Talk:Chloe Cole/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

SIGCOV of Cole

Below is a table listing what WP:RS providing Cole WP:SIGCOV have had to say about her, her activism, her Kaiser case, and her (de)transition timeline. If I missed any, we can add them. I've added quotes on her activism/kaiser case, since her detransition is largely uncontroversial

Sources providing Cole/her activism/her (de)transition/The Kaiser case SIGCOV

Source Review Article/Source SIGCOV of Quotes LA Blade activism/(de)transition  • her regret has been seized upon by anti-trans forces all around the world  • She's the poster child for far-right politicians and religious conservatives working to ban these lifesaving medical treatments and to prosecute the doctors and parents who support their children’s transitions.  • Despite Cole’s choice of words, matching that of many anti-trans activists, federal judges, the ACLU and now the Associated Press have made it clear that the transphobic terms, “biological male,” “biological female” and “biological sex” are nonsense words, coined during the North Carolina bathroom bill days specifically to oppress trans people..  • Notes she supports bill of anti-trans activist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.  • When she sat down with Florida’s anti-trans Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo in July, her story changed dramatically.  • Devotes an entire section to Cole’s LibsOfTikTok Connection: Another fan of Cole’s is the infamous LibsOfTikTok, aka Chaya Raichik, who wrote in a rant on her Substack that gender-affirming care is “mutilating the body.” Cole follows Raichik and she follows Cole, who tweeted last week that she hoped Raichik won’t “back down from exposing what happens at these ‘gender clinics.’” She called it “one of the most important issues of my generation.”  • Since her emergence on the public scene in April, trans adults have been digging into Cole’s claims. Some note the fact that surgery takes years of planning and preparation and is not done on a whim or under pressure. There is rampant speculation that her travel has been paid for by anti-LGBTQ activists; Cole denied that on Twitter, noting, “The only people who have bought and sold me—and my body—are the ‘gender specialists’ and surgeons that sold my family and I a lie.” The Blade asked her to elaborate on this question as part of our email exchange. “My trips are self-funded with help from crowdfunding via Twitter tips,” she said.  • There’s no denying Cole is suffering as a result of what she describes as her realization, two years ago, that she’d never breastfeed. But the facts, whatever they are in Cole’s case, aren’t as important as the reality, which is that hers is still just one case, heartbreaking as it may be; Cole is an outlier compared to the vast majority of positive outcomes, as cited by journalist Zack Ford.  • She has become a Whatever their reasons, no matter their number, Cole and other detransitioners do deserve support, understanding and counseling, even as some become political pawns for anti-trans forces. 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.  • in being politically active and denouncing gender-affirming care, detransitioners and their supporters can cause deliberate harm to trans and nonbinary youth, something that may be rooted in the suffering they have experienced or are experiencing.  • WP:HEADLINE and all that, but an important subheading to note: From trans teen to anti-trans activist Los Angeles Times activism/(de)transition/Kaiser  • California teenager Chloe Cole has become something of a star in the movement to deny treatments to transgender youth. She has given testimony or made public statements in support of anti-treatment bills in Florida, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Idaho and North Dakota; appeared on Fox News; and shared a Washington platform with right-wing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).  • It’s impossible to know at this juncture how much of Cole’s narrative unfolded as she says, how much of what she views as medical malpractice is due to her or and her parents’ misunderstanding; her lawsuit is 32 pages of pure accusations. Kaiser, for the moment, can’t discuss Cole’s case without her express permission because of federal and state patient privacy laws.  • 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. 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. 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.  • Proponents of these bans assert that puberty blockers and hormones used in such care endanger the lives of adolescents. They say the youths may be going through a phase that they’ll soon outgrow and the treatments are based on overly indulgent diagnoses of “gender dysphoria” — that is, the psychological distress caused by “an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity,” in the words of the American Psychiatric Assn. The truth is just the opposite. Gender dysphoria diagnosis is neither novel nor a fad, as some partisan critics assert. Instead, it’s recognized by professionals as a serious medical condition.  • Professional guidelines call for hormone therapy — such as testosterone for female-to-male transition and estrogen for male-to-female — to begin around the age of 15 to 16. Surgical interventions aren’t indicated for people under 18, except in very rare cases in which dysphoria is so severe that it can’t be mitigated any other way.  • For many patients, outlawing the use of therapeutic hormones until adulthood or the use of puberty blockers on children, as is mandated by laws and regulations passed in some states, condemns them to living with a serious medical condition that could have been alleviated through medical treatment.  • The minds of politicians and ideologues supporting prohibitions on gender-affirming care are impervious to similar appeals from patients and parents or to the weight of professional evidence favoring treatment. 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.  • Cole’s legal complaint incorporates what seem to be misleading or inaccurate descriptions of developments in the gender dysphoria treatment field. (followed by disproving 3 claims Cole's lawsuit made) San Francisco Chronicle activism/(de)transition/Kaiser  • Chloe Cole, 18, who has become something of a celebrity in the anti-trans movement.  • The conservative nonprofit Center for American Liberty said Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente alleging that it provided inappropriate gender hormone therapies and surgical procedures to a teenager who later de-transitioned. The teenager at the center of the lawsuit is Chloe Cole, 18, who has been outspoken nationally about her experiences with gender dysphoria, which led to her starting puberty blockers and hormone therapy at age 13 and getting a double mastectomy at 15. She decided to de-transition when she was 17. In the time since, her case has become a political touchstone for conservative groups pushing against transgender rights and access to gender-affirming care for young people.;  • De-transitioning is uncommon, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality. In a 2015 survey, about 8% of transgender respondents said they had de-transitioned at some point, though in most cases it was temporary and they later resumed transitioning. Only about 0.4% of respondents said they de-transitioned because they had realized gender transition was not what they wanted.  • Conservative groups have held up de-transitioning as a reason for delaying or restricting access to gender-affirming care for children and adolescents. The Center for American Liberty also sued a school district in Orange County alleging teachers provided a student unsolicited gender conversion advice and sued the state health department over its early-pandemic masking and gathering guidelines.  • “People like (Cole) are rare,” said Ebony Harper, executive director of California TRANScends, which advocates for transgender health equity. “But people on the right want to use them as a beacon of the masses of trans folks that are detransitioning and are unhappy. “It’s purely about politics,” Harper said. “These people do not give a f— about these children. Chloe is just a pawn.”  • The Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for the rights of LGBTQ+ people, is tracking a record 150 anti-trans bills across the country this year. Last March, the UCLA School of Law Williams Institute estimated that more than 58,000 transgender youth stood to lose gender-affirming care because of state bans and policies — including ones that penalize healthcare providers and supportive families — which the institute and national medical associations warn could have disastrous mental health consequences for these youth.  • Cole has become a poster child for right-wing resistance to transgender care, making appearances on conservative media and offering testimony on transgender legislation in several states, including California. In September, she spoke against a bill, introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, to make California a sanctuary state for children seeking gender-affirming care. Reuters (de)transition  • In the world of gender-affirming care, as well as in the broader transgender community, few words cause more discomfort and outright anger than “detransition” and “regret.” That’s particularly true among medical practitioners in the United States and other countries who provide treatment to rising numbers of minors seeking to transition. They insist, as MacKinnon once did, that detransitioning is too rare to warrant much attention, citing their own experiences with patients and extant research to support their view. When someone does detransition, they say, it’s almost never because of regret, but rather, a response to the hardship of living in a society where transphobia still runs rampant. “These patients are not returning in droves” to detransition, said Dr Marci Bowers, a transgender woman, gender surgeon and president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an international group that sets guidelines for transgender care. Patients with regret “are very rare,” she told Reuters. “Highest you’ll find is 1% or 1.5% of any kind of regret.”  • 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.  • Steve Shivinsky, a spokesman for Kaiser Permanente, declined to comment on the care provided to Cole and Robinson or whether they were included in the study, citing patient privacy. In a statement, he said Kaiser’s “clinicians are deeply interested in the outcomes of the care we provide and the individual’s state of health and wellbeing before, during and beyond their gender transition.” For adolescents seeking gender-affirming care, he said, “the decision always rests with the patient and their parents and, in every case, we respect the patients’ and their families’ informed decision to choose one form of care over another.” News Nation (de)transition/Kaiser  • “Very quickly the algorithm of Instagram actually started recommending me a bunch of, like, a lot of LGBTQ content, particularly, like trans-identified females who were on my age, like trans boys,” Cole said.  • Cole, Luka and Kerschner feel that it’s important for them to come forward with their stories and say it’s OK for young people to wait to transition.  • “There’s just no defending this,” Cole said. “You cannot possibly defend sterilizing and then mutilating children.” KTVB (de)transition  • BOISE, Idaho — Idaho Rep. Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa) proposed a bill in the Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee Jan. 31 to ban gender-affirmation treatment for people under 18 year old.  • However, LGBTQ+ youth have consistently had a greater risk for depression and suicide. According to The Trevor Project, a national nonprofit, states its mission is; “To end suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning young people.” The project estimates that over 9,000 LGBTQ+ youth seriously consider suicide annually. Additionally, the National Institute of Health compiled 27 studies and found of the nearly 8,000 patients who did have gender affirming surgeries - both male and female - 77 had regrets.  • In support of Rep. Skaug's bill, detransitioned speaker Chloe Cole accepted an invitation from the Idaho Freedom Foundation - a self-described conservative think tank - to speak Thursday at the Idaho statehouse.;  • "Gender dysphoria really is a mental health issue and yet we're treating it with surgeries and physical interventions," Cole said. "There is not a single other mental health condition that we do the same with... and yet it's perfectly fine for children who wrongly feel they are the opposite sex to be mutilated and castrated."

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

New Lede Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there are 3 main things we have to include:

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

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

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

Considering that, here's my proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) what Madeline said

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, I know nothing about that US paediatric association EXCEPT that it is a legitimate professional association AFAIK. Also AFAIK it is not a FRINGE organisation in WP terms, but has an alternate (albeit minority) viewpoint. More importantly however, this is ostensibly a BLP article about Cole, it is not a "winner takes all" WP:COATRACK about which view of care generally prevails in US or elsewhere. Being a WP:RS for factual matters has little to do with whether one holds the majority viewpoint on this or any other matter. But my partial 'defence' of that paediatric association and that MD has no bearing whatsoever on whether she is anti-trans. Neither I nor anyone else has sought to argue anywhere AFAIK that those MDs don't call her anti-trans, so neither should we, or to use them as a source for anything. In fact AFAIK, no MDs have labelled her either way. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) … Amendment: ACAP is not actually a professional association and its views are largely fringe. Apologies. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This lead suggestion is not acceptable. She is not a "conservative activist" and putting "anti-trans" activist in the opening sentence is not ok. Again it gives the strong impression this article is aimed at SEO rather than being IMPARTIAL. The same applies to the "celebrity" comment. The bills supported part is also just back doors to try to include disputed content in the lead. This is even more problematic since you removed details about one of the bills here [3] Springee (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which facts do you think aren't being adequately mentioned. Note, we should avoid putting subjective labels/claims in the lead. This is why we avoid things like "she has been described as...". This is especially true when relatively few sources describe her as such. The same is true when people want to put loaded language in the lead. The ARBCOM case that lead to many of the BLP rules and consideration started with a clear message, "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."[4] Loading the lead with contentious descriptions of her or the media outlets that are currently willing to listen to her can fail IMPARTIAL and thus is a violation of the do no harm mantra. That said, I'm open to knowing what information from the body should be added to this lead suggestion. Springee (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [5]. 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)

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)

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"[6]. 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[7]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

See this removal[8], 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)

“ 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)

Sacramento rally

Why is the opinion of James Patnaude relevant? [9] 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)

Removed. Clearly undue and non notable. --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback! Lets talk about what is DUE. The RS for her Sacramento Rally was primarily focused on the large turnout of counter-protesters and their reasons for being there. Both the existence of counter-protesters and their reason for being there are DUE. The current form lacks any context given to readers for the counter-protesters. This should be improved.

My thought process in the original edit:

• any statement reflecting the reaction to Cole and reasons for being there must be attributed and supported by RS.
• per RS, the significance of the Sac rally was the reaction of her critics there. Most coverage focuses largely on this aspect.
• among those critics, their view that her actions would impact trans people generally was the consistent and overarching theme.
• Patnaude was chosen as he has relevant professional expertise and his quote acted as a summary of the concerns expressed by others in the article.

Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe add this to Patnaude's article, but even that is a stretch and not really that notable. How much coverage did this rally even receive? I wouldn't include it. --Malerooster (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The bulk of the RS was reactions to Cole. To bring inline with NPOV, we should include some descriptor of that reaction. My comment was not intended to double down or advocate for the specific quote, but solicit feedback on how to accomplish NPOV in a way that works for editors with concerns about the initial version. I would invite editors to read the source prior to engaging in this discussion. Filiforme1312 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Some activists who gathered at the park expressed concern that Cole plans on suing Kaiser Permanente in the Central Valley. “Chloe’s end goal is to outlaw gender-affirming care for youth and adults in general,” said James Patnaude, a transgender service specialist at the San Joaquin Pride Center in Stockton. “Her rhetoric is directly attacking trans individuals."

Patnaude said that Kaiser Permanente Manteca is one of few such service providers in the area, and that increasing negative coverage and rhetoric of the trans experience is “sowing discord between trans individuals, the public, and cisgender allies.”

It's called WP:CHERRYPICKING when material is selectively chosen. The quote besides being undue was entirely out of context as the RS provided two additional paragraphs that are directly relevant to the quote.Slywriter (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of CHERRYPICKING and implying that the reasons I outlined are disingenuous? Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, Im now seeing cherrypicking does not imply intent. The rest of that section is neither "contradictory or significant qualifying" and would fall under "addition info". Regardless, Im not contesting the removal of the quote and will be working on the needed short one sentence prose that summarizes the context of the counter-protest. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The counter-protest is already covered. All that's unmentioned here is generic political statement by generic former politician with no mention of Cole and Patnaude. Patnaude spends two-thirds on concern for impact on the hospital and remainder is the quote. There's no evidence Patnaude is notable or represents a notable organization. His views on the defendant aren't WP:DUE, so what is left to summarize? It would be WP:SYNTH to combine the general counter-protest, generic politician statement, and Patnaude statement into any cohesive message from the group. Slywriter (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Im aware of SYNTH so should be good on avoiding that.

No one is contesting the exclusion of the Patnaude quote so not sure why its being discussed further. at risk of notaforum yes he gives his general assessment and follows it with a specific example. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The limited information I can find about Patnaude leads me to believe he is not notable at all. While I support James' right to speak his mind, that doesn't mean we need to include it here. Agree with the removal per WP:UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

biography, not ideology

Reading the article and then the talk page (which I didn't read fully) I wonder if this is really a BLP. Lots of stuff relevant to her issues but not directly relevant to her. 142.163.194.122 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples or changes you'd like to propose? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Piping Opposes Gender Affirming Care

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

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

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

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

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

Locked from editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRT RS there is currently Washington Times and SF Daily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: include the title of the lawsuit she filed

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Survey (lawsuit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (lawsuit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA Blade Sourcing

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

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

2. They deadname Cole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Deadname goes on to state this about sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just need to be wary of allowing any framing by the journalist to be treated as factual. Why? There is no evidence that Ennis was biased towards Cole prior to the publication of the article. The incident with the banner happened 5 days after the article was published, during a period where Ennis was being harassed on Twitter by followers of Libs of TikTok [10] and Andy Ngo[11]. Also from looking at other archives of Ennis' Twitter account, the banner was only present for a short period on 15 September, as archives of the profile on 14 September and 16 September show the use of the Progress Pride Flag.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Citation needed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed I went ahead and removed the tag as it was improperly used. The notes for the tag stated needs citations both to primary sources regarding those positions (eg those of the AAP) as well as which of Cole’s opinions are in conflict with them)

Essentially the standard set by the tag would be a detailed breakdown of every point she disagrees with. This abnormally high standard requires us to cite for things that are not stated in our article.

Further, much of the justification for use of the tag seems to be based on OR and misreadings of primary sources. A lot seems to hinge on the incorrect idea that the AAP's statement in support of gender affirming care does not involve medical care. Further, the AAP website contains multiple articles expressing support for various forms of medical care for trans minors by name.

Are we suggesting the claim might be inaccurate? This has implications on the rest of the article as Cole's entire notability is based on her outspoken opposition to the broader medical consensus. Filiforme1312 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I do think it would be better to attribute the claim or at least not cited sources that don't reference Cole. That comes off as pointy if nothing else. Springee (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If I am following correctly, conforming to the request in the tag would exacerbate this as it would be numerous MEDRS sources cited with no connection to Cole. Slywriter (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My read is the original tag was added to ask about a source that linked Cole to the long list of references. It doesn't seem like the right tag but I think the concern about how the passage was written had validity. I think the answer is to tone it down. Springee (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Springee, I think you might have it backward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to hearing suggestions. Some background info: When I crafted the initial prose I did so in anticipation for a few concerns from other editors based on general feel of the talk page. One was including attribution, which has since been removed. The other was essentially toning down the statement of our the RS.

If we want to reinstate attribution, we should be sure to tag the editor who removed it if they arent already here.

Our RS says medical establishment more broadly. I used most medical professionals associations as that describes medical establishment and the examples given. This is a significantly narrower scope than what is presented by the RS.

We should note that the RS gives three examples of the medical establishment's disagreement with Cole's views in a non-exhaustive list.

RS I drew from states:

Cole’s beliefs don’t align with the medical establishment, including the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which has said “gender affirming care improves quality of life and has been endorsed by major medical associations.” Those organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So we should say what she advocates is in opposition to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. That is what the source said. While the SB's article did mention the other organizations, it only said they were members. It didn't say they specifically oppose Cole's position. In effect, what is in the article over states the claim made by the source. Springee (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that. They aren't members of WPATH, but separate organizations entirely that also oppose Cole's views on healthcare. Essentially a few more examples besides WPATH. Filiforme1312 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, I did miss read it. Is worse. None of the named organizations comments on Cole's position. Instead a third party, a news paper, which is making the claim. Yeah, that needs attribution. It's also problematic that we don't have a closet discussion on Cole's positions and what she may or may not support in an ideal case. Regardless, the approving needs to be restored or the CN tag is legit since none of those organizations, based on provided sources, had commented on Cole's positions. Springee (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The organisations don't need to comment on Cole's position directly for a secondary reliable source to state that Cole's positions are in opposition to the positions those organisations hold. I also don't think this needs attribution or a CN tag, as this is a largely uncontroversial point. What Cole espouses with regards to consent for gender-affirming care for minors does run counter to those organisations, and arguably even without the secondary source that we have we could still state as such in wikivoice per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In this case they do. Part of the issue is we don't have a clear source for Cole's positions. The other issue is none of these organizations have said what their position is with respect to Cole's positions. Thus we have a third parting making the claim. That third party needs to be named. Also, I don't think we have enough history to say what is/isn't pseudoscience with respect to long term effective gender affirming care plans. Regardless, we are stating something in Wiki-voice, even though it is not the actual medial associations that have made the claim, rather it's the opinion of a SB writer. That opinion may be correct but Wikipedia is about sticking to RSs. Springee (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you might have misread the source and our article again.

It's pretty uncontroversial to state that Cole opposes gender-affirming care for minors. Pretty much all of her advocacy, including where she's testified in support of various state bills support the notion that she opposes such healthcare for trans youth. It's so much a part of what she does that it's basically getting into blue sky territory.

It is also uncontroversial to state that WPATH, AAP, AMA, both APAs, and a whole host of other major American and international medical associations and bodies fully support and endorse the mainstream medical view that gender-affirming healthcare is the correct way to support the needs of trans and non-binary people of all ages. If Cole is opposing gender-affirming care for minors, then she is de facto opposing all of those organisations, and the mainstream medical view. That puts her right into the middle of our pseudoscience policy point. Thankfully we have a secondary source that has already made the connection that policy would otherwise require us to make with a bunch of primary sources that simply state the mainstream view on this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. This is what I was alluding to earlier. I would be all for attribution if this were at all a surprising claim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is we don't fully know Cole's positions. Largely we only have the claims of those who have identified her as a political opponent. I think we can all agree that there are a full range of things that are part of gender affirming care. Do we know what Cole's take is on the whole thing? Is she opposed to all of it or just the irreversible parts? Does she oppose even starting the counseling/discussions etc? We don't really know. However to make is sound like these medical organizations have come out and said she is 100% wrong is simply not something we have sourcing to support. That is why the attributed claim makes sense in this case. This is something that unfortunately often gets lost in heated political discussions. Often there is a middle ground and some level of common agreement. However, when people become entrenched or see the other side as "bad" then we miss that. It's easier to characterize a position with what might be a strawman and then say that strawman is wrong rather than providing the full scope of the person's real perspectives and opinions then trying to find the black, white and gray in their views.

Sideswipe, the problem with your statement is it presumes there is one, long time proven concept of gender affirming care. It presumes a standard has been found and set. It also presumes that all parties agree that gender affirming care for minors is a total package. Do all the various western European organizations also agree? Again, we don't know exactly what Cole's positions are because none of the sources we have actually asked her the question then reported the answer. Thus we have to presume her full position then presume it differs in full from the various medical organizations who haven't offered their actual opinion on the subject.

At the end of the day, this is a BLP. We need to err on the side of caution when making claims about a BLP, including when we presume what their views are and presume how others would respond to those views. Springee (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"However to make is sound like these medical organizations have come out and said she is 100% wrong": I'm not seeing that the article text says or implies this. Separately from the rest of your issues, do you think there's a tweak we could make to the article wording to avoid this misunderstanding?

Cole says "I don’t think it’s ever appropriate for children to medically transition. It should never be allowed." This diverges from the views of the medical orgs mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think putting the attribution back in is the best option. It makes it clear who said this and who did the assessment. Springee (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:WIKIVOICE section on Avoid stating facts as opinons, It seems we must leave out attribution and I was mistaken to include it in my initial edit. I don't see this as controversial as her entire notability is for her critique of existing medical consensus and the majority of the article as well as what seems to be entirety of RS states this. These organizations stances on gender affirming care for trans youth is also not contested. Filiforme1312 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The preceding sentence states her views, which is that kids can not consent to such care even with parental approval. If a patient cant consent, there is no care. There is no need to presume her views as multiple RS have described them and they are included in the article.

But yes, it is accurate to state the medical consensus is in support of healthcare for trans kids. There are a few fringe medical groups with limited membership, such as SEGM who have formed to oppose this, but those have a range of issues. Filiforme1312 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's not controversial, but I would also note this article is a BLP not an essay on the various medical associations positions on these matters. WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK concerns withstanding this debate appears to be reaching a crescendo and we don't seem to be coming to an agreement. Should this go to RfC? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's one sentence of sourced material, and the source is directly contrasting Cole with the mainstream view. This couldn't reasonably be considered a coatrack, as Cole's disagreement with the medical establishment is central to her notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not only is it not a coatrack, but it is a necessary step to move towards WP:Pseudoscience compliance, which the article currently lacks much of beyond this sentence. Even if the RS had not cited Cole directly, it would be necessary to contextualize her theories of medicine with the current medical consensus.

Claiming someone is unable to consent to a procedure is a question of medical science, which Cole has no background or expertise in. Her other views on standards of care are also psuedoscientific medical theories and frankly deserve further consideration in regards to moving towards compliance with fringe/psuedoscience policies. Instead, she as a layperson has developed theories for medical practice based on her personal regret for an area of medicine with a regret rate below the average rate in medicine generally.

The blend of political advocacy with her scientific claims does not exempt them from these policies. Filiforme1312 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As a compromise could we include references that may support her claims? We both know they exist and both sides on this issue claim the others side research is flawed. In all honesty, WP:NOTFORUM this is a contentious topic that need not be argued here. There are multiple legislative bodies and medical boards that don't agree with the "consensus" which means there actually isn't consensus. There are likely no shortage of editors who feel WP:Pseudoscience applies to the assertions claimed by the sources that are being discussed here. Nevertheless, I'm not going to respond to any further discussion since I don't feel it's a productive use of anyone's time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

When you say groups that support her claims, do you mean groups like SEGM? Legislative bodies, or even insurance companies, are not WP:MEDRS for topics like medical models of consent or standards of care. The presence of organizations advocating for a theory does not make it exempt from FRINGE(see flat earth). So we would need to specify which groups and go from there. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to avoid getting into a debate over the suitability of these sources, because I'm not an expert nor do I agree with the assignment of fringe-theory to legitimate scientific debate. Alluding that medical professionals who are presenting dissent to this extremely contentious field of medicine as flat-earthers is incredibly disingenous and a bad-faith debate tactic. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My use of flat earth was not a comparison, but an example of a group we can agree is fringe to show the that the existence of organizations with members holding professional qualifications is not the basis for determining if a scientific claim is fringe. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

References