Talk:Riley Gaines

Sources and content

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Skip coverage of assault and confinement

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Opposition of Transgender Women or Transgender Athletes?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) The N word is a good example of how language is not neutral. It can carry values either openly or covertly. This is a topic we cover, as you see from our article about that word. We also have to be careful how we use such language ourselves when writing in Wikipedia's voice lest we convey values that we don't mean to, or shouldn't mean to. So lets look at "Biological males" in this context. The people who advocate for it will give you some justifications that they are just talking about chromosomes or body parts but this is dishonest, just as it is dishonest for somebody to use the N word and insist that it is just the name of a colour of skin. When somebody refers to a woman as a "biological male" they are, at a minimum, calling that woman a man and a liar and possibly implying even worse. That is why we can never use such terms in Wikipedia's own voice. We can use them in quotations although we should not do so gratuitously and we should contextualise them so that our readers can understand what is actually being said. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 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)

She's a conservative

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)

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)

Given the preponderance of her associations, how about describing her as aligned with conservative politics? PalmScrost (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Could you explain this revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riley_Gaines&diff=prev&oldid=1161237260 PalmScrost (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe it was based on the lack of attribution, I restored the content and modified it to comply with RS/P policy. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay why does it require attribution though? Is the news section of National Post not considered reliable? PalmScrost (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NATIONALREVIEW doesn't ambiguate between news articles and opinion pieces for the purpose of attribution. This conversation probably belongs on RS/N if it's going to go any further. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh I misremembered the magazine name. Okay. PalmScrost (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and on my first review of the National Review source, I was thinking of the WP:RSOPINION guideline based on the content of the source, not just WP:RS/P - e.g. 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.

As to the Washington Examiner source [10], this is clearly an opinion piece, so it is within WP:RSOPINION, and from my view, currently seems undue, particularly as to what may be an WP:EXTRAORDINARY opinion based on other available sources. There is a June 15, 2023 news article by the Washington Post titled Inside a conservative confab for young women, where feminism is a lie with a brief mention of Gaines attending the Turning Point USA Young Women's Leadership Summit, (beginning with "No wonder Riley Gaines was a star here.") and noting the reaction of one "high-schooler" and "Gaines posed for a group photo with roughly a dozen fans on Sunday afternoon."

Overall, I think it can be difficult with small articles that are essentially composed of reporting on discrete events to determine whether and when to include various details, but if further coverage develops, and particularly independent and reliable secondary coverage, about her attendance at events, then I think it will seem more due to include. Beccaynr (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with the other edit Beccaynr made, that appears to be UNDUE promo. Did anything significant happen at this event? I don't see the need for Wikipedia to serve as this persons resume. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, my intent here is mainly to document her conservative leanings which is rather obvious, but reliable sources are hard to come by. I think a encyclopedia should summarize her leanings. PalmScrost (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that is already conveyed and doesn't need more weight added to it, imho. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean as a summary in the lead of the article. PalmScrost (talk) PalmScrost (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In that case, no matter how many conservative events she attends until such time her personal political views are espoused through secondary sources we should not label her in wikivoice (anywhere, including the lead). That could be considered WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kcmastrpc - for now, it does not appear that we have the independent, reliable, and secondary sources to do more than 'show, not tell' in WP:WIKIVOICE, but this could change as further sources develop. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense for a claim that "she's a conservative", but how about describing her as aligned with conservative politics in 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)

The Chloe Cole article is much more substantially developed and there are three sources cited as support for the She has appeared with conservative politicians and in the media, supporting and advocating for such bans line 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)

Political activism in lead

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Anti-trans and transphobic are the same thing here. Views that are against trans people (anti-trans) necessarily constitute discrimination against transgender people [11]. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

From my view, including anti-trans as a wikilink seemed appropriate based on the content of the Media Matters source (now attributed and focused more clearly on what Gaines is observed to have said) as well as the contents of the transphobia article. It is of course important to be cautious per MOS:LABEL, but now that the originally-added article content has been edited, moved, and attributed, the wikilink seems appropriate to include. Beccaynr (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As no one else has weighed in on this issue I'll step down off this hill. Thanks for giving this time and space to gather feedback. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Article content about Lia Thomas

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)

So, the difficulty here is Gaines' notability came primarily out of her interaction and criticism of Lia Thomas. If Lia Thomas didn't exist, wasn't trans, didn't compete with Gaines, or Gaines didn't criticize Thomas, there probably would not be an article about Gaines. I hope editors who are familar with NCAA swimming can expand that part of the article. Over time, her broader political activism might have less focus on Thomas. But, like it, or not, this article is tied to Thomas. We only name Thomas four times, in three sentences, and only once in the wikivoice. Given that Thomas is the primary source of Gaines current fame, that suggests we're not overweighting it. It's easy to limit Gaines in the Thomas article, but not easy to limit Thomas in the Gaines article. But, if there's something specific your getting at (that I missed), I'm happy to correct. --Rob (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I should have specified that I was opening a section in response to recent edits [12], [13]. Based on past discussions at Talk:Lia Thomas, I think we should take care with how content about Thomas is incorporated here. Beccaynr (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of your comment. But this is an article on Riley Gaines and I fail to see how clearly stating her claimed experience of "trauma" causes "the possibility of harm to [Lia Thomas]" in particular. Gaines supposedly experiencing trauma tells something about her, and nothing about Thomas.

The way the Gaines' senate hearing is worded in current version does not really tell anything new. 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.

To minimize any perceived harm, however, we can certainly supplant this claim of "trauma" with a counter viewpoint. After all most women in sports are not bothered by the inclusion of transwomen.

PalmScrost (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Gaines' recent statement was directed at Thomas, and there has been extensive discussion at Talk:Lia Thomas about similar statements made by Gaines. Overall, available coverage of Gaines appears to be limited, so we do not appear to have a lot of sources to work with according to WP:NPOV policy. Also, one of the core polices is What Wikipedia is not, which includes WP:NOTSCANDAL, e.g. 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 don't think we know that "most women in sports are not bothered by the inclusion of transwomen." According to Gallup, 69% of Americans believe participation in sports should be according to sex at birth, including a majority of women and of young adults. I don't see specific information (there or elsewhere) about the subset of women in sports. ElrondPA (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC) ElrondPA (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please can we all try to stay on topic? This is specifically about how we cover Gaines, not a general forum about trans women (That's two words, btw) in sports. We have a separate article about that and we don't need to duplicate all its difficulties over here. DanielRigal (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

advert maintenance template

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)

Huh? What are you talking about? How is re-ordering of content promotional? Where is the promotion? The version before my two edits[16] was chronological (except the first sentence), but it wasn't really formatted in a way that one would make it obvious that's what your doing. But, feel free to go back to chronological. I was making an effort to group things more logically, with a mind to eventually develop appropriate sub-sections. Keeping content organized in related matter, also makes it easier (in my mind) to manage appropriate balance of different types of content. But, I'm not married to any particular orgnization, and am happy to colloborate to get better organization. If you want to put it in chronological order, than please just go ahead and do that. I'd like to see some sort of rational structure (e.g. how we break things into paragraphs). I was WP:BOLD to change it, and you can be bold, and change it to something better. --Rob (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I decided to just revert the last two changes I made. Your claim of of promotion is so incomprehensible, I don't want to waste time discussing it, leaving such a rediculous tag on the article. It's a short article, so the exact order of stuff isn't hugely important. In future, consider just proposing desired changes, and/or just make needed changes yourself. No need for a tag in this case, but if you absolutely must put a tag, use something at least remotely relevant like {{Chronological}}, since nobody reading {{Advert}} could possibly tell what the problem is. --Rob (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Rob, I am sorry that I placed the tag when I should have just proposed changes on the talk page. You are correct that this would have been a more constructive and appropriate approach, and I will be more mindful of this in the future. My view at the time was essentially that this is a short article, and to the extent there is secondary context, this seems to be two sources (SFGATE and MMFA), which discuss Gaines in the context of the past year. For now, grouping by category of activity seems like a CV instead of a biography, because we don't seem to have the sourcing to support subsections. So I apologize again about the advert template - it was not necessary to encourage discussion or edits, and I am sorry it was counterproductive. Beccaynr (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I'd like to now work on improving formatting the chronological information. The main anomaly is our use of the April 2023 SFGATE article in the opening sentence of the section, but we switch back to 2022 in the same first paragraph. The SFGATE article is about SFSU visit, which we mention later on in the section, using different sources. It would make sense to have all those together. Perhaps a good rule (if we do chronological order) is to break the paragraph for each separate event (even if that leaves one-sentence paragraphs). Otherwise, we seem to be just arbitrarily making paragraphs. --Rob (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Rob. I just made several edits to the article that I think reflect your comments - I had initially thought the April 2023 SFGATE source provided a useful transition from Gaines' swimming career to her political advocacy/activism, but I agree it can create a bit of whiplash for the reader, so I moved it down in the chronology. I also separated events and made an adjustment to a sentence where the source doesn't offer specific dates (about the Walker ads and Trump rally), and restored the edit you made to remove what appears to be an unnecessary attribution to the National Review.

I also don't think this article is generally so contentious that we should discuss most edits in advance, and I think we can rely on WP:BRD as needed for things like this. As an exception to that usual practice, as noted in the Talk section above, I think it would be helpful to discuss in advance how to handle contentious claims about a living person, particularly claims that have already been subject to extensive discussion. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Reactions to alleged assault

@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". 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".

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."

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. According to Media Matters, more than half of Gaines' appearances on Fox News since April 2022 had occurred during April and May 2023.

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)

@SamX: I'm fine with keeping the SFGATE and Media Matters text if it means restoring the reactions text. X-Editor (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Just a heads-up about pings: In order for the ping to work you'll need to link to someone's user page in the same edit that you add your signature. I didn't receive a ping because you added {{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)

I apologize for that. X-Editor (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries :) I watch this page, so I saw it anyway. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think of the two sections of content as distinct - one of the reasons I restored the SFGATE and MediaMatters content is because there appears to be so little secondary coverage of Gaines that offers context about her, and both of these sources cover Gaines in the context of about a year. However, I think if the McCarthy and PEN America quotes are included, they should probably be added to the graf that begins "After the SFSU event" - the graf with the reporting about the event is getting large. I think the MediaMatters report in particular helps the reactions seem more WP:DUE, because there is further context available about Gaines, e.g. appearances on FOXNews. Also, while I appreciate the initial ping, I also have this article watchlisted :) Beccaynr (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The order of the text as of your most recent edit works for me. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:30, 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)

I have some general concerns about the amount of information related to this one event in the context of the amount of other information available from RS in the article, and how much is currently due in an article of this size. But putting that general issue aside, I think the previous discussion about The Telegraph related to the characterization of the event by the news source, which seems different than being able to attribute opinions to a notable political figure and a notable organization, both of which were reported on by an RS. Those characteristics (notable figures, reported by RS) seem to put the content within the realm of potential inclusion. However, we have a variety of policies to consider, including WP:NPOV/WP:DUE and WP:BLPBALANCE as this article continues to develop. Beccaynr (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

While we disagree on whether this type of content is generally suitable, can we agree in this case, at this time, we should just remove the two quotations to reduce the overal size/weight of this single event. We could also remove the quote from the University saying there was no arrests and an there is an ongoing investigation; to instead just say there was no arrest (in the wikivoice) as this is non-contentious (no need for attribution or quotes). There's also no need to say there's an ongoing investigation, as that's a virtual non-statement. The whole SFSU event should then be a single paragraph. --Rob (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed the quote from Gaines, which seems excessive and redundant to what is already included, and the statement from the University. But I think the attention from a national political figure such as McCarthy, along with the notable organization, may be relevant to understanding this BLP subject, and e.g. her rise in popularity after this event. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So, after previously removing a reliable source's factual statment of what happened and now a quote from Gaines about what happened to her, you have decided we need to include two quotes from uninvolved parties (McCarthy/PEN) that says nothing about Gaines. It doesn't show Gaine's signficance, as the these and other politicians have made similar statements about various protest/counter-protest events all over the country, where there are various allegations of violence and speech suppression, often involving non-notable people. Notice, I have accepted the SFGATE quote as it's actually about Gaine's herself. This is not article about the SFSU event. It is not an article on protests, counter-protests, speech, alleged political violence, or alleged speech suppression. It is a biographical article about an athlete turned activist. We should remove everything that does not inform readers about Gaines. Now, if you're insistent on quoting McCarthy then please quote the most relevant words, which are "House Republicans stand with Riley Gaines and her brave and tireless efforts to protect women’s sports.". Notice how that text actually mentions Gaines. --18:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rob, I think the problems we have discussed about The Telegraph source are distinct from whether reactions from notable political figures and groups are due to include. I also think we can quote McCarthy stating his own reaction, but I am less sure about quoting him speaking on behalf of third parties according to our policies; and I think it is already clear that in the quote currently in the article, he is referring to what is reported to have happened to Gaines. The significance of these quotes appears to derive from the quotes being published by CNN - these aren't primary sources from Twitter or press releases, for example. I removed content in an attempt to address the issue of how much of the article currently is about this one event - it does appear to have received more-than-usual coverage (putting aside the college newspaper coverage) for Gaines and is followed by a Media Matters analysis. So we do the best we can to 'show, not tell' in a neutral and balanced manner with the limited coverage we have about Gaines and her career as an activist. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

CNN quoted both sentences from a two-sentence tweet by McCarthy. Why have you chosen the sentence that doesn't mention Gaines, instead of the one that does mention her? [17][18] --Rob (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be on the strongest ground to quote McCarthy stating his own reaction to what is reported to have happened to Gaines; as to his quote about the House GOP, for example, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for self-published claims about third parties, and we have a more direct quote of his own opinion available. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(outdent)For reference, this is the House Speaker McCarthy's tweet as quoted by CNN:

• S1=>"This is an appalling attack on free speech on a college campus,”
• S2=>“House Republicans stand with Riley Gaines and her brave and tireless efforts to protect women’s sports.”

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)

From my view, attention from a national political figure reported by CNN is relevant, especially for a BLP with so little independent and reliable coverage available; if you are concerned about the language McCarthy uses, I suppose we could use summary style and note that he commented in support of Gaines. However, I think the WP:NOT and WP:BLP policies I cited above are more concerned about the promotional and self-serving nature of the second statement than the 'appalling attack on free speech' invective, and his focus on the free speech aspect in the first quote flows with the reaction from PEN America, and does not seem to be the type of defamatory statement that BLP policy is likely concerned with. Maybe other editors will offer their thoughts on how to proceed. Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I regret suggesting keeping one of two sentences as a compromise. I removed the selective partial quote (S1) that was included in the article by McCarthy. McCarthy made a single statement (tweet), that happened to have two sentences. Both sentences were included in the CNN article, as they go together. You can't say you're relying on CNN, and then cut half the quote they provided because you didn't like it. That's you deciding what's relevant, not the reliable source. There are many quotes about Gaines by many politicians available, and Wikipedians shouldn't be selectively mining them. --Rob (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Through discussion about relevant policy and guidelines, we can figure out how to present content in an encyclopedic manner. The section was recently expanded by another editor, and determining how to incorporate the additions can take some time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Family details

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)

The article has a 2016 source, and I haven't been able to find contemporary coverage, so I erred on the side of not naming per WP:BLPNAME (e.g. Gaines is an activist about a divisive political and social issue, etc), but we have editorial discretion according to the policy, which permits inclusion 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)

Imagine if an article of an athlete exists before they become an activist (like 99% of such articles). Would you go and redact any names (family, coaches, etc...) that had been properly sourced and were relevant. Are we now retiring sources after 7 years. --Rob (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Because of what the BLP policy says, I generally do not include non-notable family names without sourcing that makes a non-notable individual appear relevant to understanding the BLP subject; that Gaines also happens to be an activist about a divisive political/social issue adds to my consideration here, but is not the reason for my removal. From my view, if this was only an athlete BLP, this article probably would not exist - it appears Gaines' notability is mostly derived from her activism (hence my thought that sourcing after she began her activism could be helpful to supporting relevance).

I am also not particularly familiar with college football, so the name "Brad Gaines" does not sound as relevant to me as it may sound to others. I hesitated initially about removing the sourced names and then there were attempts to add content that you described above as "hugely tangential, and a BLP-nightmare" (which was essentially my thinking as well), so I pulled the names and encouraged discussion on the talk page. With the names now restored, we can add the potential addition of undue/BLP-nightmare content to aspects of this article to monitor. Beccaynr (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Her date of birth?

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)

Yes, she has a date of birth. In order for the date and age to be in this article, it must be reported by a reliable, secondary source. See the policies WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, among others. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Excessive details

current version

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)

I think the expansion I just added helps make the current language more balanced - the AP reports Gaines is part of the group Independent Women's Voice [22], and KOSU/NPR reports the EO was based on model legislation from the group [23]. The current two sentences note Gaines' membership in the group, the role of the group, and a summary of the EO. The term "sex assigned at birth" is from the AP - while the AP also quotes the EO, including the EO definitions seems excessive. Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I somehow only read the first part of the AP article initially. My fault. So, fully reading it, I find it odd, that you would use the AP source, but then fail to actually reprsent what it said. We need to get things correct. If getting a fact correct is to much detail, the solution isn't to misstate the fact, but rather to remove the extraneous fact entirely. Your version mentions, in quotes, the words "man," "boy," "woman," "girl," "father," "mother," all of which were defined based on male/female in the Executive Order. Yet, you felt the actual definition of the words male/female weren't relevant. Now, if Riley Gaines has discussed these specific details, than we can mention this detail. But, she's simply expressed general support for the Executive Order. --Rob (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to with regard to the AP source - it says:

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.”

What in 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)

The word "assigned." The idea that sex is typically assigned by anyone is controversial and that language is not used by the executive order. The text of the executive order is here: https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/executive/2079.pdf 184.170.171.43 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it seems like a disservice to readers to not provide a one-sentence summary of the EO that is supported by Gaines and the group she is a part of, particularly as the group helped develop the EO; it also reads a bit promotional/soapbox in the current version to have the EO be vaguely referred to as a 'Women's Bill of Rights', without any explanation of the contents. Beccaynr (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Rob, if your removal of the "Women's Right's Bill" as promotional was based on this comment, please note that this comment was based on your removal of the explanation of what the EO (which is not a bill) includes. I suggest, per WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:NPOV that another line be added based on the sources, e.g.

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."

(citing the AP)

Beccaynr (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

As a follow up to the removal of the second sentence [24] and the edit summary - as noted in my comment above, "sex assigned at birth" is based on the AP summary, and could be attributed, e.g. "what the AP described", as a way to indicate that this is a reliable news source summary of the EO; and according to the original research policy, we can't use our own interpretation of the primary source. One sentence explaining what the group Gaines is a part of helped create does not seem particularly excessive or unbalanced in the context of the content and sources. I have removed the EO source after the second sentence was removed, because it now seems excessive and the connection between Gaines and the text of the EO no longer seems supported. Beccaynr (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-trans" label is misleading

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)

Since there are no credible sources that support calling Mrs. Gaines "anti-trans," editors have so far refrained from doing so. Wikipedia permits using reliable sources, however, and reliable sources use that phrase ubiquitously when describing many of the events and politicians Gaines associates herself with. While I may agree with you on principle, until the sources that use this inflammatory language are deemed unreliable, the consensus seems to lean in the direction of inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Independent Womens Voice = Anti Trans group?

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)

Sources include "Stitt signed the executive order flanked by women from the anti-trans group Independent Women’s Voice, including Riley Gaines" (AP Aug. 1, 2023). There is also a description from PBS on Aug. 16, 2023: "Independent Women’s Voice, a far-right group focused on protecting “women’s single-sex spaces” by advancing anti-trans policy." In the Aug. 1, 2023 KOSU/NPR report on the signing ceremony, which "featured a number of women who threw their support behind it, including former college swimmer Riley Gaines", IWV is described as a "a conservative advocacy group" and Gaines is described as "an outspoken opponent of transgender women and girls competing in women’s sports." Beccaynr (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Those sources amount to "some journalists have described IWV as an anti-trans group". That shouldn't be enough justification for an encyclopedia-style resource to unqualifiedly describe them as one. 194.207.229.8 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Neutral point of view policy, 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)

A recent edit cited this discussion and changed the text to describe this group as pro-female. I think anti-trans group in wikivoice is obviously acceptable in a sentence where the group is pushing anti-trans policies, but left the label out at the moment –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Media Matters

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)

Based on the edit summary, the Media Matters content appeared to have been removed based only on the listing in WP:RSP, which does not appear to be an adequate reason, because the RSP entry indicates the content should be attributed, which it is.

I am not sure what you mean by "I understand why this all seemed super important to the Wikipedian that added it", unless you are referring to how the article appears to have little secondary coverage of Gaines besides the Media Matters source, which analyzes her participation on Fox News over about a year, and an increase in appearances several months ago. The minimal secondary coverage of Gaines in independent and reliable sources seems to be an ongoing issue, and may indicate an AfD is appropriate for this article, because Wikipedia is not promotion, sensationalism, or news, and from my view, the ability to have encyclopedic article about Gaines has never been particularly clear. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake of mine to use sarcasm&mockery. To be clear: I think almost everything in the Media Matters content is trivial, unencyclopedic, should never have been added, and should be expunged. We should edit the article based on the presumption we're keeping it indefinately. It sounds like you reverted the removal of the content because you didn't like the edit summary of the remover, but aren't actually defending its inclusion. So, I will now remove it, with a better reason (namely its triviality and recentism). If you want to AFD this article, go right ahead. --Rob (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I just did support the inclusion in my comment here - it is secondary analysis in an article about a subject that otherwise does not appear to have much secondary coverage, which is needed to support an encyclopedia article. And I explained here why I reverted to include the content that had been in the article after it was removed, not because I "didn't like the edit summary of the remover", but because the edit summary did not appear to support the removal of properly-sourced content, and did not contain any further reason. I have explained that it is not recent nor trivial, because it is secondary analysis of more than a year, so perhaps you will reconsider the removal of one of the strongest sources supporting notability for Gaines. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The Media Matters content has also previously been discussed: Talk:Riley_Gaines#Reactions_to_alleged_assault, and it appears there was some consensus to include this secondary coverage about the development of Gaines' career. Beccaynr (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If we must use Media Matters, please do it properly. MM actually makes an overall point in the article title, and a half dozen further sub-points, that are the headers of sections in the article. You could have made 1-6 coherent sentences summarizing the MM article. Instead, you're insistent on telling us about 2 out 12 months on Fox News, with no explanation of why those months matter. You've managed to miss the entire point of the MM article, neatly encapsulated in the article's title. I see another editor has re-removed the re-added text. If you decide to re-add MM, please write something meaningful and relevant, and don't just blindly re-add badly written text. MM did a good job of summarizing their points, so I don't understand why you're completely incapable of summarizing relevant points in our article. --Rob (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could focus on the content, not the contributor, for a more constructive discussion about how to proceed - based on the edit history of the article, it appears Kcmastrpc [25] is one of the editors who added the Media Matters content to the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, this was based on the attribution. However, upon deeper reflection I tend to agree that the source is quite partisan and appears unsuitable for inclusion on a BLP. However, if an official consensus is formed, then I suppose it gets to stay in. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:59, 28 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)

Endless detail

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 edit 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)

I agree with your perspective, and I've gone ahead and dropped the text since I don't see any encyclopedic reason to include it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I see what you are both getting at here and I agree that we must not overdo it. That said I do think we might need to cover the "gay Nutcracker" bullshit, albeit very briefly, if it continues to get media attention. (Just wait until the US media finds out about Tchaikovsky. That's going to ruin a few Christmases. Lol.) The fact that it made its way to The Independent, a very mainstream British publication, shows that there is something here. What we don't want to do is frame these media appearances as individual nuggets of random nonsense. What we do want to do is use only the most notable of her appearances to document her overall trajectory in the media, from a single issue campaigner to a general purpose, right wing talking head. The fact that this latest appearance is so obviously an attempt to create a fuss about absolutely nothing, and also completely unrelated to her original single issue, means that it might be a legitimate example to demonstrate that. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 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)

I'm happy to see some consensus on removing trivia. On this note, I removed the mention of Gaines calling someone "an entitled cheat". We've already established Gaines' views on the topic, so mentioning this adds nothing to the reader's understanding. I assume the trans athlete's name was excluded to avoid a BLP problem, which is understandable, but just skipping the whole sentence works even better. Lia Thomas is a very public person, but most of trans athletes are obviously not, and there's no need to detail every critique by Gaines of each individual. --Rob (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)

WP:NOTPROMO

@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/w/index.php?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)

Hi Kcmastrpc, I was not able to find independent and reliable secondary coverage about Gaines being active in the area of chess, beyond her statement. Gaines claiming credit seems self-promotional and not encyclopedic, so I removed it. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that makes complete sense. Thank you for taking the time to research and working towards keeping this article encyclopedic. ~ Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I support removal of chess stuff, though it wasn't promotional of Gaines. It was sourced to PinkNews, who is highly critical of Gaines in this particular piece, and in general. PinkNews is not a reliable source. Their piece was just a back-and-forth twitter thread/argument, with no apparent fact checking of anything. Using PinkNews would be as bad as sourcing directly to the twitter thread. Also, it was misleading when the version mentioning chess mentioned removing titles from trans men in Women's category. Gaines has never advocated against trans men in the women's category. In fact, she refers to trans men as "women" and wants them in women's sports. I have seen reliable sources have mentioned the chess decision, but none (that I have seen) suggest Gaines played any signficant role. --Rob (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how we call a hate-campaign 'activism' to begin with. 2601:1C2:0:8080:B0F6:CA47:45AE:29F4 (talk) 2601:1C2:0:8080:B0F6:CA47:45AE:29F4 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Mischaracterization

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 think a lot of people would agree with you that this article is very much from the point of view of someone who disagrees with Riley Gaines view, to the extent it does not even use her language to describe herself, to label her anti-trans, and to not offer the statement that she is being pro- what she would term "women's rights", is out of step with every notion of letting people speak for themselves, and if people wish to disagree with her view, or agree with her view, that is their right, but to prism everything in such a way, does no service for wikipedia, or free speech. 2A00:23C4:B3AC:B201:A5DB:2C1E:CEB2:FCD4 (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC) For example, a recent example labels, the organisation Riley Gaines made some associations with as opposing transgender athletes participation in sports, but they are not opposing transgender athletes competing in sports, just disagreeing with people who had been born as biological males competing in women's sports. This article fails appallingly to note the glaring nuance that exists there, the nuance that is why there has been such a groundswell of opposition to biological males who happen to be trans, competing in women's sports. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:301:E811:3D94:A425:F788 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Beer Calendar

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)

I don't necessarily agree with the publishing of the calendar, as a matter of personal taste. However, there is an entire article dedicated to the uproar that ensued with the release of this calendar, and as such, it's probably worth mentioning in some capacity due to Riley's contributions to the publication. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree the calendar has some notability. But, so far, the only reliable source mentioning Gaines in it, did so briefly. Gaines has appeared in a lot places (physical events, in print, and online), including controversial things. So, it would be a mistake if we start mentioning every single one. Now, if there's more reliable coverage of Gaines in "calendargate", I'd be fine with mentioning it here. But, for now, it just seems that we're giving this more weight than numerous things she's done that we don't cover, due to a lack of neutral coverage. For example, we don't mention her Outkick podcast due to the lack of independent substantial coverage of it. --Rob (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Biological female"

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) Like any non-neutral term, it is OK to use the phrase as part of a direct quotation, so long as it is not gratuitous and it is explained what it means, but it can never be used in Wikipedia's own voice because of the dehumanising implications. If some people are "biological" then other people are... what? Robots? Minerals? Gases? Ghosts? Fictions? Non-persons unworthy of consideration? And what of those people who are deemed to be "biological"? Did anybody ask them whether they want to be defined exclusively by their body parts? Is it any less dehumanising to reduce them to their chromosomes, gametes, genitals or whatever else people are pretending the phrase refers to on any given day? If there is any Orwellian Newspeak it is in vague, shifting, obfuscatory and dehumanising terms like this. Wikipedia exists to serve its readers. Our readers need information that they can understand in plain English. We have to avoid non-neutral language that encodes covert value assumptions. Oh, and, trust me on this, if anybody starts throwing the N word around, whether in articles or on Talk pages, they get blocked so fast that you never even see them! Between ClueBot and the Edit Filters, the most blatant racist stuff gets stopped before a human has to lift a finger and the more "subtle" stuff gets handled pretty soon afterwards. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Debate on Inclusion of Gender Critical opinions, which are legally acceptable opinions in the UK

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) Please just make a proposal for text to be added or removed, with why. Mention relevant sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) It sounds like irrelevant, off-topic trolling but if anybody can make an on-topic proposal then we can consider it. DanielRigal (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) It is not trolling, it is a point. Please dont be rude, please be more tolerant of there being a variety of viewpoints on this subject, its not nice to call people trolls just as they raise a question, and it is off putting, and upsetting. 2A00:23C4:B3AD:B01:7462:DE5D:167A:931B (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) You are confused about what "this subject" is. This is the Talk page for the Wikipedia article about Riley Gaines, an American swimmer. Nothing you have said has anything to do with her so this is all completely off-topic and just wasting people's time. Please read WP:NOTFORUM to understand why this is not appropriate. DanielRigal (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Impact section

Hi @Lisha2037, DanielRigal, and Thivierr:, I'm opening this section to provide a place to discuss and gain consensus for your desired contributions in this diff.

The current version of this text is not acceptable. There is no reason to replace secondary sources (The Advocate) discussing Gaines' Senate testimony with a primary transcript of that testimony, although we could include it alongside. Secondary sources are greatly preferable; they establish that the event was notable and include relevant opposing viewpoints. The new section "Impact and image" is not currently appropriate or useful; statements made by her Center and appearances on right-wing podcasts are primary sources which do not demonstrate "Impact", and are not necessarily notable. If we wanted to could attribute things that those podcast hosts said about her. The fact that she has a Center at the Leadership Institute probably is notable and should be mentioned. But we need reliable secondary sources.

Wikipedia often tries to avoid having sections or articles dedicated to "Criticism" or "Support", as they are frequently one-side (Wikipedia:Criticism § Approaches to presenting criticism). To create a balanced article, it's often better to integrate positive and negative material in one section, according to WP:Due weight. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi I appreciate you opening this section. I agree with your points about better sourcing. We can have secondary sources talking of Riley’s impact on the debate and how she’s shaping this cause. The reason I wanted to add this section is I think one can objectively say you think of Riley’s name when you think of the trans women in sports debate. She or JK Rowling. I want this article to reflect on how her talks and speeches and podcasts are actually causing a shift in how people think about this matter, whatever their opinion on it. She’s is actually having bills passed and senators listen to her. You can’t say that about a lot of 20 something year olds. As for one of these sources. I removed it because the article said Anti-Trans. Just cause it’s a secondary source doesn’t mean it’s reliable. I thought of it as skewed and wanted something that was neutral and factual. Lisha2037 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And I think it’s funny when editors say not to be biased but are biased in their comments. You think Joe Rogan or Peterson are right wing even though they don’t necessarily fall into the actual definition of that term. Peterson is likely what you would call a Classical Liberal. It’s probably just you disagree with them and label them as such. Secondary sources of the podcasts are available and ill

put them in. Lisha2037 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The article already discussed the impact she was having, with independent sources. Your addition was removed, because it lacked independent reliable sources. If you have reliable sources, please include them. We don't need to name a section "Impact*". You're creating a distinct section, without having a distinct topic. --Rob (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the content being added here is comically unsupported by reliable sources and is, at best, undue over-coverage and, at worst, promotional puffery. I mean, boasting about view counts on non-notable YouTube videos? Really? That said, if any aspects of this are notable, and can be reliably sourced, then I have no objection to them being added, neutrally and without undue weight.

I've reverted a couple of other recent edits that removed valid content for no good reason. One of those edits had an edit summary that borders on trolling. In the midst of this there was one plausibly valid addition which I have left. If Lisha2037 wants to continue editing this article then I would strongly recommend more edits like that and less like the other stuff. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

“Less like the other stuff.” 🙄 as I said I’m willing to rework that section that was taken out but putting in a sub header that I myself put in because I added in the a section is not needed. I put it in because there were two different sections, now there is one. I don’t think you even realize that you were putting in my own words that I myself removed. And I am still waiting for you to provide sources where they are can be characterized as anti/trans. I can grab loads of articles that say Lia Thomas is a guy but that’s doesn’t mean I should put them in. This article needs to be balanced. Do not just approved content when it fits your agenda. I am moving this article for third opinion/dispute resolution/ or repeat you for edit warring. Lisha2037 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is going to be reported as edit warring if it continues. We do not have an infinite amount of time to waste here. Multiple people have disagreed with your non-neutral edits. Your behaviour has become disruptive. Please stop.

I have looked at it again. I don't really care about the header. I think it is worth having, and that there is no good reason to remove it, but it doesn't matter that much. As regards the description "anti-trans", this is directly and reliably supported by The Associated Press and The Independent: "Stitt signed the executive order flanked by women from the anti-trans group Independent Women's Voice..."[28][29](It's the same article published in both places) and any attempt to remove it has the effect to obfuscate the article to the detriment of its readers. I assume you checked the existing source before removing content that it directly and explicitly supports? I assume that you are demanding a source where they describe themselves as anti-trans? If so, that is not how reliable sourcing works and I think that you know that. If it was, then we would not have any articles on serial killers who did not describe themselves as serial killers and no articles on badgers as no badger has ever said "I am a badger". DanielRigal (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I've added an additional reference to support "anti-trans": [30]. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I also found this: [31]. It doesn't mention Gaines, and I don't think we need to add it to the article, but here it is if anybody thinks we do need it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note that an incident has been opened about these edits at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Riley_Gaines_discussion --DanielRigal (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this incident has been closed with no action taken. Those of us who were restricted from editing the article while the case was ongoing are now free to edit again, if we want to. (I am content with the status quo version so I won't be doing anything right now.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

12 time all american

How do you become a 12 time ncaa all American. Foot note 6 doesn’t support the claim 2600:6C60:4000:571F:FD8B:DD61:C5D2:7F48 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

By excelling in multiple events through four years of college. You're correct that a better source is needed. The University of Kentucky website may work. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)