Talk:Chloe Cole/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Proud Boys

As there seems to be some guilt by association without actual association, I removed one mention Proud Boys and rephrased another as she commented on their activities that day. If there actions are relevant, they should be covered elsewhere, not in the midst of a biography with unclear connection to the subject beyond proximity.Slywriter (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for trimming it down! The second two reductions I have no notes, for the first, the Nashville Matt Walsh rally, that the Proud Boys were in attendance received widespread press attention which explicitly called out their presence and numbers. A few sources that I believe are in the article mentioned it but I hadn't referenced them, I can't remember if out of oversight or a desire not to over-cite (pun unintended). The Tennessee Lookout (currently uncited) source mentions their attendance and that Cole appeared as well, stating that The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin. As does Media Matters for America (currently citation 14) which states Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals. More covered it, but those were the ones who also noted Cole's attendance that I found with a quick search. Would it be alright to re-add Among the crowds were dozens of the far-right group the Proud Boys, who were eventually separated from the crowd of mostly counter-protestors by state troopers in addition to the above sources? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that she wasn't the organizer, so don't see how the crowd acted and who was present are relevant and due in her biography.

With that said, if you re-add, I'm not going to revert as I want to see if I can find any similar situated BLPs that have Good or Featured status to see how proximate actions of sympathetic, but not allied groups were covered. Andy Ngo is only one I could think of off-hand to look at and is not Good or Featured. In his article, various far-right groups are prominently mentioned because of direct interactions. Slywriter (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Given her comments on them just practicing their free speech and not being able to do anything about their attendance in other cases, I think it's important to document that they're repeat attendees. It's one thing if some proud boys show up at one rally you're the speaker for, another if they've shown up at several. I've re-added the Nashville mention and added the fact that Cole was the keynote speaker at the event. Also, any luck finding similar BLPs for us to reference? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

seems to be entirely historical and nothing stands out as being similar. Haven't looked at good yet, will in a few hours. Slywriter (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You are drawing a connection between Chloe Cole and the Proud Boys that does not appear to be supported by any reliable sources. That's what Wikipedia calls original research. No one should be surprised that members of the Proud Boys were at some of the same far-right events. That doesn't mean that Cole has any influence over them or vice versa. Round and rounder (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not drawing a connection and you should re-read WP:OR. The connection has been drawn in reliable sources, as they have consistently noted that she has spoken at rallies that had a large number of Proud Boys in attendance. To say "she spoke at this event" without any context of who else spoke, who attended, and how the public reacted, is whitewashing. Neither I nor the article have said Cole has any influence over them or vice-versa, just noted times they've appeared together as reported in RS. If no one should be surprised that members of the Proud Boys were at some of the same far-right events, why are you objecting to mentioning that they were? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist Can we have a reasonable discussion about this? Not including that some Proud Boys were at a far-right event is not "whitewashing". It's just a unnecessary detail in an already overly detailed article. There doesn't seem to be any connection between Cole and the Proud Boys other than Cole sometimes speaks at events which some members of the Proud Boys sometimes attend. By including them, you are implying a connection. No reliable source says there is any connection. Round and rounder (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We are not implying a connection by including that they intended, apart from the obvious connection that they attended the same rally, which is indisputable. Reliable sources have repeatedly noted Proud Boys have appeared at the events she's speaking at. We follow RS. We don't exclude details because you think that by mentioning them people will make assumptions. Factually speaking, the PB's attend her events. The only connection one could pick up from her article is that some of her events have been attended by Proud Boys, which is true. How people interpret that is not up to us. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that despite PBs showing up at rallies that feature Daryle Lamont Jenkins speaking, we don't mention them in attendance at his events, interestingly enough, there is no controversy or mention on his page either with regard to the impacts of his doxxing activities. WP:BALANCE WP:IMPARTIAL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how that's in any way relevant here. Is there any evidence they've shown up to his events, and if there is, are they there to oppose him or cheer him on? Two very different things and I hardly think there's any evidence of the latter... His article does need work, and frankly I've got no problem mentioning that proud boys showed up to protest him if we have the sources, but that's for discussion there, not here. Also, his article's lead literally states he has been credited with pioneering the practice of doxing and the article itself mentions his work in that regard so it's certainly mentioned. If you can find reliable sources saying there is a "controversy" about the ethics of him doxxing Nazis, mention them. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article and sourcing, I agree, this should be removed. Springee (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also @Maddy from Celeste, @Sideswipe9th, @Tristario since you haven't weighed in on this and I want discussion of this to be in the appropriate section, do you think that we should remove all mentions of PB showing up at her rallies [update: from the body]? Additionally, should we include the fact they were present at her TennesseeNashville rally?

For the TennesseeNashville rally, 3 sources are included in the article, all of which note and place a lot of significance on the presence of the PBs:

• LGBTQ Nation states White supremacists and Proud Boys joined other far-right politicians, pundits, and protestors at a recent “Rally to End Child Mutilation” in Nashville, Tennessee. Some of the protestors held signs supporting death and violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and a Republican elected official was in attendance and One of several Proud Boys flashed a white nationalist hand signal during the event, Media Matters reported.
• Media Matters for America is titled Death threats, Proud Boys, and homophobic bigots: Matt Walsh’s anti-trans rally drew a crowd of extremists and states Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals and Footage from the rally also shows a number of members of the violent extremist group the Proud Boys, one of whom can be seen flashing a white nationalist hand signal as he passed counter protesters.
• Nashville Scene states Among the crowd were dozens of Proud Boys, a notorious American far-right group, who stood in a formation cutting through the crowd. The Proud Boys were eventually separated from the crowd of mostly counter-protesters by state troopers.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

None of these even really talk about Cole in any depth. We can't point our that she has often attended the same rallies as PBs, if we don't have a source also explicitly making that connection while talking about her. What we have here are sources about rallies that talk in some depth about the PBs, and just mention Cole was there too. That isn't enough. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, this isn't about whether we should include their attendance in the lead since I don't think we should on reflection. This is specifically about whether the body paragraph about her Nashville rally (first paragraph of subsection Rallies) should mention their attendance. (I also see I wrote Tenessee instead of Nashville, I'll revise that post) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

derp Right. I think given that the only thing we really know about cole wrt this rally is that she spoke there, our description needs to be very terse as well. As such, and as the PBs apparently didn't do much special to stand out, I wouldn't say it. A more general mention about violent messages from attendants may be in order, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste How's this version?

In October 2022, Cole spoke at at an anti-trans "Rally to End Child Mutilation" hosted by Matt Walsh in Nashville. At the event, various Republican lawmakers announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors and attendees held signs calling for violence against gender-affirming care providers. The event was counter-protested by the Democratic Socialists of America and other groups.123 Media Matters for America reported that one of the Proud Boys in attendance flashed a white nationalist hand symbol.12

• The last sentence seems due since LGBTQNation also reported that MM4A reported that.
• Additionally, I searched for other sources that provided the event SIGCOV and the only other one is The Tenessee Lookout, which also calls the rally anti-trans and stated The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin.
• 3/4 sources providing the event SIGCOV called it anti-trans, with the other 1 calling it transphobic and stating anti-trans activists were the ones who spoke, so describing it as anti-trans seems in line with the RS

For reference the current text is: In October 2022, Cole spoke at right-wing political commentator Matt Walsh's "Rally to End Child Mutiliation" in Nashville. At the event, various Republican lawmakers including Tennessee House Majority Leader William Lamberth and state senators Jack Johnson, Dawn White, Ed Jackson, and Janice Bowling announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors.

• The main changes are 1) not listing all the lawmakers in attendance, 2) giving a desciption of the calls for violence 3) adding the detail that it was counter-protested, 4) noting MM4A's reporting on it, and 5) describing it as anti-trans per the RS.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks mostly fine to me, except that I'm not sure anti-trans is supported when Wikipedia:RSHEADLINES is taken into account. From what I can tell none of the sources explicitly call the rally anti-trans in the body of their articles. A bit of show, don't tell could be appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

MM4A is an activist site ("think tank") with a marginal reliable rating, WP:MEDIAMATTERS, and should not be used in a BLP. Maddy has covered the rest of why this is not appropriate for a BLP with the sourcing provided. Slywriter (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part of WP:MREL or WP:MEDIAMATTERS that says something like "Not for use in BLPs"? Cause what I do see is that use of it in any article, which would include BLPs, is to be decided on a case-by-case basis by editorial discretion and that any statements sourced to them should be properly attributed. In the draft that TheTranarchist posted just above, the sentence based on their reporting is properly attributed to Media Matters. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Simple, head to WP:BLPN and ask about using a marginally reliable source to attribute a statement in a BLP about the actions of someone in the audience and see how it goes. The more contentious the claim, the stronger the quality of sourcing expected is pretty standard for BLPs. Also, 'Should' is not an absolute, though granted usually taken that way. Slywriter (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• LGBTQ Nation: White supremacists and Proud Boys joined other far-right politicians, pundits, and protestors at a recent “Rally to End Child Mutilation” in Nashville, Tennessee.
• MM4A: Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals.
• Nashville Scene: Among the crowd were dozens of Proud Boys, a notorious American far-right group, who stood in a formation cutting through the crowd. The Proud Boys were eventually separated from the crowd of mostly counter-protesters by state troopers.
• Tennesee Lookout: The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin.

Every single source that provide the event SIGCOV notes the Proud Boys were in attendance at the rally. Not including that fact is blatant whitewashing. Frankly, I've no issue replacing the attributed statement to MM4A about 1 proud boy flashing a white supremacist signal with the plain statement of fact corroborated by 4 sources that dozens of proud boys were in attendance. No need to highlight one action of one of their members when we could just note they attended. Heck, we can take out the MM4A source entirely as we only need the other 3 for that statement if you think that's a good compromise. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, 1) that dozens of Proud Boys attended is by no means a contentious claim, 2) that MM4A reported one flashed a white supremacist hand symbol is not contentious, as 2.1) they said it, that's easily verifiable and 2.2) another RS noted they said it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion equals contentious. Regardless, it's a blatant attempt to "guilt by association" as has been said repeatedly since it has ZERO bearing on her activity or actions. She is not a member. She has expressed no support for them. So there is no compromise. This is a WP:BLP, stick to what she has done and what she has said. At this point, choices are move on, WP:BLPN or WP:RFC as we are going in circles, so local consensus is unlikely and policy concerns are real. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not how contentious works. Just re-read all of WP:BLP, it says claims are contentious when they are are unsourced or poorly sourced. Verifiably, proud boys attended the event, there is no absolutely no debate in RS about that. The material is not contentious, you just WP:DONTLIKEIT. You arguing that we shouldn't include that detail doesn't make it contentious. Sticking to what she has done, she spoke at a rally with a large number of proud boys in attendance. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's about Unsourced, which requires no debate. The intro to WP:BLP, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPGOSSIP all talk about being careful. And WP:BITR, a subsection of WP:COATRACK essay lays out why you don't expand beyond the subject into other areas. So, you can claim WP:IDLI but that would be false. My statements are quite consistent with the conservative nature of BLPs expected on Wikipedia. Did she invite them? No. Did she mention them in her speech? Also no. Ergo, not relevant to her biography. If an article is created about the event, then whose in the audience and who spoke is relevant. That's not this article. Regardless, I stand by those are the three options as further discussion is unlikely to achieve local consensus, as I am not the only one opposed and the previous BLPN discussion also had editors raise concerns about dog-whistling and indiscriminate details, which this clearly is. Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP: we must adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, which we do. must be written conservatively - that's why we can just mention that the rally was attended by dozens of proud boys, instead of getting into their actions.

WP:BLPSTYLE: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects - She spoke at a rally, dozens of proud boys attended. Purely dispassionate and factual. That's neither an under- nor over statement, and that's what RS published about the subject

WP:BLPGOSSIP: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. RS? Check. Presented as true? It's completely true and verifiable. Relevant to a disinterested article about the subject? Person wants to know about Cole, article simply states a rally was attended by PB (as documented in multiple RS). Relevant information.

WP:COATRACK (an essay, not policy): A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject - if you're removing the fact that dozens of PB showed up at a rally of hers, you're not giving a truthful impression of what happened at that rally. Also, see WP:WINAC: It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no direct relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require and Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack. - you are objecting to a single verifiable statement, documented in multiple RS, about notable attendees at a rally she spoke at. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll just note if you want to continue working to further improve this, Coles PB connection is based around GAG and LExit. Though of course Cole did work directly with PBs in Miami. Its definitely not a stretch to show the connection in a way that addresses the concerns raised by other editors.

I see you have the two TN rallies. Removed per BLP policy on contentious material without RS Most I have for that is self published where we can show its true through video of the event, but not sure about availability of rs.

So its definitely a lot more going on than same place/same time. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I've also seen evidence of her working with them a lot more than RS report, which is a shame but can't be helped. If you could find any RS that I missed that touch on those events it would be great! Until then it would be WP:OR to mention sadly, hopefully a RS picks that up, but until then we've gotta wait. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Springee (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is based on the work of a journalist named Alejandra Caraballo. Unfortunately, this specific info was self published and I am not sure of the RS of raw video footage. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Raw video needs a RS to interpret and show it matters. Alejandra Caraballo is an activist, stretch to call a journalist. And just a note that this line of discussion should stop if no RS are forthcoming as BLP applies to Talk pages as well. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not the argument you appeared to be making though. Saying "MediaMatters should not be used in a BLP" is a very different proposition to saying "MediaMatters should not be used for an attributed statement on the audience composition of an event Cole was a speaker at". On the former, I've checked the policy, guidance, and BLPN archives, and there is no documented prohibition on using MREL sources in BLPs.

On the later however, it is up to editorial discretion tempered by BLP and NPOV. If this was an article on John/Jane Doe, who regularly gave political speeches and made appearances at rallies, where the balance of all sources state the audience are primarily <insert contentious group here> but sources stop short of saying "John/Jane is a <insert related contentious term here>" then we would in the BLP of that subject document the makeup of those who predominantly attend John/Jane's events. MREL sources could conceivably be used in that circumstance, where they are the best available source for coverage of a single event, or as part of a larger source bundle for general coverage on all events.

Bringing it back to this article and applying the same principles. We have some sources, some of which are GREL, one of which is MREL, which in summary state that members of the Proud Boys attended Walsh's rally. We also have sources that in summary state that members of the Proud Boys also attended another event a few months later that Cole was involved with. If this is true for other rallies and events that Cole has been a prominent speaker at, and if the balance of sources covering those events also make note of this connection, then we do have to seriously consider including it in a policy compliant manner.

So the relevant question is not "why are we using a MREL source for this controversial fact", but instead are "how are Cole's rally appearances documented in the balance of all RS that cover those events?" and "is MediaMatters the best possible source for this specific event, or are there better sources that we could use?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith Could you discuss the changes here? I personally am not a fan of the MM4A citation, since I think we should just summarize how RS described the attendees rather than describe one action of one member.

• Tennessee Lookout: The crowd was a mostly-white mix of the Walsh faithful, transgender rights allies, members of the white nationalists Proud Boys and vocal individuals preaching on Christianity and sin.
• LGBTQ Nation: White supremacists and Proud Boys joined other far-right politicians, pundits, and protestors at a recent “Rally to End Child Mutilation” in Nashville, Tennessee. Some of the protestors held signs supporting death and violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth
• Media Matters for America: Footage from the rally, which included speeches from Walsh, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and other media figures and local politicians, shows that it attracted a cadre of extremists, including members of the violent Proud Boys extremist group and multiple protesters brandishing signs explicitly calling for violence against medical professionals.
• Nashville Scene: Among the crowd were dozens of Proud Boys, a notorious American far-right group, who stood in a formation cutting through the crowd

How would you feel about updating At the event, various Republican lawmakers announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors and attendees held signs calling for violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth to At the event, various Republican lawmakers announced plans to introduce legislation banning gender-affirming surgery for minors. Attendees included some who held signs calling for violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth and dozens of members of the white nationalist group the Proud Boys TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Thanks for sorting out some of the talk page discussion. It was quite a mess. 2. The removal was good as we need to be careful about guilt by association. Unless Cole invited or encouraged the negative behavior in question it shouldn't be in an article about her. Sources about the events that mention both Cole and negative things done by protesters do not establish weight for inclusion of the one in an article about the other. Springee (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree the MM4A section isn't ideal. My proposed change here don't mention any negative things done by protesters or negative behavior, they just mention a notable group among the rally's supporters, who every RS reporting on the event pointed out. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:GUILT. Including the bad behavior of protesters/supporters or even that a group who is viewed as undesirable was in attendance isn't ok unless there is a clear connection between the two. We don't have that here. Springee (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll re-iterate, my proposed change doesn't mention the bad behavior of protesters/supporters. I took a look at WP:GUILT, and I'm missing the part where it says you can't mention the attendees of a rally someone spoke at because it makes them look bad. The clear connection between the two is Cole spoke at a rally, they attended in support of her and the other speakers. We don't say anything more. Arguing that we can't mention a group who is viewed as undesirable was in attendance is blatant WP:WHITEWASHing, since your whole grounds for arguing against it's inclusion is that the Proud Boys are generally viewed negatively.

In fact, quoting WP:GUILT: Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

• The proud boys attending is not negative information about third parties. WP:GUILT would mean listing unrelated things the proud boys have done, which we are not.
• As stated, the nexus is Cole spoke at a rally, the PBs showed up.

IE, WP:GUILT doesn't apply, and there is no policy based reason to not mention the PB showed up except WP:IDLI TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That they were both there is not a sufficient nexus. In an article about the event it may make sense to mention both the speakers and the unsavory attendees. That doesn't mean the speakers and attendees have a nexus to establish weight remember, BLP, err on the side of caution. Springee (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

RE: GUILT Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include... I feel this is relevant. As the reason for inclusion is to give a brief description of the rally, which feels necessary. The meaningful and relevant way of describing a political rally is to mention the views present. I would agree with Tranarchist about WHITEWASHing and no WP to exclude views we find unsavory or a bad look.

As far as bad behavior by some attendees, it seems we're in agreement to not mention this. Though had she acted as an organizer for events I feel it could be included without violating GUILT. Filiforme1312 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can explain my reasoning in a little more detail. Personally I think the entire mention of Proud Boys (both the one I removed and the second mention just below it) is undue weight and guilt-by-association. However in keeping with the need for greater administrative patrolling in this topic area, I want to avoid getting WP:INVOLVED in an editorial dispute so I'm reluctant to get deeper into the weeds on suggested wording. The sentence I removed was mostly for the statement that one of them in attendance flashed a hand sign. That would probably be relevant in an article about the event itself, but is completely irrelevant to Cole's biography. In this case, the "third party" is the unnamed Proud Boy member, and using White Supremacist symbolism is almost universally considered negative information. Cole speaking (i.e. presumably not organizing or inviting people) at an event is clearly not a "direct relationship" or nexus between the unnamed hand sign flashing person, and sources don't seem to indicate that she had any ability to know about or prevent the person from doing that with his hands. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith I agree about the 1 person flashing a specific hand sign constituting WP:GUILT in this case, I was asking more for your opinion on including the presence of the PB at all, since notable attendees of the rally seems WP:DUE and all RS commented on their presence. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on BLP applying to talk pages and info on RS irt video. I will note that I was mistaken about her profession, she is an instructor at Harvard Law School who has published journalistically in non academic publication. Filiforme1312 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:TheTranarchist, I'm about to look into this, but I'm wondering if this isn't another case of you attempted to blow up this article out of all proportion. We're talking about a bit player in a fringe field who gets some coverage for some crazy shit but in many ways isn't important, if it weren't for the manufacture of outrage that lives on social media more than anywhere else. Not even a blip on the radar screen of the 2020s. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with this edit by Slywriter. I see now that there's conversation at BLPN and I'm going to take a look. Tranarchist, I've dropped some warnings on talk pages of obvious COI/non-neutral editors, and I saw some unproductive IP edits; if needs be we can semi-protect this to keep at least some of the riff-raff out. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • We posted at the same time lol. Semi-protection would be much appreciated and I'd been thinking of asking for that but the vandalism seemed to abate recently. It would be nice to discuss the page productively rather than expending so much effort on vandals. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Let's see how it goes. If it pops back up I'll happily semi-protect it, and please do let me know if there's sus accounts, like the two that I welcomed/warned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• @Drmies She has traveled across the country to support attacks on transgender rights and healthcare. She has frequently spoken at far-right events in support of that. She has received extensive coverage in RS for those things alone, so naturally the article reflects that. I have no clue where you're getting the manufacture of outrage that lives on social media from. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • And you do not need to retell every detail of each one of those events. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Not every detail for sure, but proud boys attending, especially when noted in RS that they composed a large chunk of her audience, seems due. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
      • You know that the issue is not whether the Proud Boys were there or whether it's noted in reliable sources--the question really is whether it is her audience. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist (talk · contribs), why did you restore the reference to Proud Boys [1]? There is no consensus for inclusion and a number of editors, especially editors outside of this topic area, have noted concerns with guilt by association etc. This is a BLP, when content is challenged it should be kept out absent a clear consensus to include. If you think the Proud Boys are due, start a RfC. The same is true of your restoration of the Tiktok reference. That was recently added by you. The addition has been challenged. Please follow BRD and please self revert. Springee (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

They've noted that with the Nashville mention, not the one you removed. WP:GUILT doesn't apply because Cole directly commented on them. Also, the LA Times explicitly connected them, a source I just added. Even Slywriter, who first created this section, thought it seemed due since she commented on them, and out of all the people on this thread you seem to be the only one who thinks it isn't. Consensus is not in your favor here.

You complained about the Tiktok Reference running foul of WP:GUILT - to paraphrase one of the best movies ever made "I do not think that policy means what you think it means". An independent source explicitly noted their interactions, gave examples, and noted Cole's statements on their interactions and the organization itself. That does not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination meet any part of WP:GUILT. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to show that this isn't a violation of GUILT and that you have consensus. So far that hasn't happened. Do we know the context of her mention of the PB? Did someone ask and she provided a non-committal answer or did she some out and cheer them on? Again, GUILT makes it clear there needs to be a clear nexus and simply saying they have a right to protest is not that nexus. Nor is it a consensus. As for Tiktok, yes, associating her with Libs of Tiktok is certainly trying to create a guilt by association in this space. It's also not a significant fact and thus doesn't have weight. Springee (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious... Let me quote WP:GUILT in full for you, again.

• Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

GUILT means in BLP A, you can't list a bunch of misdeeds by BLP/BLPGROUP B that were unrelated. It means you can't say (1) "John Smith bought a coffee from Jane's Coffee shop" then add "Jane once ran over a dog, and has 20 unpaid parking tickets" sourced to a source that doesn't mention John. It does not mean you can't say (2) "John and Jane worked together on Project X", especially if you don't mention anything else Jane has done apart from collaborate on that project, and multiple sources found it notable they worked together on Project X.

"Cole and Libs of Tiktok follow each other and Cole has expressed support for them" falls into the latter category, not the former.

"Cole attended an event with Proud Boys in attendance who did XYZ at the event, then said they had the right to free speech and to be there and she couldn't do anything about their presence" also falls into the latter category, not the former. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than dealing with your text walls, please show that you have consensus for these additions. Springee (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with TheTranarchist here, for at least one of the two Proud Boys mentions. That the Proud Boys were in attendance at two rallies is verifiable to RS. That Cole commented on their attendance at the Tennessee rally, demonstrates that she knew they were in attendance. Her claim that she couldn't do anything about the group's presence strikes me as somewhat disingenuous however, as at a bare minimum she could have asked them to not appear and/or condemned their actions. By saying she couldn't do anything about their presence was at best an attempt to distance herself from their behaviour, without actually taking any responsibility for it.

When looking at the text of GUILT, I think the text after the or is the correct test to apply here, and not the nexus test. It's clear to me that Cole knew they were in attendance and could have done something to prevent their conduct, even if that something was ultimately ineffectual. However based on the sourcing available all she has done is deny any responsibility for the actions, and avoid condemning them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing the GUILT text: "Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." Let's start with the reliable sources. We have sources about the event. Are they good sources? MM4A is considered extremely biased and generally a poor source. Nashville Outlook appears to be little more than a 4 person outfit. How much weight should we give any of their claims. The Nashville Scene is the local free paper that mostly does restaurant reviews etc. Again, how much weight should their claims be given? The strongest source is a special interest source that shouldn't be considered impartial in this subject area. That doesn't mean factually wrong but it does mean we need to be careful about how much emphasis they apply to any particular claim. Nashville Outlook draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. LGBQT Nation draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. It hardly mentions Cole, only in the second to last paragraph. MM4A draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. The Nashville Scene draws no connection between Cole and the PBs. Perhaps I missed it but where is the source that shows Cole acknowledging the PB or saying they had a right to free speech? I will presume that in this long mess of a talk page I just can't find it. Now look at what GUILT says. GUILT provides two options via the "or". The first is that we have RSs showing a direct relationship between the parties. We don't have that. We don't have sources that say Cole knew or wanted the PBs to attend or she had any ability to influence them No sources say they wouldn't have come had she not shown up. That kills the "direct relationship"/nexus part, what about the other part? That she knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. Is there any evidence that Cole could have convinced the PBs not to show up or that they wouldn't have shown up if she had said she wouldn't? GUILT applies here (as does consensus, note that NOCON says this sort of thing stays out absent consensus to include). Springee (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That's wall of text is honestly somewhat difficult to read/decipher (in future, it might be good to format and indent separate points) but I'll try and keep the reply short and to the point and address your concerns.

Nashville:

• MM4A is considered WP:MREL, not a poor source but context-dependent, and generally their bias is more noted than any factual innacuracies. They provided WP:SIRS coverage of the event.
• The Tennessee Lookout and Nashville Scene also provided WP:SIRS coverage of the event. Unless there is any reasonable doubt as to whether the PB attended (which 4 sources noted), it's immaterial. If you believe they are unfit as sources generally, take it to RSN.
• The nexus part still applies. Per my earlier example, but slightly modified, "John spoke at event X, notable attendees included A and B" - the X event is a nexus. GUILT says we can't say "and A has 20 unpaid parking tickets". It does not say we can't mention A attended event X.
• Unless we want the paragraph to read Cole spoke at a rally and provide no further elaboration, it seems fairly self-evident that details of the rally such as notable attendees, events at the rally, and positions expressed are warranted.

Tennessee:

• The Scene was the one to report Cole's comments on the PB. It is cited in the article.
• The LA Times also referenced the Scene, stating Cole has addressed public events with right-wingers who have broader agendas, such as opposition to abortion and support of the Jan. 6 insurrection, including Greene and the Proud Boys.
• Here, nexus applies as per my earlier example.
• Additionally, a direct comment on their attendance (stating they have a right to do so) is a direct relationship.

Your attempt to completely remove all mentions of the Proud Boys is WP:WHITEWASHing, against consensus, and, as I stated earlier in regards to WP:GUILT - "I do not think that policy means what you think it means" TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having trouble reading it. The summary is none of those sources link Cole and the PB together. That means no nexus which is exactly what many people have told you. The Scene article is not the one you linked above. The Scene's comment about Cole doesn't appear to be something from her presentation, "Cole told the Scene following the rally..." It appears to be part of a discussion between Cole and the Scene reporter. It is not clear if she was asked or volunteered the information. However, it was clearly said in context of questions from a reporter, not as part of her rally presentation. That breaks the weak connection you are trying to establish. That the LA Times commentary article mentions the Scene doesn't make the Cole PB connection any stronger. Look, if you want this in the article start a RfC and get consensus. Else, there isn't consensus for inclusion and hasn't been since at least 15 Feb. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please self-revert and count the contributors. You are not "many people", and you're the only one crusading to remove the Tennessee mention. Myself, @Slywriter, @Sideswipe9th, @Filiforme1312, @Drmies, and @Maddy from Celeste have expressed support for its inclusion. What is being debated is the Nashville rally, not the Tennessee one. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the Proud Boys mention, not the mention of the rally. Please don't confuse the issue. Springee (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not confusing the issue, by tennessee mention I was referring to the mention of the PBs in Tennessee, which should be obvious from context. Like I said, you're the only one who opposed it wholeheartedly. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's clear you are not worried about consensus or edit warring. I will open a RfC on this topic. Note that while the RfC is open the content should stay out per the BLP section of NOCON. Springee (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist and Springee: Can both of you please stop, take half an hour to an hour away from your keyboards and this article. We do not need an RfC on this at this time. There are other editors already present who have yet to contribute on this issue, let's give them a chance to make commentary on this to see more fully where the consensus lies. However right now, there does appear to be a rough and weak consensus for inclusion of the Proud Boy content on the Tennessee rally only. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Springee there's two separate tests in WP:GUILT. The nexus test is one of them, the other test is that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. It's pretty clear from the text of the ArbCom finding that content must meet one of those two tests, with the correct test depending on the context of the content. If GUILT was supposed to be a single test, with two criterion, then it would have a logical and, in the form the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), and that the subject knew or should (emphasis mine). However it is actually a logical or which is why it states the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should (emphasis mine).

I've already laid out above how I believe the sourcing for the Tennessee rally is compliant with the principle from that 2006 ArbCom case, as in this context about that rally I do not think that the nexus test is the appropriate one to apply to this content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I addressed both in my 3:33 3March edit. One is nexus which we don't have here. The other is, as you say, the subject knew or should have known about and could have... It's not clear Cole had any control over who showed up or what they did when they got there. Hence we fail on the second point. Also remember that the PBs weren't rally participants/speakers. They were part of the crowd, just like the counter protesters. Springee (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not see that as a fail on the "could have done" part of the test. She could have asked them not to appear, and she could have asked them not to harass or antagonise the counter protestors. Whether or not those requests might have fallen on deaf ears is immaterial, because it appears as though she never actually asked. However we do know from another prominent example who asked the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by" that they have in the past at least entertained those requests. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that she knew they would be there or what they were doing before or during the presentation? Is there any evidence she knew what they were accused of during the event when the Scene reporter was asking her questions after the event? We have no evidence that she knew in advance or would have had any ability to influence the PB if she did ask in advance. To say that establishes a link between Cole and the PB is a big stretch. Springee (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec)I'm fence sitting, hence my revert. I think BLPN should be asked to comment on WP:GUILT, particularly the second part. A quick search of the noticeboard doesn't show that is has come up all that often. I'll put something up there in the morning as getting late. Expect a question like "Do the following sources support mentioning PB being in the crowd at an event CC spoke at when balanced against the second test of WP:GUILT. From there perhaps the rest can flow.Slywriter (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Per @Sideswipe9th's earlier comment I've been taking a break from the article, but I'd just like to say that 1) a BLPN section should ask people to comment on both mentions as there's no consensus on either (though by my count at least 2/1 on Tennessee) and 2) I think adding GUILT in the question would prejudice the discussion. We should ask simply whether we should mention them in each case, list the sources, and then let people present their thoughts. If editors find GUILT applies, they can mention it, but I don't think the entire discussion should be predicated on the material's relationship with GUILT. And with that, I bid this article and talk page goodnight. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

subject knew or should have known

The impression I draw from the RS and GUILT is that it satisfies the should have known. Noting the use of the logical or, but I would agree with slywriter about consulting BPLN. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The second part of guilt is should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties. Springee (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That is correct. I agree with Sideswipe9th. I tend to speak a lot at conferences and there are a multitude of actions a speaker could take to prevent objectional actions or attendees at events, not limited to addressing it during her talk. Filiforme1312 (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You would first have to show that she was aware and that as a speaker she could have done something about it. I've spoken at conferences as well. That doesn't mean I can easily pick my audience. Springee (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this as being productive at this point as this talk page is impressively massive and much of it feels like WP:WHITEWASHing. I feel RS by virtue of noting her as a speaker would indicate she could take the actions a speaker is typically understood to be able to take that an attendee is not. This could be to address it during her talk(see Sideswipe9th), ask the organizers to address it, make her participation contingent on the organizers addressing it, withdraw her participation, and definitely a ton of other options. Given that she flew or was flown in for the event, its hard to argue she does not have access to any of these options. A read of the RS makes the first part of the test pretty clear.

This is all besides agreeing with the ways others have shown that GUILT does not apply. Filiforme1312 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The Proud Boys stuff should stay out per BLP concerns. This is the biography of a living teenager, who is not a member of the Proud Boys, as far as I know. We don't need to include every detail, and definitely err way on the side of avoiding any guilt by association. She was a minor player at that rally, mentioned briefly as an "also ran" by the sources ("also speaking were ..."). I also took out Media Matters per WP:MEDIAMATTERS. Take it to RSN or BLPN if anyone would like, but I doubt you'll get a warm reception. If there is something to say about this teenage BLP, it'll be in a source that's better than one that is partisan/attribution-required. In the specific case where I took it out, it added literally nothing that wasn't in the other two sources cited for the same content. For the sake of completeness I'll mention I also ce'd that content per the other two sources and removed some other details I think are not related to the subject of the article. Levivich (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

and removed some other details I think are not related to the subject of the article.

Are you referring to the removed content below?

and attendees held signs calling for violence against doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth

I just want to make sure its mentioned explicitly given similarity to ongoing discussion regarding the removal of certain aspects of descriptions of her speaking events. Filiforme1312 (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Weighing in on this, I agree that The Proud Boys stuff should stay out per BLP concerns, without a whole bunch of WP:OR, there is no reason to think that Cole either could or even should have done anything about their presence or their actions, and even their presence isn't widely reported and any link to Cole is very tenuous.

It isn't the only example of "guilt by association", why is Cole resposible for Marjorie T-G retweeting a picture? Cole clearly IS resposible for any endorsement she provided to MT-G's bill, and that endorsement should be explicit, but the retweet coverage just seems like another attempt to imply a connection that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, hasn't been widely covered, and which isn't useful info. Far from WHITEWASHing, I think this article in general is in danger of being a WP:COATRACK - instead of a BLP article. Our coverage of the MTG bill, is more detailed than that on MTG's own page - a bill which outlaws the provision of (named treatments) to minors federally, is basically what it is, whether one likes the bill or loathes it. Readers can check the sources or the MTG article if they want to know in detail exactly how punitive or draconian it is. Pincrete (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as how the 2006 GUILT case is relevant to PBs here: it is about the actions of other individuals. As discussed previously, this would certainly apply to a PB's use of a white supremacist hand signal. I think we can all agree on that. Where you loose me is applying GUILT to the mere mention of the presence of controversial figures.

For background, the 2006 GUILT case was in regards to allegations of CSA against Jack Hyles, a pastor. The allegations were added to the pages of a college and a mini series that Hyles was involved with. They were then removed, an edit war ensued, and then a case. Due to issues with RS, the mention of his CSA allegations were removed from the college and mini series. Jack Hyles himself remained. He is still mentioned there to this day. Hence leaving mention of the PBs and striking their actions unless they pass GUILT.

Id also argue that if WP:BLPRS indicates members of what some countries classify as a terrorist organization, have attended a talk, then a brief mention of the group is warranted unless there is WP stating otherwise. Filiforme1312 (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to include I do agree about COATRACK (the MTG twitter interaction being a good example) and feel a good place to begin to address that would be edits that are not controversial in nature. Filiforme1312 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)