Talk:Billboard Chris

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Why say that he 'claims' to have been assaulted.

Saying that he 'claims' to have been assaulted implies that he may be lying about it. Leaving aside the fact that it is a matter of record, with video evidence that he has been assaulted, why not just say that he has stated this, which would be putting it neutrally. This was probably written by a trans activist who refuses to admit that people who disagree with them are subjected to actual and threatened violence. Guntherklog (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AgF. Where is the evidence he was assaulted multiple times, let alone about 25 as he claims?. If you are supporting his ideas and actions, you need to be very careful how you edit. You've been given a contentious topics alert and asked to tone down your complaints. This one pretty clearly violates the expectations of behaviour we have in this area. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Tell someone who cares you effing snowflake. Guntherklog (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Chris Elston spoke at the European Parliament

Please reccomend the you tube channel from billboard chris and his speech before the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT December 9th 2025 ~2025-41545-01 (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Elston's unchallenged claims on puberty blockers in lead

@Thriley: You restored Elston's claim that "Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" in this edit. I understand the need to include what he's known for, but WP:BLPFRINGE clearly applies to this article, as he is mainly known for his advocacy against gender-affirming care for young trans people. We must include the mainstream medical views on the subject, e.g., WP:MEDRS demonstrating medical consensus on the accessibility of the care, statements from major medical associations, etc. Bridget (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It is important to detail what his signs state in the lead since it is his reason for notability. Contextualizing/including responses from major orgs can be detailed in the body. Thriley (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not how we handle these types of claims per WP:FRINGE. This is not some generic context, especially considering it is a medical topic. I'm going to remove it while we discuss a wording, per WP:BLPRESTORE, which includes his views while balancing it with the mainstream views. Bridget (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The article should definitely say what is on the billboards. We aren’t claiming he's making a statement of fact. He's called “billboard” Chris after all. Thriley (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they should necessarily be omitted, it's pretty obvious what he's known for. I've gone ahead and reworded and added the citation from the body. Bridget (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed update regarding medical consensus language

The article currently describes opposition to puberty blockers for minors as contradicting medical consensus. Per WP:DUE this wording may be outdated as of 2026 and now be too broad given the changes in national guidance in several countries. In particular, health authorities in the UK, Sweden, and Finland have moved toward a more cautious approach for minors, often restricting puberty blockers to research settings or exceptional cases.

In other words in a big split of (UK, Sweden, Finland, etc) vs (USA, Australia, WPATH, etc) he joins one of the major views.

The current wording: "in contradiction to the recommendations of major medical organizations around the world" might be either dropped at all or edited to: "without a clear medical consensus among major medical organizations around the world" Simply adding the full balance thing in the sentence would render it inappropriately long: "in contradiction to the recommendations of major medical organizations in some countries and in accordance with some"

While some major medical organizations in the United States, Australia, and international groups such as WPATH continue to support access under clinical guidelines, several European health authorities, including those in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland, have adopted more restrictive policies for minors. Wikipedia generally should not favor UK, Finland and Sweden guidelines over US and WPATH sources, or vice versa, without a clear reason grounded in reliability or relevance.

sources (only major medical bodies, no press stories):

UK 
Sweden 
Finland 
WPATH 
USA  ComfyLemur (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean, no, it's very different split from that.

Looking at the puberty blockers article, we have

Against:

• UK
• Finland

Middle of the road:

• Sweden (one hospital banned them and the national board advises caution, but the rest of the Swedish health system still offers them)

For:

• Australia
• Austria
• Canada
• Chile
• China
• Denmark
• France
• Germany
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico
• The Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway (despite misinfo to the contrary)
• The United States

That is, for all intents and purposes, the entire world vs one country that banned puberty blockers based on a heavily debunked report after a decade long national hate movement, and a country where trans care is overseen by one person who was party to the heavily debunked UK report. If this was an RFC, where all the countries were editors stating their opinion, we would easily and overwhelmingly call it a consensus. Snokalok (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"authorities in the UK, Sweden, and Finland have moved toward a more cautious approach for minors" – their approach isn't necessarily WP:MEDRS and doesn't necessarily reflect medical consensus as you state it. Besides, mentioning all these countries' positions isn't appropriate or relevant for this article on an individual; only the medical organizations for the countries he's doing his protests in. Readers can go to the puberty blockers article for more context. Bridget (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

oh, you replied just when I was posting the relevant edit :) Let me read it... ComfyLemur (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback, but it looks like the initial claim holds.

Thanks for the extended explanation. There are a couple of important details in your reply that I want to address:

1. The circumstances related to how and why a certain position was produced by a medical organizations is not relevant to the topic of what the current consensus is. We need to show if there are enough major medical organizations sharing a view, nothing above that.

2. The list of countries looks outdated by couple years. I checked New Zealand and we have a major news source Australian Broadcasting Corporation describing NZ as being in another list

Same for France and Denmark

German medical assembly passed a resolution with a caution.

3. Calling 2-3 countries "one country" is not correct.

So it looks like there are major official organizations in 3-5 countries. Once again, no claims of a general world consensus, just a presence of a number of major medical orgs. Which is shown with links to some major med orgs and major press articles, I believe.

I suggest WP:DUE, that the text has to reflect that there are major official sources of these views, otherwise it creates a false impression that they don't.

Editing the puberty blockers page would require spending days of unpayed vacation for me, thats too much :) ComfyLemur (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

once again, Cass review might be problematic just as the Elston's views might be problematic.

which doesnt prevent the statement "several national health orgs took different stance as of 2026" from being true, which is shown by links to the press and the named bodies. ComfyLemur (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

1. It is if the rest of the global medical community says "This is nonsense". Read the Cass Review article's global response section, it has the entire world ripping it to shreds.

2. NZ's right wing elected government banned puberty blockers, but if you'll read that section of the Puberty Blockers article, you'll see in it that this is already mentioned - along with the fact that this was met with backlash by the New Zealand medical community - so for the purpose of determining consensus, New Zealand is still firmly in the For category.

Likewise, look at France, and while they recommended caution early on, they later on released protocols encouraging blockers use. Same with Denmark.

Your assessment and count relies at best on non-committal statements encouraging caution as trumping later produced hard medical guidelines which advocate for using puberty blockers, and at worst on the actions of elected right wing governments in contravention to their countries' medical communities. So once again, the only countries on the against list are the UK and Finland. Snokalok (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The article is fine as is and should definitely not include all of that. It just gives credit to the misinformation about European countries’ positions on transgender healthcare. Moreover, this is not an article about a wider global debate over trans healthcare. Including every individual country’s perspective like that risks going off topic and turning the section into a WP:COATRACK. Not to mention, you only cited primary sources and using statements from only medical bodies themselves to argue for a broader global shift may constitute original research per WP:NOR. Usr Trj (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Important background for the "Views" section

Looks important to mention the religious views along with views towards gay community, given the unusual combination of the views, putting him out of major "camps".

Proposed wording: "Elston described himself as an agnostic, supporting gay community and comparing the gender affirming treatment to the gay conversion therapy" ComfyLemur (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources for that? Usr Trj (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

“ opposing to using puberty blockers in gender-affirming care for transgender youth, in contradiction to the recommendations of major medical organizations around the world.”

If this statement was once factual, it isn’t now. The last several years and after the Cass report many countries have now come to restrict the usage of puberty blockers and that the majority of first world countries are now on board with what he’s been saying all along. ~2026-39995-78 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

He then publishes the recordings on social media without the person's consent.

Although factual, it’s easy to sense the bias from the writer. Why not omit this sentence or add ‘not that he needs any’. People approach him with this video camera in public, what do you expect is going to happen? ~2026-39995-78 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)