Talk:Wi Spa controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Source

I would add this, but I am on mobile. https://abc7.com/wi-spa-protest-lapd-alert-wilshire/10894299/ Jon698 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Jon698 thank you, this is a good source! ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

On mobile right now. I want to add this source tomorrow https://theintercept.com/2021/07/18/transphobes-rally-los-angeles-spa-police-attack-counterprotesters/ ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Another possible source, listing here https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/18/dozens-arrested-in-los-angeles-as-anti-trans-protest-outside-spa-turns-violent ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 12:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Antifa

Pluma, wanting your feedback regarding the sourcing and wording changes. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced

It should be noted that this statement is unsourced and unsubstantiated: "On June 24, 2021, a cisgender woman claimed that..". We have no evidence at all to suggest this person's gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.166.120 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sources cited show the woman claiming trans individuals don't exist. As such, she must be cisgender by definition. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It certainly would create quite a strange conundrum if someone denied their own existence (something very Adamsian about it ). We've definitely got RS for cisgender if it's in any dispute though (e.g. The Hill). —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated, 0xF8E8 ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This response requires the woman to believe/subscribe to the theory that people have a gender identity that exists separately from sex in order to be "cis" or "trans" of it. GenericUsername2702 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This assumes the person making the complaint agrees that gender is separate from sex, or if it exists at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoKoCorvid (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article conflates gender critical feminists with the far right

The article is worded such that a reader unfamiliar with gender critical feminism may unduly associate it with the far right. When actually, most GC feminists, particularly radical feminists, view such issues from a left-wing perspective.

I would suggest the article be reworded to not create this impression, and also to reflect the fact that GC feminists generally consider the problem of males in women's spaces in terms of safeguarding and women's rights, whereas the far right do not.

213.205.242.15 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This comparison and relation is what the reliable sources say. After all, we here on-wiki do our best to only summarize the cited works and not list our own anecdotes. If people in the trans-exclusive/GC camp wish to not be compared, I can only suggest they adjust their behavior in such that they don't show up side-by-side in reliable sources. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to express a NPOV, rather than echoing the editorial biases of its sources? Suggesting that GC feminists "adjust their behaviour" in some undefined way, as a prequisite to Wikipedia articles such as this giving them a fair representation, seems unreasonable to me. 213.205.242.15 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. NPOV is very important. However, rest assured, as the primary writer of this article (at current time) I've spent a lot of time to try to keep things neutral. Neutrality means we present facts as facts reported in the reliable sources. We also balance whether or not certain sourced facts/statements are WP:DUE or not. However, I cannot in good faith alter what is factually reported anymore than it already has been (to turn into wiki-voice). Doing so would promote a WP:FALSEBALANCE. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a NPOV to conflate gender critical feminism with the far right, they come from completely different ideological standpoints. I know it's a common smear tactic to make it sound like they are one and the same, as we see in much of the reporting on this incident, but I thought Wikipedia would be above such things. Anyway, it seems unlikely you will change your mind on this, so I will leave this discussion now, with disappointment. 213.205.242.15 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am always open to more input and opinions from other editors. However I'm curious how you view NPOV. From my understanding of it, it is that we as editors act as neutral arbiters (as best we can) to include reliable sources, weigh conflicting viewpoints, and try to not act as agents of our own biases. The lead section is summary of the body section, which is why it is summarized in the way it is currently. What way would you rewrite it, if you did? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, if you want actionable change, I suggest you write what sentences you have a problem with alongside the changes that should be applied to them, as well as other reliable sources that should be introduced. Right now, your complaint appears to be towards how WP:RS have been reporting the events, which, as Gwennie explained, we can't do much about. Isabelle ^🔔 17:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also wanted to say, this article isn't the place for a lengthy discourse trying to explain niche issues about certain perspectives, such as, for example, between what is and is not feminism (as the political alignment of trans-exclusive/GC folks are debated). We already have Feminist views on transgender topics for that, with other nuances about the common acronym being had at TERF. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Characterization

The following is portrayal of how our RS cited aligns the right-wing and trans-exclusive feminists in various ways. Feel free to add excerpts from potential sources for the article to compare or contrast. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) ​​​​​

• LA Blade July 7th "The video quickly made the rounds in far right, and Trans-Exclusionary Feminist (TERF) sites. Anti-trans “feminist” websites like Mumsnet, Ovarit, and Spinster were sharing content by far right provocateurs known for disinformation, like Ian Miles Cheong, by June 27th."
• The Guardian July 28th "…clear evidence of the links between anti-trans and far-right movements, including QAnon conspiracy theorists…" Also, a paragraph discussing Fox News, following paragraph discussing trans-exclusive feminists.
  • Follow up story The Guardian Sept 2 doesn't even separate the two. It refers to "members of the far-right Proud Boys group marched alongside women who held “protect female spaces” signs" after saying the incident video "went viral on rightwing forums, far-right sites and Fox News". (Is this source deliberately including trans-exclusive feminists under the right-wing umbrella? Needs considered.)
• On The Media - Zadrosny/Beckett/Serano Aug 6th Lois Beckett (author of Guardian article) describing how Precious Child saw comments flood in about and to her after the false allegation "She said, first, she saw comments from sort of militia group types in the US, then from broader pro-Trump people in the US, then she said that like transphobic feminists in Germany and in Australia were weighing in."
• Media Matters July 12th Cites this excerpt from The Christian Post "The footage is a real-life example of the concerns women’s rights campaigners across the political spectrum and radical feminists have raised in recent years. They argue that it is impossible to simultaneously ensure legal protections on the basis of sex and gender identity."

Comments

Was pinged. Frankly, I am very much inclined to treat with less weight those outlets which have shown themselves to be less reliable on this matter by pushing a "right-wing hoax" narrative when the facts show that later, police did end up arresting someone in connection with this incident who had a record (keep in mind that in California, merely being a trans woman in the women's changing room is not illegal). Even so, the sources listed here do not justify conflating distinct ideological groups. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You are free to start a new thread on WP:RSN. The sources don't say they are the same, only that they are connected, which seems fair. Isabelle ^🔔 20:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter worth reconsidering The Guardian as a whole, so not worth RSN. All the time on Wikipedia, if a source is showing itself to be contextually unreliable in comparison to other sources, we take that into consideration. And the only one of the four above that links the two more than our current article is The Guardian. We are not going to cherry pick their view; it's WP:UNDUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I don't think it's unreasonable for journalists, prior to the publication of charges, having suspicions of a possible hoax, especially when police aren't on board ("While LA police originally said that no crime had been reported at Wi Spa…" from follow-up Guardian article.) So when the police are reporting no crime and you have the contentious nature of the subject, it's likely to be journalistic to consider something unlikely until proven true. This whole situation changed since the LAPD reversed their position. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with Crossroads’ recent change. Are we discussing this because someone prefers the old language? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Current wording seems fine to me, too. Isabelle ^🔔 21:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Discussing because contentious and always good to actually look at what the sources say before we decide on wording as well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

TERF is considered by some to be derogatory

It doesn't matter if a source is using it; some whom the term is directed at consider it derogatory, nd we shouldn't be using it as a description. If a source says "a Karen" claimed that..." we wouldn't describe the person in question as a "Karen,"(just to give one example of a derogatory term, there are many others). Likewise for TERF--since it's a contested term, it should only reused in that context, not as an "objective" description. Boodlesthecat (talk)

I agree that we shouldn't use 'TERF', even in parentheses. We should also not use 'gender critical', a similarly contested term. The mostly stable version used 'trans-excluding feminist', which seems to be a neutral, accurate description if we drop the '(TERF)' Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping the term TERF if the wording remains the same, using "trans-excluding feminist", even though TERF is nothing more than its acronym, as detailed in its article (to which Trans-exclusionary feminism redirects to). Changing the wikilink to Feminist views on transgender topics, though, goes against MOS:EGG. Isabelle ^🔔 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, TERF is not "nothing more than an acronym," it's (to repeat again) often consider a slur, and often appears online or is heard in the street in contexts such as "Death to TERFs." The Wiki entry says clearly that it's use as a slur is hotly debated, which means it's real. So why err on the side of using a term many consider a slur, other than to subtly push an agenda? I would appreciate if someone can make a sensible edit that removes the offensive "TERF" descriptor so I don't get into/be accused of being in an edit war. Not only is TERF used derogatorily, it tends to be used in a lazy snd Monty Pythonist silly manner to describe anyone considered transphobic, often hurled at people who could hardly be defined as "radical" and/or "feminist", often by people who barely have a clue what they are talking about and know nothing about feminist history. Not unlike anyone who criticizes Palestinians being called a "Zionist", even if that person is an antisemitic Israel hater. Boodlesthecat (talk)

@Boodlesthecat: A Zionist is someone who supports the establishment of a Jewish state; an "antisemitic Israel-hater" would likely be an Anti-zionist. ––FormalDude talk 22:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: yes of course, and, eg, Iranian government propagandists often attack anyone who criticizes them as "Zionists", even if their critics are right wing antisemites. See, terms being used without regard for their actual meaning. Like TERF being used to attack people who don't even know what radical feminists means half the time. Get it? Boodlesthecat (talk)

 Administrator note: I'm not going to wade in here too much, lest I become involved and unable to apply discretionary sanctions (for which you are now all aware). Racists tend to find being called racist quite derogatory, as do trans-exclusionary radical feminists. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@TNT:, that's a blatant false equivalency which equates, on some moral scale you are employing, some women who wish to have spaces, eg, changing rooms, where they don't have to be confronted by penises, with racists. This is more illustrative of your own dogma here, which is far from universally accepted,, which makes me question your appropriateness of your being an admin for this page. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @Boodlesthecat: I obviously disagree which dogma are you trying to accuse me of, and is my supposed dogma any more or less valid than yours? For what its worth, I've heard this one ("some women who wish to have spaces, eg, changing rooms, where they don't have to be confronted by penises") before. You are clearly not attempting to challenge the use of TERF on any basis other than your own point of view. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

By equating the term "TERFs" with being called a racist, and expressing below your point of view that the word TERF is definitely okay despite the fact that there is no consensus in academic discourse if it is a slur, you are expressing a point of view on what to do with the article and clearly are already WP:INVOLVED. Such statements should not have "administrator's note" appended to them as though they carry special authority. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What sentence are you objecting to? The video had increasingly circulated online on right-wing and far-right sites, as well as trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces. ? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: As the editor who can claim most of the authorship for this page, I want to deliberately say that even since creating this article, this quandary has been on my mind. While some of our RS have used either "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" or "TERF" in the text thereof, I specifically chose to specifically write it as trans-excluding feminist (TERF) spaces. However what would be more constructive is, instead of acting in a very pugnacious manner, such as I regrettably see from Boodles, it would be better for those who disagree with the current wording to propose alternate wording. However, in an expression of good faith, I wish to do that labor for all those who wish it changed:

1. trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical or TERFs) this option allows us to be more verbose in body, to let readers know, who perhaps are reading material like this for the first time, the terminology refers to the same ideological grouping
2. The claim attracted significant attention from trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs) online this option allows us to be more verbose in lead and then use the preferred terminology of trans-excluding feminists elsewhere in body

Please let me know if there are more options you are wishing to explore for wording! ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I support either of Gwennie-nyan's proposals. My only question is: why are we omitting "radical"? We are linking to TERF which says trans-exclusionary radical feminist. ––FormalDude talk 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I put in alternate wording, removing "TERF" with the clear explanation, including in the talk page, that many consider it derogatory, and the Wiki entry itself admits that it's contested. My was reverted. Not sure why editors insist on using a loaded, and to many, a derogatory term, (not to mention it being a term which is mindlessly tossed around with seemingly no understanding what the 4 words mean) other than to push a particular dogmatic POV. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: The only "dogmatic POV" I see being pushed at the moment is yours - do you consider yourself a trans-exclusionary radical feminist per chance, or is that a slur? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I don't. Do you consider me one? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so you're just trying to make a point? Please arrive at it for all our sakes a TERF is a TERF the same way a SPADE is a SPADE, the only difference being a spade still has some relevance in the 21st century ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What part of "we shouldn't use a term many consider to be derogatory" (which I think some thers here agree with) isn't clear? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: Do you object to the term TERF in general or just its usage here? As I've said in the edit summary, TERF is used by the reliable sources to define the kind of group that was helping spread the alleged hoax. TERF, or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", has negative connotations, yes, but so do many other terms we use in articles, such as alt-right, neo-nazi and so on. If TERF was not sourced, then yes it should've been removed, but it's cited by at least three different sources. Personally, I support keeping the text as is, with the possibility of removing the acronym but retaining "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", anything else would be whitewashing the article. Isabelle ^🔔 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle I object to it being used to describe groups or people in an encyclopedia article, since many consider it a slur when being used as a descriptor. And these are hardly completely reliable sources, since they actually were key in perpetrating the apparently false narrative that the claims of the women at Wi Spa were a hoax (which they will never admit to). I don't think you will ever see the NYT or WaPo use "TERF" as a description of a group or individual, do you? And, whether you agree with them or not, comparing women (often lesbian women) who advocate for spaces without penises with noxious murderous fascists is both defamatory and silly. I see this article as also subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints and subtly perpetrate the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur, by making a point that the main complainant was "Christian" (wink wink, we know how hateful they can be!), pointing out that they are "cis" (to subtly set up an opposition to transwomen). That's my concern. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:28, September 7, 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: From my understanding, it's mostly TERFs who consider the word to be a slur, which would make it a fringe point of view. The used sources equate "gender critical" to "trans-exclusionary radical feminists", and the latter, and especially the acronym, is the most common descriptor for this subgroup, so it would be a disservice to our readers to change it. I don't see why it matters that some of these feminists are not heterossexual, or what words the NYT or WaPo would use. Your other points appear to be casting aspersions on the major contributors of the article. Try to assume good faith. Also, I will repeat myself and tell you to go to WP:RSN if you believe the current sources should not be used in this article. Isabelle ^🔔 04:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So it's OK to use a slur directed at a group of people who find it offensive, because it's mainly the people it's directed at who find it offensive. By your logic, we would never have gotten the n word proscribed, not to mention "tranny" and countless other offensive terms. Your logic is scary. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Even though I am a white person, I still find the n-word grossly offensive. Even though I am a cisgender person, I still find the word "tranny" grossly offensive. I think most non-black and non-trans people would still find these slurs deeply offensive, because they are slurs.

However, the majority of people who are not TERFs generally do not find the term "TERF" to be offensive. That is because it is not a slur. If it were a slur, we'd all be agreeing with you. I'll bring up the previous point that's been made that the majority of people who are not racists generally do not find "racist" to be an offensive term. So clearly a group of people being offended is not the only qualifier for something to be offensive (other people have to be offended too). ––FormalDude talk 08:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude You're being a bit ahistorical. There was a time, I remember well, being elderly, when countless racist, sexist, homophobic slurs were not considered offensive except largely by those the slurs were directed at. So your argument doesn't seem terribly sound. And while there no doubt there are haters in the so-called "TERF" camp, to hurl this purported slur at, eg, an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be seems simply like bullying.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, September 8, 2021

While people of color and non-cisgender folks don't choose to be who they are, TERFs do, which is the main difference between these groups. But I'm done discussing this with you, as your refusal to spell out one word, while doing so for the other shows you are the kind of person who won't budge on this issue. Isabelle ^🔔 12:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle Really? A lesbian who finds the presence of a penis in what had been a space where penises were not allowed disturbing, if not traumatic "chooses" to be bothered? And as such, should be labeled with a slur by those who object to her feelings? Hmmm. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, September 8, 2021

• I like Gwennie-nyan's proposals with the a.k.a.'s. In answer to FormalDude's "why are we omitting "radical"?" - that would basically just be spelling out TERF in the article text, which is taking a very particular POV which - aside from being bad in itself - can affect reception by readers, and also is saying that these specifically are radical feminists. TERF is clear that not everyone called that is a radical feminist. Let's just go with her proposal(s) because the a.k.a. is a good way of describing 'here's what people call this group'. And I'm seeing way too much commentary on editors rather than edits above, as well as some forum-like WP:SOAPBOXing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  We are literally spelling out "TERF" in the article text already with Gwennie-nyan's proposals that both include the word "TERF" in parenthesis as a.k.a.'s. If we include the acronym, I don't see why we should not also include what it stands for in its entirety. I personally agree they're not all radical feminists, but that is what part of the acronym stands for.

  I won't press it any further though because I don't really care one way or the other. ––FormalDude talk 07:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for staying on topic and evaluating what I proposed. I do agree we're having some serious WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM issues. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan That's seriously and transparently disingenous on your part. A number of editors have expressed concern that TERF is a slur and should be avoided, and you and those who support the use of a purported slur characterize them as "soapboxing" simply because...they don't agree with you, the creator of this entry. Seems like it's more like we have some serious WP:OWN issues here. Boodlesthecat — Preceding undated comment added 09:49, September 8, 2021

Seems like you have some serious WP:DROPTHESTICK issues. TERF is not a slur. ––FormalDude talk 04:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "TERF" is often used as a slur - the feminist online space Ovarit has many, many examples documented here by its users: https://ovarit.com/o/TerfIsASlur. Personally I would advocate the use of "gender critical" instead, not only because it's not a slur, but also it covers feminist women who aren't strictly radical feminists, as well as their ideological allies (e.g. gay men who are concerned about their homosexuality being redefined as same-gender attracted, rather than same-sex). Hope this helps. LayersOfEggs (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not using Ovarit for a couple reasons:

1. the site is specifically noted by RS as having spread the topic of this page
2. Ovarit was literally created after r/GenderCritical was banned from Reddit because of the behavior of its members
3. Like Reddit, Ovarit is mostly an aggregation of self-published sources at best
4. we have actual academic and more professional discourse about the discussion of the term as a possible slur on the TERF page

So yeah, we're not going to be using it. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan--LayersOfEggs said nothing about using Overit as a source, LayersOfEggs was simply citing how they--as the targets of the use of "TERF" as a description in this article--consider it to be a slur. So no need for the straw man conclusion that "we're" WP:OWN? not going to use it. What would it even be a source for? This article isn't about whether or not "TERF" is a slur, that's a subject on the talk page, and LayersOfEggs simply cited it as a source for how some on Ovarit apparently do consider it a slur. As for the supposed RS's, it's pretty obvious that a number of the so-called RS's used in this article played a key role in spinning the apparent hoax that this was all a hoax. Sadly, the noxious NY POST seems to come away with more credibility as a factual source than some of these so-called RS's. Boodlesthecat — Preceding undated comment added 10:15, September 8, 2021

Allegations of hoax section needs updating

See https://nypost.com/2021/09/02/charges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-wi-spa-casecharges-filed-against-sex-offender-in-notorious-wi-spa-incident, which states that a <trans woman>* has been charged with indecent exposure regarding this incident. So it wasn't a hoax after all. 213.205.242.252 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The New York Post is considered a generally unreliable source for factual reporting. See WP:NYPOST. DanCherek (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed they are a low-quality source. However, I will note in the interest of fairness that the LA Times article specifically references the NY Post interview of the alleged individual. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

* Original terminology is considered insulting and degrading by trans individuals, and has been redacted under WP:RPA. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The LA Times has covered this news story now. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-02/indecent-exposure-charges-filed-trans-woman-spa "Indecent exposure charges filed against trans woman over L.A. spa incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoKoCorvid (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Article says that the LAPD are going to make a statement soon. I am waiting to hear said statement for official information before including this information, so we don't run into a WP:BLPCRIME issue. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as an arrest has been made, it would appear that this is not a hoax, and it is possible to comment on that in the relevant section without making a determination on the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the mean time, leaving this information out leaves the previous hoax assertion dangling. GenericUsername2702 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@GenericUsername2702: The allegation of hoax section was deliberately worded in the way it was and is that it is usable either way. Leaving the information is important. After all, part of the history of this event, is that initially, various sources were exploring the potential of a hoax. For this reason, this reliably-sourced information will not be removed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest removal, I am suggesting addendum. GenericUsername2702 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

July 3

"The Intercept claimed that the stabbings were initially believed to be committed by leftist protesters, but video evidence proves they were committed by right-wing protesters."

Citation 19 for reference.

Which video proves it? Could there be a direct citation to the tweet? Given that LAPD are investigating these crimes, is it a good idea to say "proves"? WP:BLPCRIME GenericUsername2702 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Intercept article does cite a lot of tweets. However I have reworded proves to indicates because it is more wiki-voice and in-line with NPOV. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Poor definitional clarity; errors of conflation

From the lede: "trans-excluding feminists (a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)"

'trans-excluding feminists' is not a term anyone involved in feminist activism would use to describe themselves, it is only used by other activists who disapprove of their views, meaning it is not NPOV and is contested language (identity).

gender critical feminists is an appropriate term used by some involved parties to self identify, but it is an error to conflate it with 'trans excluding feminists' and with the term TERF. The bulk of gender critical feminists would not consider themselves to be either radical politically or radical feminists, nor would they agree that they fit the new, broad categorization of TERF; again, this is not how most feminist activists would refer to themselves.

It is also beyond the pale to assume, intimate or imply that the women who reported the incident would describe themselves as, or participate in any qualifying activities that placed them in either defined category. We simply don't know if they know about gender critical theory or radical feminism, nobody's asked them, and their reactions and subsequent actions are outside the context of activism.

the overall impression is decidedly against NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlesthecat (talk • contribs) 00:21, September 9, 2021 (UTC) previous unsigned notice was incorrect, should be: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:b000:adce:395a:f792:d39 (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The unsigned above comment was not added by me Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Now corrected. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's my bad. Thanks for fixing it Firefangledfeathers. Got confused between diffs. Especially with all the sig issues we've had with recent sections. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 14:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead now incorrectly blames feminists and right wingers/fascists, rather than just right wingers/fascists for anti-trans protests

I attempted to correct that with a good faith edit as follows: Her video of her claim attracted significant attention from right-wing media and activists, leading to violent protests and counter-protests on July 3 and 17, 2021. The claim also sparked extended discussions on some trans-excluding feminist (a.k.a. gender-critical feminist or so-called "TERF") websites. This edit follows the sources sited, eg, the Guardian article: The Wi Spa video from June went viral on rightwing forums, far-right sites and Fox News and led to two major anti-trans protests outside the spa, during which far-right demonstrators fought with trans-rights protesters in the street. No mention of feminists/"TERFs" etc. Yet the Wiki article now makes it sound like feminists and Neo-fascists kicked off the violence.

Once again, a good faith, well sourced edit I've made has been reverted, this time by Gwennie-nyan. Again, not only have good faith, sourced attempts to achieve balance in a rather sloppy article been systematically rebuffed, Gwennie-nyan has gone so far as to open an arbitration case against me for this apparent crime. (I'm tickled that Gwennie-nyan cites as evidence my past crimes 13(!) years ago, when I got in Wikitrouble for battling against a cabal of antisemitic editors who, across Wikipedia, were editing articles with lovely spins such as Jews were responsible for the genocides in Eastern Europe committed against them because of bad behavior by these bad Jews). I see the cabal system is still at work on Wikipedia over a dozen years later. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

Gwennie-nyan, just so we're clear, do the sources specifically say that 'GC/TERF' discussion online also played a role in causing the protests? If not, then we should probably split that apart and move it down a sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding online spread and protests

• LABLADE article "The video quickly made the rounds in far right, and Trans-Exclusionary Feminist (TERF) sites. Anti-trans “feminist” websites like Mumsnet, Ovarit, and Spinster were sharing content by far right provocateurs known for disinformation, like Ian Miles Cheong, by June 27th." and "Shortly thereafter, flyers for a protest on July 3rd began circulating in religious right, far right, and TERF social media circles, and were shared by [original filming woman] on the 29th and users on Spinster. They discussed defending the alt-right troll website, Kiwifarms, which is known for targeting transgender women."
• The Guardian
  • "The video was also shared by feminists who advocate against trans-inclusive policies – sometimes referred to as gender critical feminists, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists (Terfs). Moro documented a flurry of posts on Ovarit (a site for users banned from Reddit due to transphobia) and Mumsnet (a platform for UK mothers, which has attracted anti-trans feminists)."
  • Mentions a notable "gender-critical" website owner and her friend showed up and were confronted by activists
  • Article summarizes in virality and protests as "Wi Spa represented a nightmare scenario of what can happen when far-right groups, rightwing conspiracy theorists and gender-critical feminists are all aligned against trans rights"
• On The Media
  • Lois Beckett (author of Guardian articles) said of the false allegations "She said, first, she saw comments from sort of militia group types in the US, then from broader pro-Trump people in the US, then she said that like transphobic feminists in Germany and in Australia were weighing in. In the United Kingdom, Mumsnet, which is a parenting website which has become a gathering place for anti-trans feminists, posted a lot about this Wi Spa incident,"
  • Julia Serano, noted trans author, is summarized as "Serano describes how the groups sharing the video and showing up at the protests reveal the ways that the backlash to transgender acceptance has cut across ideologies, forging alliances between religious and social conservatives, QAnon followers, gender-critical feminists, anti-trans queers groups, and Proud Boys."

Here's what I got so far, may update later with further review of sources.​ ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As currently worded (and which I am hesitant to touch because good-faith editing has led to -- note the appropriate use of "leading to" here -- a gratuitous call for me to be sanctioned), the current wording in the lead pushes the false and probably false narrative that certain feminists in cahoots with fascist types set off the violent protests at Wi Spa. And even more defamatory, the wording places the feminists first (while continuing to offensively characterize them as "TERFs," despite Wikipedia itself saying the term clearly has derogatory connotations and despite multiple complaints on this page) and the fascist-types second, portraying them as the leading motivator of the demonstrations and the violence. There is zero documented evidence that "TERFs" played any significant role in organizing any of the demonstrations or causing any of the violence (that's whaat "which led to" means--words are important). Anonymous posters sharing content on websites (and keep in mind, the only content there was on the incident came pretty exclusively from right wing sites) shows nothing more than these fringe feminist websites shared information central to their raison d'être.

If anything, missing from the lead is the fact that a major online source for postings and actual calls for militant action in the streets that clearly "led to" the violent protests was the Antifa camp. Why isn't that there? Proper writing and editing skills require close reading and weighings of sources and information, and putting one's own bias and agendas aside, otherwise you come up with seriously unbalanced, sloppy articles like this one. A simple smell test would lead an objective investigator to conclude that overwhelmingly, the cause of the violence and the anti-trans actions was opportunistic fascist types of the sort who stormed the Capitol taking advantage of the incident, and secondarily, antifascist associated people and trans activists who righteously responded, and perhaps, tertiarily, some fringe fundamentalist Christians. It's quite clear that the fringe feminists websites (some of whom, imo, seem to harbor the occasional Trumpy right wing type, who may in fact be ringers), many of whom are in far away in the UK/Europe), did not play a role that warrant them being portrayed as the leading instigator of the protest. That's simply false, and no reliable proof is given. In the list above, Gwennie-nyan uncritically gives equal weight to all words written on the subject, and draws questionable conclusions as a result. An encyclopedia should do better. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit

We should edit "unknown individual with a penis" to male suspect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.79.89 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not every person with a penis identifies as male, so it's better to leave as "unknown individual". Isabelle ^🔔 14:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Especially considering the reports the individual in question initially suggested trans possibility, it's best to just keep it as it is. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, they're male, regardless of self identity. It is clarified that the individual may identify as a trans woman so there is no confusion caused by using a more efficient sentence structure GenericUsername2702 (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

GenericUsername2702 that might be your opinion but the RS report things differently, and we have to go by what is cited, not by what we want to write to suit our own worldviews. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Admin's response to enforcement complaint against me by Gwennie-nyan

On Sept 9, Gwennie-nyan opened a copiously detailed arbitration enforcement case against me (and without ever discussing her intent to do so prior to filing it), which used as evidence practically every edit I've made and utterance on this page as "evidence" for my being sanctioned. An admin responded 3 days ago with recommendations, and since Gwennie-nyan. has made no acknowledgement of that response on this page, I'll share it here, since it contains recommendations for how to proceed with editing this article that addresses some of the issues being discussed here, among them, finding the "TERF" language in the lead "gratuitous" and recs for restructuring the article. I'm happy to proceed with edits accordingly, since the filer of this action (apparently done imo as a form of harassment and intimidation, since it apparently is without merit) hasn't responded to it. Here's the reply of the admin:

*Possibly I need to be re-educated but I find it hard to understand the concerns raised in this request. The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "(a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: Johnuniq is an administrator, not an arbitrator. Also, she did reply in this diff. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Corrected wording. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

NY Post as originating source for information on Wi Spa case

Earlier, I had added to the article this info about the suspect charged for indecent exposure at Wi Spa: The suspect, who police in 2018 described as someone who police in 2018 described as someone who “claims to be female in order to gain access to women’s locker rooms and showers,”. This is sourced in the LA Blade, among other places. This edit was then reverted by Firefangledfeathers with the explanation source says "The Post quotes an internal L.A. police document saying Merager pretends to be trans in order to gain access to women’s spaces." Without independent review, we are essentially relying on the NY Post for a statement of contentious fact, for which it is unreliable.
However, twice in the article we say that Merager "has denied guilt, claiming harassment over being trans." This statement is also one that originated with the NY Post, in an interview with Merager conducted by Andy Ngo, a right wing operative with pretty much zero credibility as a journalist and who is hardly reliable as a source.
So it would make sense to either include both the reported LAPD background information that shows police officials claiming prior similar charges and criminal behavior and the NY Post-reported claims of harassment by Merager (which have been repeated by a number of sources relying on the Post interview) or, simply delete both the police info on Merager and Merager's claims from the Post interview, based on Firefangledfeathers's rationale that info originating with the NY Post is unreliable. It makes no sense to arbitrarily include one and not the other. I lean strongly to keeping both, as they are quite salient bits of info to this story. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? — Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 9 September 2021‎

The New York Post is a deprecated source, see Wikipedia:NYPOST. These sources have community consensus of frequent issues that the community at-large has decided are significant to the point that the source is considered generally unreliable. The only reason the Post is mentioned here at all is because its coverage is itself noted by third-party reliable sources. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This LA Blade story from last week attests to the police view separately of any NY Post attribution, so it's at least verified. Is it due? I don't have an opinion yet. On the denial, I share Boodlesthecat's assessment of the facts: the NY Post so far has an exclusive on comments from the accused, meaning all the coverage I can find of the denial and the complaints against transphobia are citing the Post. There's some nuance here: the Blade and Advocate both frame the interview and the denial as things that definitely happened. I am unsure how to proceed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

More RS is always better. I would suggest we find some way to neutrally word this and do some workshopping of how. We need to be very careful about this for a couple reasons. First, it's insinuating behavior, a motive or method. Second, it's from 2018 and our sources say the 2018 charge the individual has is still pending, so this is related to that. Third, the notion that sexual predators will pretend transness to access spaces is a popular canard used to push bathroom bills and there's virtually no real examples of it to RS. If this is true, this could be the only real example. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 11:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The wording in the Blade article is neutral: In poster distributed in December of 2018 by the LA County Sheriff’s Department, Merager is described as “claims to be female in order to gain access to women’s locker rooms and showers.”. Wording can be adapted from that. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I see I confused you. Neutral refers to way we write something on the wiki, not the source's writing. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Gwennie-nyan, I'm not confused. If you read my short comment, which may have confused you, I said A) the wording in the Blade article (the source's writing) is neutral, and, B) we can adapt wording from that, meaning we can write it in Wiki in a similarly neutral manner. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well we would really need to invent our own language for the inclusion because close paraphrasing is also considered plagiarism. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Gwennie-nyan, we don't have to "invent our own language." We simply have to write it neutrally based on the source. It's quite simple. Like thousands of people have done with zillions of Wiki articles for years. By your logic, you can never write a single article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding how to word anything which we decide is due to include but for which the only source is the NY Post interview, one obvious thing to do would be to attribute it inline to the Post, which we could do even without citing the Post (without putting the Post as a <ref>), just citing the other papers which themselves attribute it to the Post (which are thus theoretically reliable sources for the statement "According to the NY Post, [...]"); we already attribute a lot of statements in this article to various papers. However, if as OP suggests the source is not merely a deprecated publication but a non-credible activist interviewer, that gives serious cause for concern about whether the information, even when other sources report that the NY Post reported it, is actually true without independent verification of the information itself (and not just of the fact that "The NY Post reported that [...]"). (And there's always a risk, if we're tentatively keeping unreliable information in the article, that it leads a sloppy journalist somewhere to citogenesis.) -sche (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

NY Post as original source for information on Wi Spa case -- needs a decision

The question of whether we can use information which originated with the NY Post and has been subsequently cited by reliable sources needs to be decided, since we currently;y have such information in the article, (eg, statements from the Posts interview with Merager, the suspect arrested in the case, but in other instances information also orginally deriving from the Post and cited to other sources had been reverted. So either all such bits of info should be allowed, or all such information should be removed. So, the options are:

• Remove all content in the article that originates with the NY Post, even if sourced elsewhere; or
• Allow content in the article that originates with the NY Post if sourced to a reliable source, since there is salient information on this story that originated with the Post; or
• Allow the use of the NY Post as a source for this article since they have some exclusive information.

I'm happy with the second or third option, and would be happy to make the edits. As it currently stands, we are allowing such information and not allowing it at the same time. So we should decide. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 seems reasonable to me. It's pretty normal to cite RS claims which are based on material that we otherwise would not cite directly - mostly primary sources. We trust that they have the expertise and fact-checking to evaluate these sources in a way that the average wiki editor would not be trusted to do. Though that's not necessarily a blanket carte blanche to include any content from the Post which has been repeated in RS - we still need to consider due weight and so on. Also, we should be careful about in-text attribution. If reliable source X says "According to the New York Post, the moon is made of blue cheese.", we should probably translate that into roughly the same attributed claim (and not "The moon is made of blue cheese", or "According to X, the moon is made of blue cheese"). Colin M (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Same here. Option 2. Source deprecation is not an infectious property extending to other actually reliable sources that talk about them. That we - a website that anyone can edit - are not allowed to use certain sources because they are too unreliable is irrelevant when it comes to RS that, by definition, have their own fact checking ability. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean Option 2 is already currently in-effect. However in all instances, it is better to utilize sources better than the NY Post due to deprecation of that source. Regardless the standard policies and guidelines will need to apply regardless of whatever we're citing and the way we present the information. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Gwennie-nyan, Option 2 is not in effect, which if you read what I wrote is the whole point. Option 2 (allowing Post-derived content) and Option 1 (reverting content because it isPost-derived) are both in effect, which is obviously contradictory. So if we are in agreement that we allow NY Post-derived content cited to reliable sources, I will go ahead and make edits accordingly Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat I've already done so and implemented Post-related content as cited by The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, and LA Blade based on the current consensus on Option 2. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Colin and Crossroads that other, reliable sources reporting on e.g. the post's interview (etc) lets us state what those other, reliable sources are saying, although as Colin notes, this will generally mean we write sentence of the form "The NY Post reported that X did Y", and not just a wikivoice statement-of-fact that "X did Y". Given the last two replies above, I feel the need to emphasize the point (already made above) that this doesn't mean all content from the Post that's reported elsewhere automatically goes in, though (as Boodlesthecat seems to be seeking, including in the framing of the question above); we have to consider what's DUE, and if anything runs afoul of BLP. -sche (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Including (screen) name of video uploader

This recent edit by Boodlesthecat refers to the woman in the video by name, which is likely to confuse readers since the name isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. I had assumed we were leaving it out in order to respect the privacy of the individual, but it's not totally clear to me whether this is required/appropriate. WP:BLPNAME seems like the relevant policy here. The name is included in several reliable sources (The Advocate, The Guardian, LA Times), though they treat it as a screen name/pseudonym. e.g. The Guardian writes:

The woman who made the video, who goes by the name ________, has not publicly identified herself and she previously declined to comment to the Guardian.

I think this lessens the privacy concern. I'm inclined to add it to the "Incident" section, if only because it simplifies the prose if we can refer to her by name rather than having to constantly use circumlocutions like "the woman in the video", or "the uploader of the video". But I'd appreciate second opinions from anyone more familiar with BLP policy. Colin M (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. DanCherek (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We can definitely discuss it, however it was originally removed by DanCherek on July 18. So we need to figure out a consensus for this first. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections to including it. The diff above was more about avoiding a primary source (really the most primary of primary sources) and I agree that by virtue of it being a screen name, there aren't the usual BLPNAME concerns. DanCherek (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence that used Cubana Angel, as well as changed "arrested," which I had mistakenly put in, to "charged." I'm noting this edit here, since a revert of the whole sentence was made by Gwennie-nyan when it could easily have been fixed without deleting the whole sentence. Given that Gwennie-nyan has already filed a specious request for sanctions against me, I want to make clear I fixed only what was considered problematic, so I am not now "tricked" into being accused of "edit-warring" and undoing a reversion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: you raised a similar concern about a revert I performed in your edit summary here. There are a few reasons I reverted rather than making the fix myself. 1) It wasn't totally clear to me what you intended with the edit. My guess was that you had written "identity" rather than "gender identity", but it wasn't something like an obvious typo ("Wi Spam") where it was really obvious what had gone wrong. 2) It wasn't clear to me whether the addition, even if corrected, would be an improvement. And psychologically, I sort of feel like if I were to go in and make the correction, I would be putting my stamp of approval on the addition. Fixing the verification issue just jumped out at me as a necessary condition for it to be included, but not necessarily a sufficient one. But I can assure you, it was not some kind of Machiavellian scheme to make you look like you were edit warring. Colin M (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: I boldly added it based on Dan's comments, but if you think it requires more discussion, feel free to revert. Colin M (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Including name of suspect

Is there a policy saying the suspect's name should not be used in ongoing criminal cases? Reliable sources are using it, charges were filed and an arrest warrant was issued, so I don't see why it would be a privacy issue. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It was removed earlier with a note per WP:BLPCRIME, although I don't think it really applies to this situation. Mereger's name is everywhere, and Merager has also gone public with an interview, so it just makes the wording here clunky. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI, BLP provisions also apply to talk pages (WP:BLPTALK) so if there's any question about whether a name or other detail is a blp violation, it's better to err on the side of redacting it in talk discussions until consensus is established. Colin M (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

BLP provisions apply to all pages, yes, however I was informed that BLPCRIME does not apply to talk pages (per an admin) so discussion can at least happen. However, yes heavily consider redacting it. The only reason we're not squabbling much over the name of the primary accuser/video person is that the name associated for the individual is a pseudonym, not their real name.

Any use of an individual's name (provided that they are not a public figure or extremely exceptional) to tie them to a crime before guilty conviction is a court of law is expressly against Wikipedia policy and not allowable under nearly all circumstances. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I also want to note that an admin just hid previous revisions containing the suspects name in the main article namespace. So clearly, the inclusion of such until a conviction is a violation of BLP policies. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Merits of Spa Policy Inclusion

Colin M attempted to remove the section regarding the Spa's policies. I undid so we can discuss this. I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals. I would like to her feedback, thoughts, etc. regarding the merits of inclusion, modification, or removal. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The best guide to inclusion is treatment in RS. Do secondary sources detail the spa’s policies? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm.

• Slate says the woman in the video was "berating the staff member over the queer-friendly spa’s nondiscrimination policy"
• ABC7 specifically cites the full policy from Wi Spa's website in its article. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Which is the quote you're referring to in the second source? I might be missing it, but I only see quotes from the statement they put out (which we quote in the "Spa response" section) and quotes from California statute. Colin M (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Whoops misread. Wi Spa defended its policy in a statement to Eyewitness News, which reads in part: "Like many other metropolitan areas, Los Angeles contains a transgender population, some of whom enjoy visiting a spa. Wi Spa strives to meet the needs and safety of all of its customers, and does not tolerate harassment or lewd conduct by any customer, regardless of their sex, gender, or other characteristic.". It mentioned the policy but it was not quoted. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel they merit inclusion given the context of the situation, as the Spa is specifically reported to support access for non-cisgender or gender-variant individuals. That's fair, but isn't this fact already conveyed in the § Spa response section? Colin M (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Colin M I feel there is a difference in a statement given about an incident and specific text of the existing policy that was in place during the incident. Also found more RS for it than primary sources (see above). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that inclusion is the law, it seems needless to quote Wi Spa's policy. It means nothing more than an auto garage declaring that they have a policy not to steal your car and sell the parts. It seems fine to quote from RS's responses from Wi Spa saying they adhere to the law, and they claim that's what they were doing. Wi Spa also said there were no trans clients on that day, which seems to be key to sparking the false "hoax" narrative, even though Merager was not only arrested as a sex crime suspect, but also admits to being in the pool with Cubanaangel. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The specific policy an organization is using is relevant to how it operates. These polices aren't always or even often proscribed just by law. Some of the things their policy covers may be legally-required but others may not, and we'd require a legal source to specifically comment on that. However your use of false "hoax" narrative is a bit on-the-nose. We would need to have a conviction before we can rule that out. After all, significant as they are, charges are just formal accusations until a conviction occurs. It isn't us to determine what something is. Regardless regarding the last section, the Post interview which you may be referencing, does not admit that. In fact the interview has the suspect claim the opposite, saying she "was in a jacuzzi in the women’s section when she was accosted". However we are only citing in-article claims from the Post interview which are repeated through third-party RS. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The premise of the "hoax" claim is that there was no transperson in there with the women who complained. Merager, in the interview, claims to be a transwoman, and admits to being in the water in the woman's section with the woman who complained. So there is no hoax. Unless the suspect is really male, in which case it would be true that it was a hoax. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The frustrating news is: that's classic SYNTH. The good news is, if those facts click in reliable sources soon, we can cover such a statement when it's made. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Being charged and being arrested

Where the article had said

was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office with five counts of felony indecent exposure in connection with the incident corresponding to the five individuals—four women and one minor girl—who previously filed reports in July, and an arrest warrant was issued.

Gwennie-nyanchanged that to remove the last part about the arrest warrant to now read

was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office with five counts of felony indecent exposure in connection with the incident corresponding to the five individuals—four women and one minor girl—who previously filed reports in July.

with the explanation, "this bit is superfluous, when you get indicted on criminal charges, arrest warrants being issued is standard practice and doesn't bear specifying."

I believe this to be wrong--my understanding is it is possible to be charged and a arrest warrant to not be issued, so if Gwennie-nyan has proof that can be presented on this talk page, that would help. Regardless, taking out "and an arrest warrant was issued" needless distorts the facts--why take it out? It just waters down the severity of the case. What if a reader doen't know that issuing arrest warrants always follows charges (assuming that's even true--proof needed). Why are we assuming readers understand the minutiae of criminal procedure?

And, it's how the LAPD put it in their ref: the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged Merager with five felony counts of indecent exposure and an arrest warrant has been issued

And it's laid out in detail in the Blade ref that we cite

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has charged 52-year-old Darren Merager, a registered sex offender, with five felony counts of indecent exposure... Speaking to the Los Angeles Blade Thursday via phone, Los Angeles Police Department Public Information Officer Tony Im confirmed that an arrest warrant has been issued for Merager, whose last known residence is in Riverside County East of Los Angeles, but Merager was not in custody as of Thursday evening he said.

So, the "and an arrest warrant was issued" is salient information that brings clarity (otherwise a reader doesn't know the status) and is clearly specified in the sources for a reason. Purposely not including it does nothing but muddle the facts and gives the impression that the case against Merager is less severe than it is. So I'll put it back in. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

My feelings are already laid out in thy edit summary they list above. So third-party opinions welcome. Also So I'll put it back in. isn't how WP:BRD works. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I support keeping that part in. If it isn't standard practice for an arrest warrant to be issued when you get indicted on criminal charges, Gwennie-nyan's reasoning doesn't hold up and it bears mentioning. But even if it is standard practice, not everyone has knowledge of how criminal charges work and I agree with Boodlesthecat that removing it plays down the severity. The sources mention both the suspect being charged and an arrest warrant being issued, so it should be included. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to including it, though I think it's trivial. Will it matter in ten years? I doubt the warrant will maintain relevance (charges/arrests seem to have more staying power), but right now I can't know for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course things can change in 10 years or 10 days, and we edit accordingly (eg, as the case unfolds, or as the "hoax" story evolves should it become more clear that it wasn't a hoax, or proof arrives that it was a hoax. But "charged and an arrest warrant issued" is where it stands now Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I just barely disagree, and I don't care much either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling either way about this, but I think if the arrest warrant is mentioned in multiple secondary sources (rather than just the Blade), then there's a stronger case for including it. (But it's not clear to me whether this is the case.) Colin M (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The LA Times and the Guardian also mention the warrant. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Identification

@Gwennie-nyan: The woman has not said she identifies that way. Saying something negative about trans people doesn't mean she identifies as cisgender, as you claim. This is your personal opinion, you are violating MOS:GENDERID and WP:VERIFY. MOS:GENDERID says to "reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources". Your claim that we have a reliable source is a misrepresentation as the source does not have her saying she is cisgender. Also, in that edit summary you didn't address that you also reverted this edit that refers to the accused as a trans woman. Your use of the same phrasing elsewhere in the article was previously amended in this edit by @Volteer1: who cited WP:VOICE. Gwennie-nyan, again you are violating MOS:GENDERID. You also removed an archive reference and disunited the article's date formats. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a GENDERID issue. That the woman identifies as a woman is very clear from her own statements and reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the suspect individual, The NY Post interview only says they're legally female. The Guardian calls their gender unconfirmed. The Blade claims they're a trans woman. I'm not going to confirm them as X until I have a reliable source claiming X.

Regarding the video-taking woman, The Hill source specifically identifies them as cisgender woman. I'm not sure why this fact, uncontested by any RS, is an issue. She is a woman. She says trans folks don't exist. She is called cisgender by a RS. Seems reasonable to note in body. I agree with Colin M that it need not be in lead. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Hill doesn't have the original accuser identifying themselves as cisgender. The accused is called a trans woman by multiple reliable sources in the article but you feel it necessary to add "commonly reported" as if to suggest it might not be accurate because the sources don't have Merager explicitly calling themselves a trans woman. There is a double standard here. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I specifically have it indicated this way because this is a fact which is contested among RS. In other words, there isn't surety. However the fact the accuser is a cisgender woman is not disputed by the only source, a reliable one, which specifically lists her meta-gender category (cisgender/transgender/agender). The only one contesting the fact the original accuser is cisgender is not the sources, but merely those such as yourself in talk pages. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It's still a double standard regarding self-identification since they have not identified as cisgender. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

For transparency, I only actually saw the line in The Guardian after I made that edit. I guess it's still probably fine for it to be worded the way I worded it (I can't find any other sources that don't just call them a trans woman), but it's not at all obvious or trivial that the way I worded it is better. Edit: eh, probably better how it was. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Merager is referred to as a transwoman based on Merager claiming to be such (although police have said Merager pretends to be trans to get into women's spaces). Cubanaangel has only referred to herself as a woman, and should be referred to as such. To the extent that some sources (and not major media such as LAT, NYT, WAPO) use "cis", it's obviously a product of a particular ideological bent (and, without judgment, let's not pretend it isn't). So in the absence of a source quoting Cubanaangel saying something like "as a ciswoman, I...", or LAPD saying 5 ciswomen claimed such and such, we should just use "woman." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty unusual case, and I'm not sure MOS:GENDERID applies cleanly. The labels "cis" and "trans" aren't usually considered a matter of self-identification. e.g. it wouldn't make sense for me as an amab person to say "I identify as a cis woman" or "I identify as a trans man". Whether I'm cis or trans is just a fact based on whether my assigned gender at birth matches with my gender self-identification. It's pretty clear the person in question identifies as a woman and was not assigned male at birth. So what are we to do with someone who clearly is cis, but rejects being labelled with the word cis for ideological reasons? It reminds me of the case of men who, by all accounts (including their own), are sexually attracted to men, but reject labels like "gay" or "bisexual" (e.g. John S. Barrington, Jack Donovan (writer)). In the case of those articles, we just explain it all in the text. In this case, it's such a marginal aspect of the overall topic, I would kind of hope we could just avoid the issue by discarding the "cis" label as undue, since it's apparently only mentioned in one out of many sources. Colin M (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Are they clearly cisgender, or is that just a label you wish to apply for ideological reasons? That phrase cuts both ways GenericUsername2702 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why keep deleting that LAPD has described suspect as male?

Hatting as potentially offensive. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any mention that the LAPD has both described suspect as a male and has not been able to confirm their gender identity keps getting deleted. Why? One explanation given is that the gender is in dispute--so why keep deleting key content that describes exactly why it's in dispute, namely, that the police have stated the suspect to be male? It seems like POV-based whitewashing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC) The reliable source we have (LA Blade) uses: "described as 'claims to be female in order to gain access to women’s locker rooms and showers.'" That, and an instinct to hew as close as possible to GENDERID, indicate to me that we should use something similar to the existing language. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Your response of sticking "as close as possible to GENDERID" gives no rationale for arbitrarily removing salient, sourced information. As the original edit noted, the Guardian reported that LAPD couldn't confirm the suspect's gender identity, and the in the 2018 poster we have from RS's, LAPD had described the suspect as a male who pretends to be female identified to commit sex crimes. Why was this arbitrarily removed? Particular editors seem intent on reverting any mention of the suspect's identity claim being questioned, despite the fact that it's been reported that real-world actors in this story--specifically LAPD--have indeed charged that the suspect has claimed a false identity to commit alleged crimes. Yet, continually rewriting in order to bend the article to an editors POV, rather than reported facts is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing,specifically they "attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV...", among others. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Boodlesthecat, if you feel my arguments (or others') here are a CPUSH, you might consider following the steps at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. This article talk page is not the place for it. I don't think we should remove mention of the suspect's identity claim being questioned. Currently, the Blade's LAPD quotation is included, as is the Guardian's "unclear" comment. You appear to want us to go further than the RS in quoting the LAPD poster. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers, you are sidestepping the point repeatedly, hopefully not intentionally, so once again: well sourced information, specifically related to the LAPD describing the suspect as male, as well as them questioning his claim to be transgender, has been reverted out of the article with no explanation. So it seems some editors recoil at the fact that the LAPD is questioning the claim the suspect is not trans, and refuse to allow it in the article. But it is a fact. If it's distasteful, take it up with the LAPD. Don't distort facts in WK article just because you don't like it. Facts aren't problematic for MOS:GENDERID. You can't paraphrase "they think he might be a male" or "they described him as male" in any other way. But you can't just delete because you don't like it. +or say we are misgendering. Who says WP endorses LAPD's description? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC) You say I'm sidestepping, but I've told you exactly why I support the current content. I don't have any fresh arguments for you. It's just GENDERID and NPOV. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC) @Boodlesthecat: I hope you're aware that you are the one blatantly engaging in POV pushing, to the point that you continuously start one-verse-many discussions that you don't concede even when consensus is against you. ––FormalDude talk 04:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC) @Boodlesthecat: Could you be more specific? Do you have some specific wording that you think should be added to the article or changed? Related to the LAPD 2018 description, we currently have this: Regarding the 2018 case, the LAPD circulated an internal flyer which describes the suspect as a "transient" and alleges she "claims to identify as female" in order to gain access to women's locker rooms and showers. I think that's pretty clear. You originally added a longer quote that used a masculine pronoun to refer to the suspect, but as I said, MOS:GENDERID advises us to "paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering". And the current presumption (per the vast majority of reliable sources) is that the individual is a trans woman. As a side note, this is not some unique quirk of Wikipedia policy - RS follow similar practices. The source you cited for the aforementioned flyer is this LA Blade article, and in that article they actually reword a quote from the poster to avoid masculine pronouns. Colin M (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC) @Colin M: I'm recommending restoring previous wording, minor, which changes back: Regarding the 2018 case, the LAPD circulated an internal flyer which describes the suspect as a "transient" and alleges she "claims to identify as female" in order to gain access to women's locker rooms and showers. to Regarding the 2018 case, the LAPD circulated an internal flyer which describes the suspect as male and a "transient" and alleges she "claims to identify as female" in order to gain access to women's locker rooms and showers.> Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC) That's unnecessary and possibly against MOS:GENDERID. I agree with others we should avoid specifying their gender for now. Isabelle 🔔 14:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Agreed. I would clarify that in Boodlesthecat's proposal, we (as in Wikipedia) would not be specifying gender as something other than the most recent self-identification (as best as we know right now). The proposal attributes the "male" view to the LAPD as of 2018. Still, GENDERID clearly applies to attributed views, even in quotations. NPOV-wise, RS have not mentioned that aspect of the poster. Also, the LAPD's view on the suspect's gender is now "no comment", as seen in the Guardian article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC) No, you are completely misapplying MOS:GENDERID. In the text, we refer to the suspect as she when we are describing them. But if the LAPD is describing the suspect as male, that's a key bit of information, and they have indicated that they questioned the person's self ID as being professed solely for the purposes of committing sex crimes, and, per the Guardian reporting that LAPD could not confirm the suspect's gender identity. You can't hide behind MOS:GENDERID to suppress actual, salient facts. So yet again, you can't suppress actual facts about what the LAPD is claiming just because you don't like it. And the fact that the source doesn't mention that aspect of the poster is irrelevant; it's in the poster that is part of their article. If a newspaper published a table of unemployment statistics but doesn't quote a specific statistic, we can still use a statistic derived from the table (eg, unemployment for youths is x%) in an article. We do it all the time. Boodlesthecat Meow? — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 13 September 2021‎ On the source/poster point: fair enough. I'd push the analogy more toward the newspaper conspicuously distancing themselves from a statistic by quoting only half of it, but I'm getting uncomfortably into the realm of speculating on the Blade author's intent. On GENDERID, I am confident I can't reply without repeating myself. Perhaps more editors will join the discussion or some of the commenters above, most of whom have disagreed with you, will indicate that they've changed their minds. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers, you could show where, eg, GENDERID prohibits having the article say something like "LAPD described the suspect as male" which is sourced to the poster in the article, or that an LAPD spokesperson could not comment on the suspect's gender is, which is sourced to the Guardian. Both have been removed from our article. Why? Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the suspect as a "registered as a sex offender" - 2nd paragraph

California maintains a "Megan's Law" website (at https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov ), providing simple search tools to find information on registered sex offenders. The NYTimes article states:

"A law passed by California Democrats that went into effect this year replaced the state’s lifetime registration requirement to a tiered system. The law allows lower-tiered sex offenders to petition to be removed from the list. However, Merager is not eligible due to ongoing criminal charges. "

and the inference that the suspect is a 'registered sex offender' has been put into this Wikipedia page, which indicates that the suspect should still be on the Megan's Law database and therefore locatable through the Megan's Law website. Searching for them by any combination of the parts of their name provided by the NYTimes article (and even some slight variations to allow for data entry errors) provides no results, indicating that they are not a 'registered sex offender'. As they are resident in California, it is safe to assume that they would show up on the California Megan's Law web site.

This is therefore demonstrably false information and should be removed from the content.

Noodledoodley (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Not being able to find their name on the site is not sufficient reason to discount the multiple reliable sources that describe the suspect as a registered sex offender. For one thing, the site says: "Not all registered sex offenders are posted on the public Megan’s Law Website."Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue this isn't citable yet, as it's largely primary research and hasn't been reported in any reliable sources as of yet, however it seems as though the suspect was on the sex offenders register, twenty years ago, and is no longer due to the age of that conviction. Another Twitter user has posted a list of all prior charges against the suspect, which largely amount to the sort of charges you'd expect to see for a homeless former sex worker. Given that the author of the original NYPost has a reputation for misleading and inaccurate reporting, this entire section will be worth revisiting if this is picked up by any reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I agree it's not citable so far. We'll see how RS respond. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah our current RS all say they are a sex offender and have been since 2006. The likelihood of so many sources being wrong or misguided is low, but not impossible. However, we shouldn't assume a lack of suitable reporting from those RS until demonstrated otherwise. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see anything in there which demonstrates the suspect is not a registered sex offender or contradicts reporting in the LA Times that they have been since 2006. And I don't see anything demonstrating that they were/are a sex worker, just a Twitter user speculating on it. There's just a list of cases for the suspect who apparently has a seriously long criminal history, including having served time as a convicted art thief (not your standard sex work-related crime). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the above, on Wikipedia we go by WP:Secondary sources, not our own WP:Original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this, Crossroads. I was going to but I fell asleep last night before I could say that OR definitely applies. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

And if you do a search of "Merager" "art theft", you'll find a number of stories about how Merager was sentenced to four years for being the "mastermind" of a multimillion dollar art theft involving Merager's mother and brothers among others,(Merager came back a second time to steal the victim's Porsche). So RS's might have a bit of work to do to confirm the narrative someone on Twitter is apparently trying to present that Merager is just another impoverished sex worker on the streets being harassed by police. Not a single reliable source, or even less reliable sources, have made a single mention of Merager being a sex worker. Most describe a career criminal with sex crimes convictions, among other convictions. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It's somewhat misleading to say they are currently a registered sex offender if their offence was a long enough time ago that they are no longer on the current register. Also as I said in my original reply, I realise the twitter threads WP:PRIMARY and not citable. I was only mentioning it because it is something we may need to be aware of in the coming days/weeks if and only if it is picked up by any reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. The unreliability of the author in the NYPost, upon which all current secondary sources have used as their base for their own reporting, is well established as demonstrated on his own Wiki article. Given the speed at which the other sources produced their stories, it is not unreasonable to be wary that they may not have engaged in full fact checking, and that as a result we may in the future have to revisit and revise the sections on Merager.

Let me reiterate for the sake of clarity, I'm not saying that we need to take action now, and in fact we can't because we don't have any reliable secondary sources. All I am saying is that we might have to revisit this in the coming days/weeks if this is verified and picked up by reliable secondary sources. And that we should be mindful that this discussion point may need to be reopened in the near future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

While the primary sources stuff from Twitter is obviously not citable, I would argue that it raises some pretty major WP:BLP concerns to call someone a (current) sex offender when we not only cannot find her on the sex offender website but independent research, however unreliable, suggests that she is not a current sex offender. Especially since the RSes for that statement we have so far both do not say she is a sex offender in their voice, but instead attribute that claim to the police. Loki (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources say the suspect is registered as a sex offender, and the Megan's Law website says that not every sex offender is listed. So it does not need to be prefaced with "according to police" which suggests it might not be accurate. Independent research is original research so it's not allowed. On 2 September 2021, the LAPD put out a news release which said the suspect had been registered as a sex offender since 2006, so there is no reason to think they are no longer a registered sex offender. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

LA Blade uses the label in it's own voice. LA Times and the Guardian attribute the info to the LAPD. There may be other sources out there. It may be wise to attribute here, but it's certainly not a cut-and-dry BLP violation and we should afford little/no weight to the Twitter thread and original research. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think (or hope) we're all agreed not to put stock in twitter threads (though I've seen them shared by a few journalists, so one might hope reliable publications will investigate the matter at some point). We should hew close to sources when writing about living people, especially when writing about crime, though; if the sources almost all attribute this claim (and especially if the overall number of sources for it is small), the (small-c-)conservative approach is for us to do so as well. -sche (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sensible. There may be more RS out there, I was just counting the ones already in the article. @Abbyjjjj96: you reverted an edit adding attribution to the LAPD, citing the implication that the "registered sex offender" info is inaccurate. Given the attribution in RS, would you reconsider? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "according to" can suggest that something is not factual. And I really don't think there is a valid reason to cast doubt on a police department's press release stating someone's previous convictions. -sche above calls it a "claim". I am interpreting this as a suggestion that the LAPD are inaccurately releasing information and there is no reason to think that, no reliable source suggests that, so it falls under personal opinion and possibly bias. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your view on "according to", and it's exactly that usage in reliable sources that gives some of us pause on stating the point in wiki-voice. No need for assumptions of opinion/bias here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The police themselves are not a reliable source (because they're an involved party among many other reasons), and if our reliable sources consistently attribute a claim to the police it does imply that claim is less reliable than information stated directly in the news organization's voice. Furthermore, "this person is a sex offender" is not just a statement covered by WP:BLP, it is the archetypal example of contentious material about a living person that must be sourced extremely carefully per WP:BLP. Loki (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding The Guardian, they actually attribute part and state part as fact: "Police said Merager has been a registered sex offender since 2006 and has a history of previous indecent exposure charges. Merager was convicted of indecent exposure in LA in 2002 and 2003, and pleaded not guilty to seven counts of indecent exposure in an alleged December 2018 case, according to court records." (Court records aren't attribution to other people since that is journalistic investigation on their part and the court records are the fact of such a matter.) LA-area news Fox 11 (not to be confused with the Fox News Channel) states, "Following an investigation, it was revealed that the indecent exposure suspect – 52-year-old Darren Merager – had been a registered sex offender since 2006. Meager was accused of indecent exposure incidents from 2002 and 2003, LAPD said", which is also part-attributed but in an opposite manner to the Guardian. All in all I don't think attributing this just to the LAPD accurately represents how this is established in reliable sources at this time. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Since we're discussing "registered sex offender" specifically, the Guardian's statement of fact is slightly off-topic. Fox 11 definitely counts as a non-attributive example. Good find. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's true that not every source we have attributes this claim to the police, but the most reliable ones do. In a conflict between the LA Blade and a local Fox affiliate against the LA Times and the Guardian, we should obviously go with the LA Times and the Guardian, especially when primary sources suggest the secondary sources may be incorrect, and especially especially when it's such a WP:BLP contentious claim as "this person is a sex offender". Loki (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not the case that primary sources suggest the secondary sources may be incorrect, what we have is twitter threads (which aren't a source for anything) and original research that doesn't even appear to make sense (the Megan's law website said that not all registered sex offenders appear there). If it was the case that we have to attribute when half of reliable sources state something in their own voice, and the other half say "according to police" but do not cast doubt on the police's statements, articles on high profile alleged crimes would have whole paragraphs and sections where every sentence starts with "according to police" when there's really no reason to doubt it and think the police are lying or something. For the record, I still don't think the sex offender bit needs to live in the lead, it's not adding much beyond the convictions and it's probably fine in the section on the criminal charges. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Remark: Just wanting to say, Thank you everyone for discussing these concerns and doing so constructively! ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• A belated note: it's important to understand that Wikipedia's WP:Original Research policy has a narrow scope. The policy explicitly does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Biased article

This wiki is very biased and close to being worthless. Many attempts are made to frame the complainant Cubana Angel, considering sections like 'Allegations of hoax', 'LGBTQ reactions' and 'Political campaign by complainant'. It is irrelevant to the story if Cubana Angel is politically active; what matters is: did the incident happen as related by her. Many people and media have had their say including the not-so objective Los Angeles Blade. None of the media ever contacted or tried to contact Cubana Angel to hear her story. She has a point, though, considering cases like these:

• David Brown, Seven sex attacks in women’s jails by transgender convicts, The Times, Monday May 11 2020.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

• Nazia Parveen, Karen White: how 'manipulative' transgender inmate attacked again., The Guardian, 11 Ocotober 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

And please refrain from qualifications like 'right wing', 'controversial' etc. as in this example:

″In a prominent example of right-wing spread, Ian Miles Cheong, a conservative political commentator, posted two videos about the incident on June 27 via his Twitter account that reached hundreds of thousands of views.[11][14] Andy Ngo, a controversial right-wing journalist, also posted on Twitter about the incident.[11]″ --Gerard1453 (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

None of the media ever contacted or tried to contact Cubana Angel to hear her story. This much is not true. See for example this article from The Guardian: "Cubana Angel did not initially respond to repeated interview requests. After publication of this article, she declined to comment and referred the Guardian back to Little, who also declined to comment further." Colin M (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Would also like to point out that the whole incident is the media discussing her story and the video she blasted that account across the internet with. Regardless it's important that we balance POVs while being in line with our sources. The story mostly spread through right-wing sources and personalities, that is a fact that's pretty well-cited. Sources often are biased, the point is to balance them properly. There was an allegation of the incident being a hoax. There was a political campaign spawned by the event. There are notable LGBT reactions which were quoted in the media. These are facts. Listing facts doesn't make them biased. The problem comes when things aren't given their WP:DUE weight, either too much or too little. However, the fact you're linking to an unrelated case to try to assert the point you assume Cubana shares is not only a bit WP:OR, but worrisome. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Gender critical feminist and terf. Are two different things

People who support trans issues even trans people themselves are being called a terf.. To shut down the conversation... Most people being called trans exclusive feminist are not terf... Gender critical feminist support trans rights but want people to understand there's a difference between gender and sex... Terfs exclude trans people from everything, gender critical feminist want people to understand sex is real... But support trans rights 2600:1000:B112:6777:E9A0:F7AE:2251:D9B1 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be your personal opinion. However that doesn't seem to be the case from all the sourcing we have on pages like Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Gender_critical_feminism/trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism. At the very best, it's disputed. Regardless careful regarding WP:NOTFORUM. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Unless there are objections, I move that the slur “TERF” be removed from article. Hedonistbot4000 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

We've already discussed this at length. The consensus that was agreed upon was that given how some sources label the group as such, we can refer to the ideological group, putting common labels used for said ideological group in parentheses. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

LA Mag 19 December 2022 Interview

Jeremy Lee Quinn and Jason McGahan, 2022. EXCLUSIVE: Transgender Fugitive Who Spurred Wi Spa Riots Bares All: Darren Merager, the just-arrested Angeleno who launched a firestorm from a women’s locker room, spoke with LAMag while on the lam. Los Angeles Magazine, https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/exclusive-transgender-fugitive-who-spurred-wi-spa-riots-bares-all/, 19 December 2022. Rorybowman (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Added - Properly included information from this to the relevant sections. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal re: The Suspect's Pronouns

Currently, the suspect, Darren Merager, is referenced in the article using they/them¹ and she/her² pronouns. If he/him is used then I have missed it. Merager reportedly told a Los Angeles magazine reporter "he/him and she/her pronouns are just fine but [Merager] loathes they/them".

Unless, Merager has later contradicted himself or disputed the accuracy of this reporting elsewhere then the article should not use they/them to refer to Merager except when directly quoting reliable sources. Furthermore, since, according to the LA magazine interview:

1. Merager is "very uncomfortable" being "put ... under a transgender umbrella"; and,
2. Merager says: "I have facial hair. I have a penis. I have no breasts. I don’t have a feminine voice. I don’t wear makeup or dress up like a female."; and,
3. Merager says: "technically, for legal terms, I am she/her. I put 'female' on my driver’s license." (emphasis added); and,
4. Merager says: "I have heterosexual sex because my penis fits in a vagina. I don’t tell women I’m with that I’m transgender because that’s not my sex."; and,
5. Merager seemingly negatively characterizes transgender people who have medically transitioned as deviants. To wit, he says: "All these external people are doing what is being called transitioning. There’s no transition. That’s called deviation."; and,
6. Merager stated explicitly he/him are acceptable pronouns to be used in reference to him.

Therefore, I propose that the article be edited to consistently use he/him to refer to Darren Merager. This proposal conforms to MOS:GENDERID as I understand it. I want to stress that I don't consider any one of the six factors listed above to be dispositive in terms of deciding which pronouns to use in the article but that taken altogether they weigh strongly in favor of the consistent use of he/him.

Notes:
¹ For example, "On December 19, 2022, Los Angeles Magazine published an interview with the suspect in which they repudiate the hoax notion ..." (emphasis added).
² For example "The suspect also said that they used the women's section of the spa facilities and were in the hot tub when she encountered Cubana Angel ..." (emphasis added). Mox La Push (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I still think if neutral pronouns are thrown out, and there's heavy controversy with either of the binary pronouns (as is the case), we should consider just referring to the individual as their last name in lieu of any pronouns at all. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we'd only be referring to the individual by their surname if we come to a consensus that the subject is a public figure, otherwise we'd be in BLPCRIME territory.

When looking at the current text of the article, we mostly refer to Merager as the suspect. The handful of uses of they in reference to Merager seem to be standard English phraseology, and not us imposing they/them pronouns on Merager.

I'm also not seeing a convincing reason to use he/him pronouns exclusively here, certainly no more than I see a convincing reason from the interview to use she/her exclusively either. The grocery store example from the LA Magazine interview for example could easily be intended and read as a reaction against unintentional misgendering, instead of a statement for why he/him is fine. I think there is a reason why The Guardian piece from around the same time as the NY Post piece stated that the suspect's gender identity is unclear, and I'm not seeing much in the LA Magazine interview that helps us with that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

My own view is that if the decision is made not to name the BLP in the article, then they/them pronouns should be used as they would be in any instance where the gender of the person is unknown. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the Article Name the Suspect?

On January 26, 2023, I added the suspect's name to the article (diff). My edits were reverted by an editor citing WP:ACCUSED. I restored the edits, pointing out that "WP:ACCUSED does not prohibit using a suspect's name". My revert was then rolled back by another editor citing WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPRESTORE. Therefore, I am now raising the matter here.

The suspect's name has been known publicly since 2021 and appears in reliable sources already cited in this article including, but not necessarily limited to, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, and The Los Angeles Blade. I am aware of no policy that categorically prohibits the mere naming of a criminal suspect.

On the contrary, it seems to me that naming criminal suspects is routine in the case of articles about alleged criminal controversies or incidents. For example, the five police officers charged in the death of Tyre Nichols were not public figures until the media (and Wikipedia) published their names in short order. Likewise, the civilian suspect is named in the lede of the article on the 2022 death of Michelle Go. What is the basis for treating the suspect, Darren Merager, differently in this article? - Mox La Push (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I was the first one to revert you. I believe I was probably in error to do so. Therefore, I did not re-revert when you restored your revision.

I believe Sideswipe9th re-reverted on procedural grounds i.e. I raised a good faith BLP concern so now consensus must be sought. I don't know what their opinion of the object-level matter is.

As for me, I retract any objection I have had to including the accused's name, so I am fine with it being reinserted. CharredShorthand.talk; 04:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have thanked Sideswipe9th for drawing my attention to WP:BLPRESTORE and I thank you, CharredShorthand, for your comment here. Mox La Push (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My revert was on two points. One was the BLPRESTORE procedural grounds, because CharredShorthand had made a good faith BLP objection, the content had to be removed pending a positive consensus to restore it.

My second objection is on BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME grounds. Merager is I think not a public figure, they are certainly not notable in the sense that we would have a stand alone article on them. While there was an arrest warrant issued in December 2022, to my knowledge no actual conviction of a crime has taken place. BLPCRIME states that in the absence of a conviction, editors must seriously consider not including material in an article that suggests an identifiable person who is not a public figure has committed or is accused of committing a crime.

Where BLPNAME comes into play is that we're fundamentally discussing an individual whose notoriety seems to be in terms of a single event; their presence at the spa in June 2021. The last time that I looked at the sources here in depth was circa September 2021, where Merager's name had not been widely disseminated in reliable sources. From my memory at the time, and searching through the talk page archives, it was limited to the three sources you've already linked (Guardian, LA Times, LA Blade) and a handful very unreliable tabloids like the NY Post. With the exception of an interview published December 20th, and a report on the not guilty pleading on January 25th, both by LA Magazine, I'm not seeing Merager's name appear in any other reliable sources.

The difference between Merager, and the five officers charged in relation to the death of Tyre Nichols, is that the nature of the crimes to which those officers are accused have made them (rightly or wrongly) public figures. If I do a quick Google News search, filtered to just those articles published in the last 24 hours, Google News states there has been about 154,000 results. However if I preform a Google News search for all published news articles on Merager, with no date filter, I get only 98 results.

Are there any reliable sources about Merager, published after September 2021, that I've missed?

TLDR; is Merager a public figure? If no, then BLPCRIME and BLPNAME applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

To reiterate, neither WP:BLPCRIME nor WP:BLPNAME categorically prohibit naming criminal suspects, even those who are not public figures. More to the point, I disagree that Darren Agee Merager is not a public figure.

As it pertains to public figure status, the difference between Merager and the officers charged in the death of Tyre Nichols is a difference of degree, not of kind. The death of Tyre Nichols very rightly attracted far greater media attention for a variety of reasons, the most notable being that Tyre Nichols died.

Yet, Merager and the crime of which he* is accused (and the subsequent fallout) has also attracted significant, albeit lesser, international public attention—making him a public figure after he was named in 2021 in reliable sources as the suspect and identified as a convicted sex offender. Furthermore, any question over whether Merager is a public figure was finally put to rest when Merager voluntarily gave separate interviews, using his legal name, with both the NY Post and LA Magazine. The NY Post interview was covered in, among others, the LA Times, The Guardian, and the LA Blade.

* According to two the Los Angeles magazine reporters who interviewed Merager, he told them him: "he/him and she/her pronouns are just fine but [Merager] loathes they/them". For that reason and others I use he/him when referring to Merager. Mox La Push (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Categorically prohibit naming suspects, no. But strongly advise against naming them, yes. That strong advise is spelled out in the third sentence of BLPCRIME For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. (emphasis from original text).

Ok, so you've found one more source, which is considered generally unreliable (see WP:NYPOST), than those already mentioned. Unless there are any more, then I'm sorry, but a handful of media sources does not a public figure make. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Quoting what BLPCRIME says about non-public figures is not especially helpful when the crux of the dispute here is clearly whether or not Merager is a public figure.

Had Merager not chosen to give on-the-record interviews (about himself and the criminal allegations he has been charged with) in two significant print-cum-internet publications in two of the country's largest media markets then a fair case could be made that Merager is not a public figure. However, Merager did choose to give those on-the-record interviews. Given that and the number of other reliable sources that have disclosed his name, I contend he is clearly a public figure.

The NY Post is not considered categorically unreliable. Unless you have evidence that they fabricated all or parts of the interview with Merager then the reliability (or lack thereof) of the NY Post is irrelevant here. And as I pointed out above, "The NY Post interview was covered in, among others, the LA Times, The Guardian, and the LA Blade." Mox La Push (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, question for you. In this BBC News article about a cost of living crisis in the UK, currently on their front page, a husband and wife are mentioned by name as living in the town of Tewkesbury. By virtue of appearing in this article, in which they discuss their household financial situation, are these two people now public figures? If not, then why not? How are you defining the point where a person becomes a public figure? Is it different from the options listed in our public figure article?

Which other sources? I asked before what other reliable sources have discussed Merager. Besides the four reliable (Guardian, LA Times, LA Blade, LA Magazine) and one unreliable (NY Post) which have already been linked, what other sources are there published after September 2021 that mention, either directly or indirectly, Merager? Can you please link these other sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What Sideswipe said. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not name. There are a couple of fundamental problems with WP:BLPCRIME that make it difficult to apply. It offers no actual guidance on when to include the name of a low-profile individual; it just says to consider not doing so. There is also the problematic notion that alleged involvement in a crime is itself the justification for "upgrading" a low-profile to a high-profile individual, which defeats the entire purpose of developing protections for low-profile individuals. All that said, this is a fairly clear-cut case of a low-profile individual. The informational value of adding the name is extremely limited, easily outweighed by the privacy concerns.--Trystan (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Darren Merager was formally charged. 2601:204:EF01:7300:FCC3:7A20:D930:365A (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)