This is the
talk page for discussing
Riley Gaines and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Hi Mathmo, we seem to be overlapping a bit in our edits about Gaines stating she was struck twice versus content stating she "was assaulted", e.g. [1], but with reference to WP:RSP, sources such as the Reason commentary, The Daily Telegraph and WP:NEWSWEEK are not the best possible sources available, so it seems best, per WP:NPOV, including WP:WIKIVOICE, to use the best-sourced content we currently have available, which seems to be based on Gaines' statements at this time. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 01:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I see there isn't consensus to cover the assault and confinement incident as actual facts (that are reliable sourced). I suggest we simply drop it entirely. From reading comments, the reason for not covering this as established fact, is there's a lack of reliable sources. If that's the case, then you actually need *more* sourcing to cover the dispute of facts. Whenever reliable sources disagree you need to devote greater time/attention (to give proper weight to each position based on reliable sources). In the future, if there's much better sourcing, an active civil case (not just a threat), or a criminal case, that would warrant inclusion. Right now, we're using cowardly/weasely wording, that lets different people read the same text, and take opposite interpretations. An example of lousy writing is: "After the event concluded, protesters arrived. Gaines was escorted by law enforcement officers to shelter in a classroom". Why was she sheltering? Was it raining outside? -- Rob ( talk) 02:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.Also, the WP:PRIMARYSOURCE section of WP:OR includes "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." So it sounds like we agree that we can't review a primary source such as a video and then conduct our own analysis or interpretation, e.g. whether an unlawful detainer happened.
Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.I went with what seems to be the more neutral MOS:SAID under the current circumstances (e.g. the MOS includes
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.) And we will need a better source than a Fox News talk show (the Yahoo link) per WP:RSP. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Just skimmed this section but I made an independent addition on the SFSU article and I avoided Newsweek and the Telegraph. Perhaps my edit there could help the tone on this one/could be harmonized between the articles. SmolBrane ( talk) 14:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I know many eyes are on this page at the moment, so we should try our best to be precise and stick as closely to reliable sources. Thanks to @ Maddy from Celeste for correcting the problematic language regarding this. I've looked at the RS and it seems in Wikivoice we should be saying Transgender Atheletes instead. I am not sure of Riley's views, but it could presumably be true that she may additionally oppose inclusion of Trans Men in Women's sports.
Most sources quote her directly when explaining her views, however, the following sources do explicitly mention Transgender Athletes, and not Transgender Women. [5], [6]. With regards to the first source note that the title indicates the event was in regards to Transgender Women in Women's sports, however specifically regarding Riley it says Transgender Athletes.
It may be the case that there are other sources which report differently, in which case we should add them. Theheezy ( talk) 06:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are
not a forum for general discussion
|
---|
I dont understand the worry about using the term "Biological males, and Biological females", its the term Gaines uses, who on earth are we to censor terms others use, whether you find them offensive or not. If we did that to everybody as in not allowing their quotations as some do not like those quotes, we would not understand what anybody was saying, we should allow people to have quotations in their own words, and they can then be criticised for what they say in their own words, if we insert our own definitions, we do not really have a understanding on where they are coming from. If it is transphobic to say the term biological male, then if people use it, that there choice, not Wikipedia. Look at the article on Churchill we do not censor what he says, and as of that we have a broad view of him, rather than a rose tinted, or anti him article. This seems especially bizarre, when you see there is an entire wikipedia article on the most offensive word in the world, the N word. Which is a word that if we are banning words from wikipedia, should be banned, way before Biological male, indeed the N Word, is a word I am horrified to hear whenever I hear it, which I am glad to say is very rare, though sadly I see it mentioned in articles from Ron Atkinson'e infamous use of the term, which he is ashamed about, to a entire article on the N -Word, with its spelling intact, but for some reason the term biological male is deemed as something that can not even be used as a quotation, even though it is the language the person themself is using.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:b3a9:7601:cb1:e5da:bb1e:1995 ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for your reply and your considered answer, but I dont believe it is for us or Wikipedia, to assume context of why someone uses terms, we can not say if someone is calling someone a liar, unless they say they are, it is not for us to assume anything. If someone uses a term, they use it, we dont decide if its fair or not. If Churchill made a brilliant speech, like he did many times we let his words reveal that, if Churchill said something controversial we let his words reveal that, it is not for Wikipedia, to over interpret, or even mildly interpret those terms. I shall leave it at this :).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:b3a9:7601:a812:2898:38df:9608 ( talk) 21:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
Can we state this in the article? Not the greatest source but https://nypost.com/2023/06/02/riley-gaines-backing-desantis-over-trump-in-2024/ PalmScrost ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
aligned with conservative politics? PalmScrost ( talk) 13:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.But it has been restored and adjusted now, so I think this has been addressed.
aligned with conservative politicsin the lead? The Chloe Cole article already does this by describing her as having
appeared with conservative politicians and in the media. PalmScrost ( talk) PalmScrost ( talk) 18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
She has appeared with conservative politicians and in the media, supporting and advocating for such bansline in the lead. I am not particularly familiar with the development of the Cole article, but from my view, for this article, it appears we currently have a collection of reporting about Gaines that is mostly limited to reporting about discrete events, and do not yet have the kind of secondary coverage, or particularly extensive coverage, that can support an expansion of the lead at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead should mention her anti-trans political activism and alignment with conservatives. Presently it does not do that. PalmScrost ( talk) 02:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Gaines campaigns against the inclusionanyway, no implying required. A cursory look at her Twitter should make it obvious to anyone that she's actively campaigning. I suggest we change the lead to match the use of present tense in the article body. PalmScrost ( talk) 01:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Gaines aligns herself with anti-trans rhetoric and politicsjust for example. PalmScrost ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
discrimination against transgender people[11]. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
As background, there has been fairly substantial discussion at Talk:Lia Thomas, including about the application of WP:BLP policy, which relates to statements made by Gaines about Thomas, as well as statements made by Gaines about her own teammates. I mention this because from my view, there appears to be a general agreement about a need to exercise caution, and I would add for this article, it appears similar considerations apply.
I think generally it seems WP:DUE enough to note when Gaines receives notice in independent, reliable, and secondary sources for a public advocacy event, but likely WP:UNDUE when there is minimal coverage to add what sounds like a negative statement directed at Thomas by Gaines, and particularly a direct quote. I think we have generally been doing this for previous events such as participation in lobbying, campaign advertisements, etc; the summary content reflects the weight of available coverage, which helps avoid creating promotional content.
BLP policy also seems to encourage us to find an alternative to direct quotes from Gaines that seem to disparage or otherwise make accusations against Thomas. BLP policy includes in its introduction, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment," and the policy tells us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."
I think there may be an encyclopedic way to add further content, but I also think we should consider the independence, reliability, and weight of available sources and how to present information with the biographies of living persons policy in mind, and proceed cautiously, e.g. as noted in the 21 March 2023 close of a discussion at the Lia Thomas article Talk page, "Editors wishing to include the information should attempt to gain consensus on the wording and sourcing on the talk page before introducing it to the article, as it is clear such information is contentious and likely to be removed without prior consensus to include, per WP:BLP." Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
shared her "own personal experience competing with trans swimmer Lia Thomas and having to share the same dressing room.". I mean, that's information-less. What experience is it that she shared? One would think sharing that in her own Wikipedia article would be WP:DUE.
content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.So it does not appear feasible to balance this contentious material about a living person with sourcing related to popular opinion about sports generally. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I added a maintenance template because from my view, based on the amount and depth of coverage available, recent edits that rearrange content from a chronological narrative into small groups of somewhat-similar activities, [14], [15], seems promotional - most of the sources relate to discrete events, so it seems appropriate according to WP:NPOV policy to follow the sources and summarize a chronology in the Political activism section for now. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@ X-Editor and Beccaynr: I removed the text following text from the article in this edit:
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called the incident "an appalling attack on free speech on a college campus". [2] PEN America called the incident a "disaster.", adding that "Physical intimidation or violence is never an acceptable response to speech, no matter how hateful or controversial that speech may be". [2]
As I indicated in my edit summary, my primary concern was undue weight—to me, it seemed inappropriate to include the preceding text while excluding the following text:
After the SFSU event, SFGATE wrote that Gaines "rose to prominence as an activist last year after tying for fifth place with trans swimmer Lia Thomas," and "has since gone on a public crusade against Thomas." [3]
In June 2023, Media Matters published an analysis of Gaines' 29 appearances on Fox News between April 2022 and the end of May 2023, with a focus on the frequency and type of anti-trans talking points made by Gaines. [4] According to Media Matters, more than half of Gaines' appearances on Fox News since April 2022 had occurred during April and May 2023. [4]
Now that Beccaynr has restored the text that X-Editor removed, I'm wondering whether it would be appropriate to restore X-Editor's addition. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's worth discussing here. — SamX [ talk · contribs 18:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
ping|SamX}}
in a subsequent edit. (It's a mistake I've made in the past.) —
SamX [
talk ·
contribs 19:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
References
(outdent) Why are we including quotes from politicians and activists that are unconnected to the event? I understand a McCarthy quote in the McCarthy article. I understand it in some article, where the quote was notable, and there's discussion about it in 3rd party sources. A while back, in this vesion I had the text " According to The Telegraph, Gaines was physically assaulted and forced to barricade herself inside a room". That was removed, because it was supposedly bias. Yet, now you're quoting a politician and a political activist group, who have no direct knowledge, are not journalists, have no reputation for fact checking, saying something that's vastly more contentious, and that's now ok? It's also frankly incendiary, and the type of think we should be especially cautious about. There are hundreds of politicians and activists who have commented on the incident, and I think its absurd for us to start picking which ones to include. This is an article about Gaines. Let's stick to what reliable sources say about her. Note, I'm not arguing for-or-against going back to my favored version, just objecting to the random inclusion of political quotes from third parties, that's now going on. -- Rob ( talk) 22:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
(outdent)For reference, this is the House Speaker McCarthy's tweet as quoted by CNN:
For S2, you say McCarthy can't make self-published claims about third parties, namely House Republicans. But, you're somehow ok with him making negative claims about free speech on the college campus (a third party) in S1. He's the elected leader of House Republicans. It's his literal job to speak for them. S2 is similar to a union leader speaking on behalf of his members, which is something we could quote. There are other quotes of others in the House Republicans saying similar things to S2, and none saying the opposite. McCarthy is not a representative of any college, and many college leaders would say the exact opposite of what he said in S1, and may consider it defamatory to their institutions. I'm sure trans rights protesters disagree with the S1 notion that they engaged in an "appalling attack", and might consider that statement defamatory. We must get rid of S1. We should probably remove S1+S2. I remind everyone this is all the same tweet by the same person, quoted in the same article, by the same journalist, by the same media outlet. I am frustrated that you've invented rules to defend S1 and different rules to attack S2. It is simply impossible to justify inclusion of S1, while excluding S2, using consistant criteria. -- Rob ( talk) 22:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to the "Early life" section. I agree with removal of the "incidental" hit mentioned by the dad. Such a statement is a huge claim, requiring significant sourcing, and balancing, which wouldn't be appropriate since this article isn't about the dad, would be hugely tangential, and a BLP-nightmare. However, I disagree with removal of the parent names, especially the dad. This is an article about an athlete, and her athletic parents are relevant to her status an athlete. All three have been quite open and public about their family connection (before and after Riley Gaines got political). So, there's no risk of harming a private person. She has two uncles in the NFL, her dad was in the CFL (briefly), her mom played at the University level (as the dad did). I'm not saying we should put in all those details, but including her public parent's names, seems pretty reasonable, as we're just showing a limited subset of widely published information. I can't imagine an article about an actor not naming their actor parents. -- Rob ( talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. I do agree that her athletic parents/family seem relevant to this article; my general preference would be to summarize this aspect, and avoid names unless we have stronger sourcing about how the specific individuals are relevant. However, if we have more recent sources, I think that would further support inclusion of their names, e.g. sources about the parents discussing Gaines as an activist, etc. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Do she has date of birt or she is an alien who come out of this planet and nobody knows her age? Baris365 ( talk) 06:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the recent addition of of the Oklahoma Executive Order [19]. We've added excessive detail, that's unbalanced. The current wording (based on AP) contradicts what the actual Executive Order says. We refer to "sex assigned at birth", but the EA talks about ova production (sex assigned at birth doesn't necessarily indicate any particular biological function), never mentioning "sex assigned at birth". Some sources [20] [21] do actually quote the Executive Order. Now, if we keep the detail, and we properly showed what different reliable sources say, we'd create a huge section on a tangential topic, and have endless debates on what terminology to use, and when to use quotation marks. Or, we can just get rid of the extraneous details about how terms are being defined. Gaines is just an activist, and has no involvement in crafting legal language, and we are implying far greater relevance than is appropriate. -- Rob ( talk) 02:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
In addition to requiring state agencies and boards to define the words “female” and “male” to correspond with the person’s sex assigned at birth, the executive order also includes definitions for the words “man,” “boy,” “woman,” “girl,” “father” and “mother.” The order specifically defines a female as a “person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova” and a male as a “person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
The executive order directs state agencies to use sex assigned at birth to define male and female, and includes specific definitions for terms such as "man," "boy," "woman," "girl," "father," "mother," "female," and "male."is misstated? Beccaynr ( talk) 04:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
(citing the AP)Supporters referred to the executive order as a "The Women’s Bill of Rights", and the Associated Press described it as "the latest Oklahoma policy to attack the rights of transgender people" and "part of a growing trend in conservative states."
The "anti-trans" label in this article is misleading. Many people that I know - conservatives included - are not explicitly against trans people. They accept the fact that their biological sex is incongruent with their gender. What they disagree with is the normalization of this condition. Even so, many conservatives and libertarians, for the most part, are not overly concerned with the personal life decisions of consenting adults. It really becomes an issue when they perceive it as an encroachment of their own rights. This is not "anti-trans" in the context of "being against people suffering from gender dysphoria". With controversial issues like this there will always be 'winners' and 'losers'. The important thing to keep in mind is that all points of view should be equally considered. Navy Brownshoe ( talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The organisation in question seems to have a number of issues that they lobby for with their opinions and lobbying about trans women in sport appearing quite low on their own agenda, what is the rationale and evidence to label them such a thing, wouldnt this count as bias? 90.254.185.0 ( talk) 16:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.A list of frequently-discussed sources is available here, and there is also the reliable sources guidline. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, which re-added an analysis by Media Matters, I suggest removing this paragraph entirely or at least rewording it. We have a whole paragraph which doesn't really tell us much about Gaines. We give factual claims without any explanation of why they are important. So what if most Fox News appearances were mainly in a two month span within a roughly one year time span? Will this matter in a few years? Maybe she's had some more recent coverage (or none at all). I understand why this all seemed super important to the Wikipedian that added it. Back in June 2023 whatever happened in May-June 2023 seemed like a big deal. But, it's September 2023 now, and it seems less important. In five years it will be laughably insignificant. So, we have a choice, let's update the article to keep up with all the latest media goings on, or maybe, just maybe, let's focus on things that have a long term noteworthyness. BTW, if you want to use Media Matters as an attributed source that says she is "anti-trans" (or something like that), that's fine. That's an opinion that is pretty static (her opinion, and her critic's opinions of her). But, please let's reduce the recentism of the article, and try not adding any more. I didn't remove this myself, as I don't want an edit war, given it's already been removed and re-added. -- Rob ( talk) 21:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Kcmastrpc - we also have guidance from NPOV policy and the RS guideline about the context in which various sources can be used, so I think it may be possible to present attributed content from Media Matters, perhaps with some wordsmithing to help address concerns about BLP issues. If there is anything specific in the Media Matters content recently restored by Valjean [26] that seems particularly problematic, that might be helpful to identify in this discussion. Thanks again, Beccaynr ( talk) 14:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Please let's avoid including every single media appearance by Gaines, and every single thing she utters in the article. I edited another user's about an Article in the Independent (UK) about a segment on Fox News, that was fact checked by Snopes. Saying "she was reported to make false claims about" is misleading. There was only one inaccurate claim, that the word "Christmas" or "Merry Christmas" were literally banned, which they weren't. Most of the comments on the segment were opinion, not claims of fact. She made characterizations about "majority" of the country "feels" which were arguably false (aka bs), but those aren't "false claims" about Target. Saying she made false claims about Target doesn't really tell anybody anything. But, an even better edit would be to entirely skip any mention of Target (deleting the whole sentence). Gaines has played a notable role in debates about trans inclusion in sports. Her role in lobbying for legislation or rules changes in sports is notable. But, random thoughts on vocabulary of retailers isn't worth mentioning. Gaines is a talker. She talks a lot. Please, please, let's not cover everything that comes out of her mouth. I won't fully remove the sentence myself, without some support from others. So, if we must keep it, let's keep somewhat accurate (if still trivial use useless). -- Rob ( talk) 06:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
When this was initially added by another editor [27], it was only supported by one source, LGBTQNation, which did not seem sufficient to support content added to the lead nor the article, so I tried to fix the problem by searching for sources, and found coverage in The Independent. I developed the summary based on both sources, and have no objection to removal of the content in its entirety. I think the past removal of secondary coverage of Gaines makes it more difficult to include content like this, because the article seems to lack encyclopedic context for her role as a media personality/figure. If/when contextual coverage is included, then it may be more WP:DUE to include coverage related to individual appearances. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “anti-trans” to “against trans males competing against women in sports”.
Reason: anti-trans implies being against anyone who is trans. Her view is against competition of male bodies against female bodies, which is not the same as the general term “anti-trans”. 71.94.98.178 ( talk) 14:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. This request is likely to be controversial. I'll also point out that anti-trans is backed up by a source. --
Maddy from Celeste (
WAVEDASH) 14:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)@ Beccaynr The most recent inclusion regarding Gaines activism doesn't seem promotional to me. Are there issues with the sources? If we're going to exclude https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Riley_Gaines&oldid=1187478144 then why would we include any of the other policies that have been attributed to Gaines activism? Should we just summarize that Gaines is politically active in the area of Title IX protections as it relates to biological sex, and drop the rest? ~ Kcmastrpc ( talk) 14:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Please make specific suggestions for improving the article based on Reliable Sources, not just personal comments about related issues. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The description of Riley is patently incorrect. Riley is pro women’s rights. She is not anti trans or anti gay or anti LGBTQ or anti anything. She is pro women’s rights. Most of the characterization in this Wikipedia is negative and does not represent who Riley really is. We should be allowed to edit the current definition to be accurate. 71.93.93.35 ( talk) 06:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
|
I removed the last paragraph about Gaines in beer calendar. The paragraph had only two sources. The first was to the calendar seller, which is obviously non-neutral. The second is vox, which might be reliable, but it barely mentions Gaines, just listing her as one of the examples. I think we would need substantial independent coverage about her specifically, before we include this. Otherwise we're just giving free advertising for the calendar. Rob ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What evidence is there for biological female being regarded as a term beyond being able to be used in Wikipedia articles such as this one, I have heard people from the Democratic Party and British Labour Party, and even Peter Tatchell use the the term, why is it not allowed, when people involved in the debate are using the term themselves, so if we wish to understand their opinions it seems fair to accept their use of the term. Even if you term it as What they regard to be "Biological female". If its is ok for well known LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell to use the term, biological women, see https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/support-both-trans-and-womens-liberation/, then it is simply the case it is OK for wikipedia to quote people, when they for or against are involved in the debates over trans and womens rights, when they use the term, as otherwise we are changing their words, from words which everybody from the centre left to the centre right use frequently, to words and therms they do not use, to me it sounds Orwellian, and rather Newspeak like, to change the words they use to words you would rather they use, it is quite newspeak like to do this to peoples quotes, like when they invented these words in George Orwells 1984, Good - good. Plusgood - very good. Doubleplusgood - the best. Plusungood - very bad. Doubleplusungood - the worst. I say if somebody uses the word, best, we let them use that word, it is not our place to change their terms to doublegood, or to change their use of the term biological male to something, else, I mean considering wikipedia has articles using the highly offensive N word, why does wikipedia feel it is ok, to ban the use of the term biological male and biological female.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B3AD:B01:9190:61B4:F693:72C0 ( talk • contribs)
|
Collapsed unactionable, unconstructive comments from IP editor per WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is there a case for being more inclusive of Gender Critical opinions, this website is seen by people who live in Britain where GC views are regarded as perfectly legal, surely it is not for Wikipedia to decide what views are acceptable or unacceptable. GC opinions are accepted under UK law, and are a protected belief under law in the UK, could Wikipedia be more inclusive of those beliefs in it's definitions seeing these beliefs are accepted by UK law. I would love to hear the thinking on this from the editors who decide what words we are allowed and not allowed to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:b3ad:b01:7462:de5d:167a:931b ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
|
This is the
talk page for discussing
Riley Gaines and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Hi Mathmo, we seem to be overlapping a bit in our edits about Gaines stating she was struck twice versus content stating she "was assaulted", e.g. [1], but with reference to WP:RSP, sources such as the Reason commentary, The Daily Telegraph and WP:NEWSWEEK are not the best possible sources available, so it seems best, per WP:NPOV, including WP:WIKIVOICE, to use the best-sourced content we currently have available, which seems to be based on Gaines' statements at this time. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 01:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I see there isn't consensus to cover the assault and confinement incident as actual facts (that are reliable sourced). I suggest we simply drop it entirely. From reading comments, the reason for not covering this as established fact, is there's a lack of reliable sources. If that's the case, then you actually need *more* sourcing to cover the dispute of facts. Whenever reliable sources disagree you need to devote greater time/attention (to give proper weight to each position based on reliable sources). In the future, if there's much better sourcing, an active civil case (not just a threat), or a criminal case, that would warrant inclusion. Right now, we're using cowardly/weasely wording, that lets different people read the same text, and take opposite interpretations. An example of lousy writing is: "After the event concluded, protesters arrived. Gaines was escorted by law enforcement officers to shelter in a classroom". Why was she sheltering? Was it raining outside? -- Rob ( talk) 02:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.Also, the WP:PRIMARYSOURCE section of WP:OR includes "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." So it sounds like we agree that we can't review a primary source such as a video and then conduct our own analysis or interpretation, e.g. whether an unlawful detainer happened.
Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.I went with what seems to be the more neutral MOS:SAID under the current circumstances (e.g. the MOS includes
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.) And we will need a better source than a Fox News talk show (the Yahoo link) per WP:RSP. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Just skimmed this section but I made an independent addition on the SFSU article and I avoided Newsweek and the Telegraph. Perhaps my edit there could help the tone on this one/could be harmonized between the articles. SmolBrane ( talk) 14:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I know many eyes are on this page at the moment, so we should try our best to be precise and stick as closely to reliable sources. Thanks to @ Maddy from Celeste for correcting the problematic language regarding this. I've looked at the RS and it seems in Wikivoice we should be saying Transgender Atheletes instead. I am not sure of Riley's views, but it could presumably be true that she may additionally oppose inclusion of Trans Men in Women's sports.
Most sources quote her directly when explaining her views, however, the following sources do explicitly mention Transgender Athletes, and not Transgender Women. [5], [6]. With regards to the first source note that the title indicates the event was in regards to Transgender Women in Women's sports, however specifically regarding Riley it says Transgender Athletes.
It may be the case that there are other sources which report differently, in which case we should add them. Theheezy ( talk) 06:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are
not a forum for general discussion
|
---|
I dont understand the worry about using the term "Biological males, and Biological females", its the term Gaines uses, who on earth are we to censor terms others use, whether you find them offensive or not. If we did that to everybody as in not allowing their quotations as some do not like those quotes, we would not understand what anybody was saying, we should allow people to have quotations in their own words, and they can then be criticised for what they say in their own words, if we insert our own definitions, we do not really have a understanding on where they are coming from. If it is transphobic to say the term biological male, then if people use it, that there choice, not Wikipedia. Look at the article on Churchill we do not censor what he says, and as of that we have a broad view of him, rather than a rose tinted, or anti him article. This seems especially bizarre, when you see there is an entire wikipedia article on the most offensive word in the world, the N word. Which is a word that if we are banning words from wikipedia, should be banned, way before Biological male, indeed the N Word, is a word I am horrified to hear whenever I hear it, which I am glad to say is very rare, though sadly I see it mentioned in articles from Ron Atkinson'e infamous use of the term, which he is ashamed about, to a entire article on the N -Word, with its spelling intact, but for some reason the term biological male is deemed as something that can not even be used as a quotation, even though it is the language the person themself is using.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:b3a9:7601:cb1:e5da:bb1e:1995 ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for your reply and your considered answer, but I dont believe it is for us or Wikipedia, to assume context of why someone uses terms, we can not say if someone is calling someone a liar, unless they say they are, it is not for us to assume anything. If someone uses a term, they use it, we dont decide if its fair or not. If Churchill made a brilliant speech, like he did many times we let his words reveal that, if Churchill said something controversial we let his words reveal that, it is not for Wikipedia, to over interpret, or even mildly interpret those terms. I shall leave it at this :).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:b3a9:7601:a812:2898:38df:9608 ( talk) 21:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) |
Can we state this in the article? Not the greatest source but https://nypost.com/2023/06/02/riley-gaines-backing-desantis-over-trump-in-2024/ PalmScrost ( talk) 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
aligned with conservative politics? PalmScrost ( talk) 13:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.But it has been restored and adjusted now, so I think this has been addressed.
aligned with conservative politicsin the lead? The Chloe Cole article already does this by describing her as having
appeared with conservative politicians and in the media. PalmScrost ( talk) PalmScrost ( talk) 18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
She has appeared with conservative politicians and in the media, supporting and advocating for such bansline in the lead. I am not particularly familiar with the development of the Cole article, but from my view, for this article, it appears we currently have a collection of reporting about Gaines that is mostly limited to reporting about discrete events, and do not yet have the kind of secondary coverage, or particularly extensive coverage, that can support an expansion of the lead at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The lead should mention her anti-trans political activism and alignment with conservatives. Presently it does not do that. PalmScrost ( talk) 02:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Gaines campaigns against the inclusionanyway, no implying required. A cursory look at her Twitter should make it obvious to anyone that she's actively campaigning. I suggest we change the lead to match the use of present tense in the article body. PalmScrost ( talk) 01:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Gaines aligns herself with anti-trans rhetoric and politicsjust for example. PalmScrost ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
discrimination against transgender people[11]. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
As background, there has been fairly substantial discussion at Talk:Lia Thomas, including about the application of WP:BLP policy, which relates to statements made by Gaines about Thomas, as well as statements made by Gaines about her own teammates. I mention this because from my view, there appears to be a general agreement about a need to exercise caution, and I would add for this article, it appears similar considerations apply.
I think generally it seems WP:DUE enough to note when Gaines receives notice in independent, reliable, and secondary sources for a public advocacy event, but likely WP:UNDUE when there is minimal coverage to add what sounds like a negative statement directed at Thomas by Gaines, and particularly a direct quote. I think we have generally been doing this for previous events such as participation in lobbying, campaign advertisements, etc; the summary content reflects the weight of available coverage, which helps avoid creating promotional content.
BLP policy also seems to encourage us to find an alternative to direct quotes from Gaines that seem to disparage or otherwise make accusations against Thomas. BLP policy includes in its introduction, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment," and the policy tells us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."
I think there may be an encyclopedic way to add further content, but I also think we should consider the independence, reliability, and weight of available sources and how to present information with the biographies of living persons policy in mind, and proceed cautiously, e.g. as noted in the 21 March 2023 close of a discussion at the Lia Thomas article Talk page, "Editors wishing to include the information should attempt to gain consensus on the wording and sourcing on the talk page before introducing it to the article, as it is clear such information is contentious and likely to be removed without prior consensus to include, per WP:BLP." Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
shared her "own personal experience competing with trans swimmer Lia Thomas and having to share the same dressing room.". I mean, that's information-less. What experience is it that she shared? One would think sharing that in her own Wikipedia article would be WP:DUE.
content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.So it does not appear feasible to balance this contentious material about a living person with sourcing related to popular opinion about sports generally. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I added a maintenance template because from my view, based on the amount and depth of coverage available, recent edits that rearrange content from a chronological narrative into small groups of somewhat-similar activities, [14], [15], seems promotional - most of the sources relate to discrete events, so it seems appropriate according to WP:NPOV policy to follow the sources and summarize a chronology in the Political activism section for now. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@ X-Editor and Beccaynr: I removed the text following text from the article in this edit:
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called the incident "an appalling attack on free speech on a college campus". [2] PEN America called the incident a "disaster.", adding that "Physical intimidation or violence is never an acceptable response to speech, no matter how hateful or controversial that speech may be". [2]
As I indicated in my edit summary, my primary concern was undue weight—to me, it seemed inappropriate to include the preceding text while excluding the following text:
After the SFSU event, SFGATE wrote that Gaines "rose to prominence as an activist last year after tying for fifth place with trans swimmer Lia Thomas," and "has since gone on a public crusade against Thomas." [3]
In June 2023, Media Matters published an analysis of Gaines' 29 appearances on Fox News between April 2022 and the end of May 2023, with a focus on the frequency and type of anti-trans talking points made by Gaines. [4] According to Media Matters, more than half of Gaines' appearances on Fox News since April 2022 had occurred during April and May 2023. [4]
Now that Beccaynr has restored the text that X-Editor removed, I'm wondering whether it would be appropriate to restore X-Editor's addition. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it's worth discussing here. — SamX [ talk · contribs 18:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
ping|SamX}}
in a subsequent edit. (It's a mistake I've made in the past.) —
SamX [
talk ·
contribs 19:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
References
(outdent) Why are we including quotes from politicians and activists that are unconnected to the event? I understand a McCarthy quote in the McCarthy article. I understand it in some article, where the quote was notable, and there's discussion about it in 3rd party sources. A while back, in this vesion I had the text " According to The Telegraph, Gaines was physically assaulted and forced to barricade herself inside a room". That was removed, because it was supposedly bias. Yet, now you're quoting a politician and a political activist group, who have no direct knowledge, are not journalists, have no reputation for fact checking, saying something that's vastly more contentious, and that's now ok? It's also frankly incendiary, and the type of think we should be especially cautious about. There are hundreds of politicians and activists who have commented on the incident, and I think its absurd for us to start picking which ones to include. This is an article about Gaines. Let's stick to what reliable sources say about her. Note, I'm not arguing for-or-against going back to my favored version, just objecting to the random inclusion of political quotes from third parties, that's now going on. -- Rob ( talk) 22:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
(outdent)For reference, this is the House Speaker McCarthy's tweet as quoted by CNN:
For S2, you say McCarthy can't make self-published claims about third parties, namely House Republicans. But, you're somehow ok with him making negative claims about free speech on the college campus (a third party) in S1. He's the elected leader of House Republicans. It's his literal job to speak for them. S2 is similar to a union leader speaking on behalf of his members, which is something we could quote. There are other quotes of others in the House Republicans saying similar things to S2, and none saying the opposite. McCarthy is not a representative of any college, and many college leaders would say the exact opposite of what he said in S1, and may consider it defamatory to their institutions. I'm sure trans rights protesters disagree with the S1 notion that they engaged in an "appalling attack", and might consider that statement defamatory. We must get rid of S1. We should probably remove S1+S2. I remind everyone this is all the same tweet by the same person, quoted in the same article, by the same journalist, by the same media outlet. I am frustrated that you've invented rules to defend S1 and different rules to attack S2. It is simply impossible to justify inclusion of S1, while excluding S2, using consistant criteria. -- Rob ( talk) 22:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to the "Early life" section. I agree with removal of the "incidental" hit mentioned by the dad. Such a statement is a huge claim, requiring significant sourcing, and balancing, which wouldn't be appropriate since this article isn't about the dad, would be hugely tangential, and a BLP-nightmare. However, I disagree with removal of the parent names, especially the dad. This is an article about an athlete, and her athletic parents are relevant to her status an athlete. All three have been quite open and public about their family connection (before and after Riley Gaines got political). So, there's no risk of harming a private person. She has two uncles in the NFL, her dad was in the CFL (briefly), her mom played at the University level (as the dad did). I'm not saying we should put in all those details, but including her public parent's names, seems pretty reasonable, as we're just showing a limited subset of widely published information. I can't imagine an article about an actor not naming their actor parents. -- Rob ( talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. I do agree that her athletic parents/family seem relevant to this article; my general preference would be to summarize this aspect, and avoid names unless we have stronger sourcing about how the specific individuals are relevant. However, if we have more recent sources, I think that would further support inclusion of their names, e.g. sources about the parents discussing Gaines as an activist, etc. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Do she has date of birt or she is an alien who come out of this planet and nobody knows her age? Baris365 ( talk) 06:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the recent addition of of the Oklahoma Executive Order [19]. We've added excessive detail, that's unbalanced. The current wording (based on AP) contradicts what the actual Executive Order says. We refer to "sex assigned at birth", but the EA talks about ova production (sex assigned at birth doesn't necessarily indicate any particular biological function), never mentioning "sex assigned at birth". Some sources [20] [21] do actually quote the Executive Order. Now, if we keep the detail, and we properly showed what different reliable sources say, we'd create a huge section on a tangential topic, and have endless debates on what terminology to use, and when to use quotation marks. Or, we can just get rid of the extraneous details about how terms are being defined. Gaines is just an activist, and has no involvement in crafting legal language, and we are implying far greater relevance than is appropriate. -- Rob ( talk) 02:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
In addition to requiring state agencies and boards to define the words “female” and “male” to correspond with the person’s sex assigned at birth, the executive order also includes definitions for the words “man,” “boy,” “woman,” “girl,” “father” and “mother.” The order specifically defines a female as a “person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova” and a male as a “person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
The executive order directs state agencies to use sex assigned at birth to define male and female, and includes specific definitions for terms such as "man," "boy," "woman," "girl," "father," "mother," "female," and "male."is misstated? Beccaynr ( talk) 04:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
(citing the AP)Supporters referred to the executive order as a "The Women’s Bill of Rights", and the Associated Press described it as "the latest Oklahoma policy to attack the rights of transgender people" and "part of a growing trend in conservative states."
The "anti-trans" label in this article is misleading. Many people that I know - conservatives included - are not explicitly against trans people. They accept the fact that their biological sex is incongruent with their gender. What they disagree with is the normalization of this condition. Even so, many conservatives and libertarians, for the most part, are not overly concerned with the personal life decisions of consenting adults. It really becomes an issue when they perceive it as an encroachment of their own rights. This is not "anti-trans" in the context of "being against people suffering from gender dysphoria". With controversial issues like this there will always be 'winners' and 'losers'. The important thing to keep in mind is that all points of view should be equally considered. Navy Brownshoe ( talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The organisation in question seems to have a number of issues that they lobby for with their opinions and lobbying about trans women in sport appearing quite low on their own agenda, what is the rationale and evidence to label them such a thing, wouldnt this count as bias? 90.254.185.0 ( talk) 16:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.A list of frequently-discussed sources is available here, and there is also the reliable sources guidline. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, which re-added an analysis by Media Matters, I suggest removing this paragraph entirely or at least rewording it. We have a whole paragraph which doesn't really tell us much about Gaines. We give factual claims without any explanation of why they are important. So what if most Fox News appearances were mainly in a two month span within a roughly one year time span? Will this matter in a few years? Maybe she's had some more recent coverage (or none at all). I understand why this all seemed super important to the Wikipedian that added it. Back in June 2023 whatever happened in May-June 2023 seemed like a big deal. But, it's September 2023 now, and it seems less important. In five years it will be laughably insignificant. So, we have a choice, let's update the article to keep up with all the latest media goings on, or maybe, just maybe, let's focus on things that have a long term noteworthyness. BTW, if you want to use Media Matters as an attributed source that says she is "anti-trans" (or something like that), that's fine. That's an opinion that is pretty static (her opinion, and her critic's opinions of her). But, please let's reduce the recentism of the article, and try not adding any more. I didn't remove this myself, as I don't want an edit war, given it's already been removed and re-added. -- Rob ( talk) 21:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Kcmastrpc - we also have guidance from NPOV policy and the RS guideline about the context in which various sources can be used, so I think it may be possible to present attributed content from Media Matters, perhaps with some wordsmithing to help address concerns about BLP issues. If there is anything specific in the Media Matters content recently restored by Valjean [26] that seems particularly problematic, that might be helpful to identify in this discussion. Thanks again, Beccaynr ( talk) 14:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Please let's avoid including every single media appearance by Gaines, and every single thing she utters in the article. I edited another user's about an Article in the Independent (UK) about a segment on Fox News, that was fact checked by Snopes. Saying "she was reported to make false claims about" is misleading. There was only one inaccurate claim, that the word "Christmas" or "Merry Christmas" were literally banned, which they weren't. Most of the comments on the segment were opinion, not claims of fact. She made characterizations about "majority" of the country "feels" which were arguably false (aka bs), but those aren't "false claims" about Target. Saying she made false claims about Target doesn't really tell anybody anything. But, an even better edit would be to entirely skip any mention of Target (deleting the whole sentence). Gaines has played a notable role in debates about trans inclusion in sports. Her role in lobbying for legislation or rules changes in sports is notable. But, random thoughts on vocabulary of retailers isn't worth mentioning. Gaines is a talker. She talks a lot. Please, please, let's not cover everything that comes out of her mouth. I won't fully remove the sentence myself, without some support from others. So, if we must keep it, let's keep somewhat accurate (if still trivial use useless). -- Rob ( talk) 06:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
When this was initially added by another editor [27], it was only supported by one source, LGBTQNation, which did not seem sufficient to support content added to the lead nor the article, so I tried to fix the problem by searching for sources, and found coverage in The Independent. I developed the summary based on both sources, and have no objection to removal of the content in its entirety. I think the past removal of secondary coverage of Gaines makes it more difficult to include content like this, because the article seems to lack encyclopedic context for her role as a media personality/figure. If/when contextual coverage is included, then it may be more WP:DUE to include coverage related to individual appearances. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “anti-trans” to “against trans males competing against women in sports”.
Reason: anti-trans implies being against anyone who is trans. Her view is against competition of male bodies against female bodies, which is not the same as the general term “anti-trans”. 71.94.98.178 ( talk) 14:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. This request is likely to be controversial. I'll also point out that anti-trans is backed up by a source. --
Maddy from Celeste (
WAVEDASH) 14:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)@ Beccaynr The most recent inclusion regarding Gaines activism doesn't seem promotional to me. Are there issues with the sources? If we're going to exclude https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Riley_Gaines&oldid=1187478144 then why would we include any of the other policies that have been attributed to Gaines activism? Should we just summarize that Gaines is politically active in the area of Title IX protections as it relates to biological sex, and drop the rest? ~ Kcmastrpc ( talk) 14:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Please make specific suggestions for improving the article based on Reliable Sources, not just personal comments about related issues. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The description of Riley is patently incorrect. Riley is pro women’s rights. She is not anti trans or anti gay or anti LGBTQ or anti anything. She is pro women’s rights. Most of the characterization in this Wikipedia is negative and does not represent who Riley really is. We should be allowed to edit the current definition to be accurate. 71.93.93.35 ( talk) 06:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
|
I removed the last paragraph about Gaines in beer calendar. The paragraph had only two sources. The first was to the calendar seller, which is obviously non-neutral. The second is vox, which might be reliable, but it barely mentions Gaines, just listing her as one of the examples. I think we would need substantial independent coverage about her specifically, before we include this. Otherwise we're just giving free advertising for the calendar. Rob ( talk) 16:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What evidence is there for biological female being regarded as a term beyond being able to be used in Wikipedia articles such as this one, I have heard people from the Democratic Party and British Labour Party, and even Peter Tatchell use the the term, why is it not allowed, when people involved in the debate are using the term themselves, so if we wish to understand their opinions it seems fair to accept their use of the term. Even if you term it as What they regard to be "Biological female". If its is ok for well known LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell to use the term, biological women, see https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/support-both-trans-and-womens-liberation/, then it is simply the case it is OK for wikipedia to quote people, when they for or against are involved in the debates over trans and womens rights, when they use the term, as otherwise we are changing their words, from words which everybody from the centre left to the centre right use frequently, to words and therms they do not use, to me it sounds Orwellian, and rather Newspeak like, to change the words they use to words you would rather they use, it is quite newspeak like to do this to peoples quotes, like when they invented these words in George Orwells 1984, Good - good. Plusgood - very good. Doubleplusgood - the best. Plusungood - very bad. Doubleplusungood - the worst. I say if somebody uses the word, best, we let them use that word, it is not our place to change their terms to doublegood, or to change their use of the term biological male to something, else, I mean considering wikipedia has articles using the highly offensive N word, why does wikipedia feel it is ok, to ban the use of the term biological male and biological female.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B3AD:B01:9190:61B4:F693:72C0 ( talk • contribs)
|
Collapsed unactionable, unconstructive comments from IP editor per WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is there a case for being more inclusive of Gender Critical opinions, this website is seen by people who live in Britain where GC views are regarded as perfectly legal, surely it is not for Wikipedia to decide what views are acceptable or unacceptable. GC opinions are accepted under UK law, and are a protected belief under law in the UK, could Wikipedia be more inclusive of those beliefs in it's definitions seeing these beliefs are accepted by UK law. I would love to hear the thinking on this from the editors who decide what words we are allowed and not allowed to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:b3ad:b01:7462:de5d:167a:931b ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
|