People need to be waaaaaay more careful with what sources are used for what. On Wikipedia, sources are NOT one-size-fits-all. In PARTICULAR, blog-like sources can be used for "So-and-so claims..." but CANNOT be used for "this happened." They're getting mixed up all over the place, and Wikipedia will just tear through that.
Second, where possible, we should avoid using Breitbart as a (solo) source. They may be getting the controversy right, but they're an overtly political website, which IS going to cause blowback regarding their neutrality, especially in the places where they've chosen to make the whole thing about gender for some stupid reason. They're better than nothing, but, at a minimum, cite them ALONGSIDE something else. Look at the things they cite. Breitbart's an easy target because of their politics and because in the past they've been involved in some dumb shit that called their credibility into question. That was a million years ago, and none of it is even remotely related to the controversy, but there's no point in making things easier for the shillhordes at Wikipedia who will be trying to tear this thing apart. (And there WILL BE SHILLHORDES). Look at the actual Wikipedia page for Breitbart. It's like 2/3 "controversies". This is not a place that Wikipedia thinks is likely to get things right. We should use better sources, and leave Breitbart as a backup or last resort.
Also, because we DO need Breitbart as a source of facts (because MSM duped by shillhordes), we should AVOID using them as a source of opinions. ESPECIALLY don't mix things between regular articles and editorials. If we decide that an article is a fact source, it's a fact source. If it's an editorial, it's an editorial. On the whole, I'd prefer to avoid using them as a source of opinions entirely. We want the article to make it clear that they're neutral observers reporting on observable facts, not pundits with a strong POV, when it comes to the controversy at least.
ETA: Also, I realize this is confusing, but where you can, if you're writing about X doing something, don't (only) link to X doing something, especially if you're piecing multiple things together.. Link to someone talking about X doing something. Wikipedia considers this better. Linking a bunch of things and then talking about how those things connect, even if you're just drawing blindingly obvious conclusions, can be construed as original research. Find a place where someone ELSE (not $@#$ing Breitbart, preferably, but it's better than nothing) talks about the connections between those things.
(Also, overreliance on Breitbart as a source feeds the hateful lie that the movement is some kind of right-wing nonsense, when the exact opposite is true. That's the least of our worries, though.)
