access to X is different from Opposes X, access being central. Advocacy for legal action that drastically reduces access to X is oppositional to access to X.

RS and the body both demonstrate opposition to access to trans healthcare as well as opposition to Trans healthcare for minors. Though at this moment it is true there is more prose in the body to the more specific claim of her position on bans.

I still support the proposal, but would also accept a rewrite that more accurately summarizes her actions as described in the body, will not lead readers to infer opinions and is not unnecessarily specific.

I'm going to step back pending further contribution from editors who have not spoken and I would suggest others do as well as this discussion is moving fast and I would like for others to have the opportunity to make comments. Filiforme1312 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My 2c: opposing access to care for "all ages", or opposing coverage of care for "all ages", does not mean opposing for adults. One can be in favor of a policy allowing something for adults, against allowing it for minors, and against allowing it for all ages, because allowing it for all ages means allowing it for minors. I've seen RS say she's opposed certain things that would apply to all ages (including minors), but I have not yet seen (and don't see in this discussion) examples of her opposing access to or coverage of care for only adults. It's minors or all ages, as far as I can tell. I might be wrong about that because I definitely haven't read all or even half of the sources out there about her.

The second thing is, if I edit a couple articles in the GENSEX topic area, it doesn't really make me "a GENSEX editor". That she opposed a bill about X here or supported a bill about Y there doesn't necessarily make her anti-X or pro-Y. And it's really not up to us editors to characterize or decide when she's opposed enough Xes or supported enough Ys to say anti-X or pro-Y; that's up to the RS. So in deciding how to summarize or characterize her, we need to be looking at how RSes summarize and characterize her, not look at what she did and then come up with our own characterization--that's too much like WP:OR.

When deciding on how to characterize her, we should look at the best quality RS we can find, and also as many as we can gather. A few from the mainstream news, I would consider these WP:TIER2 sources (that's just an essay though):

1. NBC News, October 2022: Chloe Cole, who described herself as an 18-year-old detransitioned female from California ...
2. Reuters, December 2022: 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.
3. CBS News, February 2023: Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old "detransitioner" who has traveled across the country speaking out against gender-affirming care for kids ...
4. The Independent, March 2023: ... Chloe Cole, a "detransitioner" who has become a central figure in a right-wing campaign to restrict gender-affirming care, despite the vast majority of trans people maintaining their gender identity.
5. The Economist, March 2023: Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old who has become a voice for detransitioners in America ...

This is a very compressed timeline but the last two don't specify minors. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need to see this as an either/or. I believe the bulk of the coverage still relates to measures for minors, but some relates to 'general' - mainly financial - restrictions. In the 2nd sentence, She has appeared with conservative politicians supporting bans in state legislatures would it work to add the nature of the bans (including the financial restrictions which she has supported)? BTW, it is now not only 'state legislatures' in which such bans have been proposed/supported.Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't know if that's true though, Cole is reported as saying she doesn't agree with everything politicians support and since this is a BLP we really should consider taking the weight of the sources that do report on her statements verbatim. Associating Cole with the broader stances of policy makers is a mistake. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Though I still support the original proposal, something to this effect would work for me. Looking over the body and RS, including something that mentions Cole's relation to bills that restrict access for trans people generally is warranted.

Opposes could be read as either acting against or holding an opinion against. In this article I read it as the former. It may be necessary to either disentangle the question of opinion or have RS that supports it as that seems to be central to the concerns preventing consensus. Filiforme1312 (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

She has spoken in support of some measures for adults, particularly Medicaid and insurance cover of aid to transgender adults, even though her focus has been on measures for minors. No, we don't know what she believes in beyond the 'minors' baseline, but we do know what she has endorsed, which includes some financial restrictions for adults. I don't see how adding that she has spoken in favour of such restrictions for adults is problematic. It is both a more complete picture than the present, and a more balanced one than any text that says or implies that she opposes all t-g rights. Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure I've lost track at this point but which source says she has spoken against GAC for adults. I've seen she has spoken in support of bills that include it but I think she also said she didn't support all aspects of the bill. I'm thinking of the FL bill. Springee (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

WUSF answers this with a quote from her.

Personally, I don’t think that children should ever be allowed to transition," Cole said. "I think it should be an adult decision, and there needs to be a better model of care for [gender] dysphoric patients.”

Slywriter (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Springee, I've also lost track of sources but was thinking of the Florida measures and the T-G bill. A summary of the 'adult' stiff is at the head of this section. When she speaks in favour of a bill which significantly impacts adults, I don't see the problem in saying that she has done so. No, she may not endorse every detail of the bill by name, but she has spoken for it.

I against making her responsible for everything said at these rallies, but endorsing a measure is endorsing that measure, even if not all the rhetoric surrounding it. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that should be left in the article body where the context is more clear. In the lead it may be lost and people could assume that she has a clear history of advocating against any GAC which is not supported when one looks at her advocacy in context. Springee (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Per Levivich, reliable sources have done our work for us by overwhelmingly describing her as opposed to GAC for minors. This doesn't mean that she can't also oppose it for all ages, but this is what she's most known and notable for. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Trauma

I've heard Cole in interviews speaking about the trauma she experienced as a result of her surgery. The effect that this had on her is clearly central to why she now thinks what she does. At present, this article doesn't give any sense of that, apart from the one comment about her realizing she won't be able to breast-feed. So I think the personal life section needs to say more about that. Probably a quote in her own words would be the best way to present her feelings about what has happened to her. Doric Loon (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Doric Loon: Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this? Elli (talk | contribs) 10:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

LA Blade Sourcing

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

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

2. They deadname Cole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Deadname goes on to state this about sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just need to be wary of allowing any framing by the journalist to be treated as factual. Why? There is no evidence that Ennis was biased towards Cole prior to the publication of the article. The incident with the banner happened 5 days after the article was published, during a period where Ennis was being harassed on Twitter by followers of Libs of TikTok [5] and Andy Ngo[6]. Also from looking at other archives of Ennis' Twitter account, the banner was only present for a short period on 15 September, as archives of the profile on 14 September and 16 September show the use of the Progress Pride Flag.

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

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

References

Sacramento rally

Why is the opinion of James Patnaude relevant? [7] They claim that Cole's goal is to "outlaw gender-affirming care for youth and adults in general." Why is this opinion DUE? Springee (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not. The rest of the internet is for defining people by their enemies' words. This remains an encyclopedia. Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this person's opinion is not significant in any way. Pincrete (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)