Talk:Riley Gaines

MoJo content

@Marquardtika

I'd like to go through each edit with you that you reverted and work them out one at a time, because quite a few of them are merely corroborating what the NYT said (the targeting random teenagers on social media for instance); so, I'll make a list and I'd like your thoughts on each:

1. and against public acceptance of transgender people more widely.[1][2][3] In the lead. This is merely MoJo corroborating NYT. If it was MoJo on its own, the biased and due argument would be fair, but it's in addition to NYT.

2. , including by lobbying her state representatives in April 2022 to pass a law that would prohibit transgender women from participating in women's sports. The entire article is about her doing this. Saying she did it in April 2022 as though it was a one time thing is just plain outdated.

3. Shortly after the swimming competition which began her activism, an article was published in The Daily Wire which began her publicity, Should we not document how she went from sports to activism? What is wrong with including this trajectory?

4. d, whom Gaines mocked as "men in dresses".[2] Why are we including that she says she was physically assaulted but not that she called the protesters men in dresses? It doesn't seem balanced. I'm removing the assault one for balance because otherwise it's an unbalanced paragraph.

5. In June 2025, gymnast Simone Biles made a social media post on X calling Gaines "truly sick" and a "straight up sore loser" due to her advocacy against the participation of trans women in women's sports. This one was from NYT, I have no idea the logic behind deleting it.

6. Several profiles by media outlets have characterized Gaines' position as being Again, just MoJo corroborating NYT Snokalok (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok:, thanks for starting this discussion.
1. "and against public acceptance of transgender people more widely..." The sources here are The Advocate, which is about a hearing where Gaines testified about her experience competing against Lia Thomas in a swim meet. It doesn't seem to cover transgender acceptance outside of athletic competitions. The New York Times says "Ms. Gaines has turned that fateful race into a thriving career as an activist against the participation of transgender women in women's sports." It says Gaines attended bill signings for legislation "aimed at preventing transgender women and girls from competing in women's sports." Her shtick seems to be specifically preventing the participation of trans girls/women in sports. Mother Jones writes that Gaines is "campaigning not just to ban trans women from women's sports, but to end public acceptance of transgender people." That's a much broader claim than just banning trans women from sports. I'm not really sure how to square that with the other material we have here. We could put something in the body and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? But I don't think we have strong enough sourcing to make a larger claim in the lede.
2. "including by lobbying her state representatives in April 2022 to pass a law that would prohibit transgender women from participating in women's sports." I agree this is dated/unnecessary and should be removed.
3. "Shortly after the swimming competition which began her activism, an article was published in The Daily Wire which began her publicity..." There should be something about this but we should work on the wording. Something like "Five days after her race against Thomas, an article about the race was published in The Daily Wire. Gaines went on to appear on a number of conservative podcasts and television programs..."
4. "whom Gaines mocked as "men in dresses". Fine with removing both this and the assault allegations, as they both were incidentally mentioned in the sourcing.
5. "In June 2025, gymnast Simone Biles made a social media post on X calling Gaines "truly sick" and a "straight up sore loser" due to her advocacy against the participation of trans women in women's sports..." This is still in the article.
6. Several profiles by media outlets have characterized Gaines' position as being Again, just MoJo corroborating NYT. I also agree it makes sense for this to be in the article.
I'll make a couple of edits based on this, let me know your thoughts on the rest. Marquardtika (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. NYT has Gaines saying "The gender ideology movement is a house of cards, and I believe it's lying on that sports issue (...) This will be the card that makes all of it crumble." and goes on to say Her longer-term goals include the restriction of transgender medical treatments for adolescents, and ultimately the legal and cultural dismantling of the belief that transgender people exist. (“A man believes he is a woman — those people exist,” she said. “But men who are women do not exist.”. Meanwhile, Mojo says end public acceptance, as you said. I'd say that together is enough sourcing for a stronger claim in the lead.
3. I'd specify at the very least Senator Blackburn, Tucker Carlson, and the culmination of CPAC with Trump.
5. Right but my edit makes it clear that it's tied to the previously mentioned targeting of trans teenagers on twitter, and that that was why Biles was cussing her out.
@Marquardtika Snokalok (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the lede--you're right, there is strong enough sourcing for the claim that she's against public acceptance of transgender people more widely. Will restore that momentarily. Marquardtika (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks. I think you may have accidentally cut the teenagers bit while restoring the NYT. Not to worry, I put it back, but I wanted to leave a message here just in case Snokalok (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of social media content published by the subject

I do not understand why the subject’s own works published to channels such as X and Instagram are considered 'irrelevant' to this article. The subject is a professional social media influencer, and her post about COVID-19 vaccination has over 80 thousand 'likes' on Instagram, which makes it highly likely that the post has been seen by far more people than any written article published by a typical American news outlet. I’ll also note that the article as it stands already contains several citations to content Gaines has posted to her Instagram account.

Also, Gaines’ opposition to abortion is well-known and well-documented, and features prominently in her self-published work. I am surprised this was even a controversial edit.

— isadora of ibiza (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if something is 'well known and well-documented', it shouldn't be hard to find a source. When challenged, the onus is on you to find one. As for the more general matter of citing social media, Firstly I didn't use the word 'irrelevant' in my edit summaries, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. And secondly, the issue isn't that Gaines social media is being cited - it is than no secondary source is being cited: without which, contributors personal opinions as to how many 'likes' might justify inclusion is just that, personal opinion. Coverage in secondary sources avoids such issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a secondary source about her promotion of ivermectin, although it mostly focuses on the internet’s reaction to her posts, as opposed to the posts themselves, which i feel are a better source for documenting, well, her views on the subject.
I generally reject the idea that short-form content is less legitimate or less meaningful than long-form content. We do not, for example, lend greater credit to novels than we do to poetry. But if you happen to be someone who prefers longer-form content, here is a lengthy podcast episode in which she interviews a doctor and expounds on her views towards COVID-19 vaccination.
Regarding her stance on abortion, a simple Google search is sufficient to show that her views on the subject are widely known and central to her activism. The pro-life organizations certainly write about her contributions, and she has also recorded podcast episodes focusing specifically on abortion. And of course, she posts frequently about her pro-life beliefs on Instagram, and on X.
We usually rely on secondary sources to filter on notability when the subject of an article is itself a work of media, such as a movie franchise or a book series. In those scenarios, merely demonstrating that text occurs within the content of the subject of the article would not by itself qualify that text for inclusion in the article. However, statements by public figures, especially when made through their 'official' channels, are different, because in addition to merely being textual content, they also constitute concrete actions taken by the subject, which may prove or disprove objective assessments of their political views. In the realm of living persons, we usually rely on secondary sources to arbitrate between facts that are in dispute, particularly when primary sources disagree. But I have heard of nobody who has tried to argue in good faith that Gaines is pro-choice, or disputes that Gaines supports ivermectin as a cure for COVID-19. Particularly when the subject of an article is a public figure (as opposed to someone who is merely notable due to having something notable happen to them), posts expressing the subject’s own views on a topic are inherently notable.
Finally, as a practical (but subjective) consideration, I believe this article as it stands has a disproportionate focus on Gaines’ activism relating to transgender issues. It would be good to add more discussion about her activism on other conservative issues, as the article feels very incomplete to me. The article lede classifies her as a 'conservative activist', but the article tells the reader virtually nothing about what those 'conservative' issues are, other than that she is opposed to transgender rights. This feels like a disservice to the reader. isadora of ibiza (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy here. People make thousands of social media posts. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRYPICKING to add any particular posts to articles absent coverage in independent sources establishing the particular noteworthiness of any given posts. Marquardtika (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

It's been awhile since I last clicked on this article, but I noticed immediately that the lead image was changed. I think the previous one of File:Riley Gaines (54233355974) (cropped).jpg is a higher quality photo. She's also clearly posing for it, whereas the current one in the article is one taken at a memorial so I'm assuming that's a more solemn look? Anyways, the main benefit to the current photo that I see is that it was taken in September 2025, but December 2024 isn't that long ago either. It's not like her appearance has drastically changed in a year. So would anyone be opposed to changing it back to the way it was before? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with switching back to the older image. Katzrockso (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Details not in cited source

Either I'm supposed to learn something new, that we can desribe a person's activity arbitrarily (by personal interpretation), by using specific words that are not in a cited source, or else this reversal was inappropriate. I will revert it unless someone can explain how specific, uncited words, can be used to decribe the activity of a biopgraphy subject. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. Nothing in the lede of the article *needs* to be cited at all, so long as the body text of the article backs it up. If there are any citations in the lede, which is an if, they don't need to back up everything in the lede so long as the article's body backs it up. Snokalok (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
More fully from MOS:LEAD: it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. Snokalok (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say it's a bit strange to be saying there's no backing in the lede for calling her work anti-trans when in the preceding sentence, it says (with thorough citations) that she's campaigning against public acceptance of transgender people more widely. Snokalok (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a problem, it's just redundant. We already cover this earlier in the lede, so later on using the more general term "conservative" or even just "activism" encompasses the entirety of her work as laid out in the body...she doesn't just do anti-trans activism, but other broadly conservative political activist work. Otherwise, we're just saying the same exact thing twice in short order in the lede. Marquardtika (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does she do other conservative work though? Because all we have in the article is anti-trans activism. Was she giving speeches in favor of school choice vouchers that I'm not aware of? Snokalok (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have content in the article about appearing in campaign advertisements for Herschel Walker, speaking at a Trump rally and endorsing him, endorsing DeSantis, etc. Mother Jones described her as "one of the leading conservative activists of her generation" and "one of the country’s most prominent female conservative activists." Marquardtika (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have her speaking at a Trump rally about trans sports. We have her appearing for Herschel Walker about trans sports. All of her use as a political prop is centered around trans sports. "Vote for me, I'll keep those dastardly trannies at bay. Look, I even have the Riley Gaines seal of approval". As for MoJo, you can become a leading right wing activist on a single issue; most of the leading right wing activists are just that. Snokalok (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These is very unfortunate bias in this discussion, clear as day. Can we no longer deal with politicians without our personal biases playing a big part? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's unhelpful when editors share their personal opinions about article subjects rather than focusing on creating articles that reflect the sources. This can also come across like WP:OR. Sources call her a conservative activist, so we should call her that. Marquardtika (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the article’s sources only talk about her anti-trans activism. I repeat my question, if she’s more broadly political than that, then what other issues has she been a notable force within? Snokalok (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference antitrans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Riley_Gaines