This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Swimming (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject SwimmingSwimming Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women United States: Kentucky This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says The Daily Telegraph is listed as a good source, which is why I added it. I used Newsweek, but see it's listed as disputed, so I'm not trying add it back when removed. The Telegraph (aka The Daily Telegraph) made an explicit statement of fact about the assault, and about being forced to be barricaded in a room. The current wording implies that it was just the police putting her in the room (not the protesters). But, if you read the body of the article Anti-Lia Thomas activist whisked away by police amid protest at San Francisco State by SFGate, you'll see it says "In one video, protesters can be seen discussing conditions under which they’d let Gaines leave.". So, the SF Gate article, despite being critical of Gaines politically, actually confirms that she was forced to be in the room. It goes further than the Telegraph, by making clearer that it was the protesters keeping her there. This is a widely witnessed, filmed, and covered event. We shouldn't just be implying that it was just Gaines making a claim, as the current wording does. We should state the facts, as reported by reliable sources. It's also worth noting, that while not all sources confirm all the facts as facts, I don't see any reliable source refuting the claim of facts of The Telegraph. So, I think the version that said "According to The Telegraph, Gaines was physically assaulted and forced to barricade herself inside a room." was absolutely correct. --Rob (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:WIKIVOICE section of WP:NPOV policy, we need to avoid "avoid stating opinions as facts", so attributing a factual statement to a source, i.e. The Telegraph (as if it is an opinion) does not appear appropriate according to this policy.

Also, The Telegraph is identified as potentially biased in its WP:RSP entry (and seems to potentially have some bias based on some of the article itself, including but not limited to its broad assertion that a physical assault occured when other news outlets have been more circumspect based on available evidence and police statements), so its use as opinion for a vague factual statement does not seem appropriate per the reliable sources section guideline that discusses NPOV policy, especially because there are more neutral reliable sources available to support neutral content now, which is that Gaines has made statements about her experience. This is also recent news, and we can wait for further credible information to develop - investigations are pending, and in the meantime, we need to be careful to avoid our own original research or synthesis from a video.

I also do not see how SFGATE is "critical of Gaines politically" in its news report of what happened - the report describes Gaines as "an activist against trans women in women’s sports" and states she has "gone on a public crusade against Thomas" - as this article develops with sources already included, those descriptions probably will become more clear, but the descriptions do not seem particularly politically critical.

WP:WIKIVOICE also encourages us to "Prefer nonjudgmental language", so using language that is closer to what Gaines and reliable sources said happened, instead of "physically assaulted" and "forced to barricade herself" seems more encyclopedic. There is a chain of events that has been documented by news outlets; Gaines spoke, and then protesters entered; Gaines moved to a classroom with protection from police; afterwards, Gaines described her experience as including being physically struck twice. I think the words to watch section in NPOV policy is also helpful, because it says to avoid "loaded language", which is what I attempted to do when developing content from sources. Beccaynr (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was uncessary to say "According to The Telegraph", since it was a fact. So, we could just state it (the physical assault, and barricading) as facts without inline attribution. But, giving an inline attribution isn't harmful. Stating reliably sourced fact isn't judgmental. The Telegraph came to its conclusion based on available data of a very public incident. NPOV means we follow reliable sources, it doesn't mean we treat all imagined points of view equally. Now, if there were a reliable source that contradicted The Telegraph, I would say than we would have to be neutral and reflect that there was dispute within reliable sources. But, there is no dispute. The fact that not every source says X doesn't mean X is disputed. Now, if we decide there isn't sufficient reliable sources to say what happened in this instance, then let's just remove the whole incident. All of your suggested wording seems to be an attempt to say nothing. I'm fine, do that, for now. But, please don't be use weaselly wording that leaves things up the reader to interpret however they wish, with a subtle suggestion that nothing happened. Note, my suggestion (leaving incident out) isn't rhetorical, this is a new incident, there's ongoing reporting, and I'm fine with waiting to cover it (we're not news). But, whatever we do, we must not engage in fake neutrality that suggests anything is possible. --Rob (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think when it comes to WP:RSP sources, you can use something that is yellow coded to back up a green "reliable" source to reinforce it (You just can't use a sole yellow coded source to make a statement of fact, but more to validate notability), if the claim is quite critical. That is when I think attributing is necessary, when you have a source that wiki doesn't endorse as having a lot of "integrity" therefore you state where the citation come from to let readers make their own assessment of whether or not there is bias. Eruditess (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The current text [2] also includes After the event, Gaines said she had been physically struck twice by a person during the protest. From my view, there are basic facts available from reliable sources, and I made an attempt to include them without editorial bias, per WP:NPOV policy. I think we can also wait for further coverage to help develop the content; my current concern is about the addition of what appears to me to be loaded language contrary to WP:WIKIVOICE. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have a sourcing problem for her claim purely as a claim. The question is whether it is WP:DUE coverage worthy of inclusion? The difficulty with covering such things is that we have no way of knowing whether they will ever go anywhere and there is a risk of leaving it dangling forever. Waiting for further coverage is reasonable so long as we are prepared for the possibility that there may well not be any. My, very tentative, thought is that it should remain in the article pending clarification later if there is an actual investigation ongoing but if it has already come to nothing then it might be better to remove it. That said, I don't feel strongly that it should be removed even if that is the case.

I don't read much into the "sheltering" thing either way. It could imply that she was sheltering from a real or imagined threat of violence or merely that she was sheltering from having to face her critics. That's not Wikipedia being unnecessarily ambiguous, that's just an intrinsic ambiguity of the situation/coverage which we currently can't resolve without getting into WP:OR. FWIW, I doubt the cops had any definite opinions about this. They probably just thought "It's getting a bit noisy here. Lets keep her inside to quieten things down." DanielRigal (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no policies stating wikipedia editors can't do WP:OR, it simply states we aren't able to editorialize based on our research. After having listened to the video it certainly sounds like she was being unlawfully detained. Never the less, we can't and shouldn't bring this into the article until there are sufficient sources can be reliably cited. I'd like to update the prose from said to alleged, assuming the lawsuit she has now threatened is filed.[3] Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how likely that is but, if it actually happens, then I agree that "alleged" would make sense. DanielRigal (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The attention garnered by national media from this event is part of the reason this article exists in the first place (among a couple of other notable events). The event was noted even at page creation and the situation is continuing to evolve. I see no reason to exclude it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) replying to [4] WP:ONUS states, 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.

MOS:ALLEGED includes, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is a challenging article with a limited number of reliable sources to work with; note the WP:RSP entry for WP:NEWSWEEK. We should also probably consider MOS:GENDERID, and how Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The recent event in the news was titled "Saving Women's Sports with Riley Gaines" [7], and Gaines has previously referred to trans women as e.g. "biological male" [8] - she appears to be opposed to people she believes are 'biologically male' [9], not trans men, in Women's sports. In my review of sources, I have not yet seen anything to suggest her campaigning is more than against the inclusion of trans women in the women's division of sports. Beccaynr (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one saving grace here is that the article is small and hence it is possible to avoid it spiralling out of control. I think Beccaynr is right on both points. We need to keep obfuscatory transphobic jargon out of the article as far as possible. If we absolutely have to use it in a quotation then that should be contextualised so that our readers can know what it means. Any attempt to add it in Wikipedia's voice should be reverted on sight and warnings issued as appropriate. As regards trans men, I think the part of the anti-trans movement that focuses on women's sport as a wedge issue has either completely forgotten or, more likely, is pretending to have forgotten that trans men and non-binary people even exist. As soon as the conversation is expanded to include them their whole line falls apart. DanielRigal (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the clarification. I agree, given this evidence the current wording is the right wording. I do want to note I was not suggesting that we should quote her. I don't think there is any value in that. I was making sure that if we are stating her views in wikivoice, we are confident that these are indeed her views. Theheezy (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That linked article doesn't seem to use the word "conservative" once. The "nypost" is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We've already listed her support for conservative political figures (Trump,Walker,Paul) and organizations (Turning Point). Our readers can figure out on their own she's probably a conservative/right-winger/Republican. When a reliable source says so, then we can say it explicitly. It's a pretty uncontroversial fact she's conservative (in they eyes of supporters and foes), but we still need at least one reliable source to say so explicitly, before we say so explicitly. --Rob (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done Beccaynr (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit isn't a summary, its just a duplication. If you're going to list each individual political endorsement in the lede, then why not list each competition in the lede as well. Let's just copy the entire body to the lede, and we'll cover everything. Saying "Gaines has campaigned against the inclusion of trans women in the women's division of sports.[period]" is an adequate summary given the current content of the article. It can be improved if/when there's a reliable source that concisely defines her broader political identity (e.g. classifies her as a conservative, republican, or whatever). This is short article. It's entire length is less than many lede sections. So, it's ok if the lede is short. --Rob (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, and I have made the adjustment. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both of you. "Gaines has campaigned against" This, however, reads like she has campaigned in the past but has stopped doing so. Maybe it should read "Gaines campaigs against". PalmScrost (talk) PalmScrost (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, thanks for the fix. PalmScrost, I understand, but also don't like implying she's doing something right now, as the article should be "timeless" when possible. Perhaps we could say "After retiring from competitive swimming, Gaines began campaigning against...." It makes it clearer it's the most current thing she's done, but doesn't explicitly say she has doign it right now, but doesn't suggest she isn't. Note, before making the change, we'd need a citation explicitly confirming the "after retiring" part, which I can look for (I'm sure I've seen), if we agree on text. --Rob (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine by me. PalmScrost (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, regarding your "implying she's doing something right now" the article body already says that Gaines campaigns against the inclusion anyway, 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)[reply]

I reviewed various references in the article, and we do not seem to have secondary sources describing Gaines as an active campaigner - we seem to instead have discrete reports of various activities and statements, so it seems as if it would be WP:SYNTH (and potentially WP:PROMO) for us to state in WP:WIKIVOICE what the sources have not. So I have adjusted the language in the article body in a way I think better reflects the available sources and helps avoid original research. The article can always be updated as more independent, reliable, secondary sourcing becomes available, but for now, based on the limited coverage available, a conservative approach seems warranted according to our core content policies. Beccaynr (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/over-year-after-her-last-race-against-lia-thomas-riley-gaines-has-built-media-career-trans

Gaines aligns herself with anti-trans rhetoric and politics just for example. PalmScrost (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDIAMATTERS, this shouldn't be presented in wikivoice without attribution, and shouldn't be the lead of that section given the partisan bias present in that source. Further, linking transphobia is problematic because no RS have labeled Gaines views verbatim as transphobic (because they're not). Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-trans and transphobic are the same thing here. Views that are against trans people (anti-trans) necessarily constitute discrimination against transgender people [10]. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]