Talk:Chloe Cole/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Thoughts about the slate article quote being wp:undue

In reception, there is this bit of prose:

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

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

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

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

After reading more, I think we should discard the Blade source used here entirely. The author has advocated for violence against the subject of this article. [1]. I don't think it would be appropriate to have entire sections of their bio based on an article by someone who "condones any and all violence" against the subject of the BLP... Very Average Editor (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Just for clarity, I was only talking about the source supporting this bit of content [2]. I took that to be the discussion in question here. I wasn't thinking of the other issue regarding the use of "anti-transgender activist". I think your compromise proposal was a good path forward in that area. Springee (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

As far as labels go, I find Fox News's Conservative activist and detransitioner [3] to be an unusually apposite phrase, but Fox News is sadly not a reliable source in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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