Jump to content

Talk:Leelah Alcorn/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Title change

I think that this article should be renamed "Suicide of Leelah Alcorn" as it better describes the article. Thoughts? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess there's precedent with Suicide of... and Murder of... articles and suicide is more specific. I can't think of a reason not to. freshacconci talk to me 00:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't personally see anything wrong with doing so, but I would recommend initiating an official move request to solicit broader input as this article (and anything associated with it, like a move) has the potential to be very controversial. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
How about just "Leelah Alcorn" it is about her life even if we mainly know of her in death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.117.158.213 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please can somebody change the word f*** which is used three times and put it in asterisks? Danni8 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. 47.32.105.229 (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Swearing.

I notice the word f*** is used three times in this article. Tried to change this but it wouldn’t let me. I take swearing very seriously. Can somebody edit that for me please and put it like I did with the asterisks? I’m not sure we should be swearing on this encyclopaedia. Be like the newspapers and put it in asterisks. Danni8 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED 47.32.105.229 (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As long as the word not used in Wikipedia's tone (for example, a quote), it's allowed on Wikipedia. Codyorb (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Assigned male at birth....

The majority of people are not assigned a sex at birth, they are simply noted as male or female. The entire idea of 'assigning a sex at birth' comes from those in the intersex medical community who deal primarily with infants born with ambiguous sexual characteristics; those that do not lend themselves to the obvious male or female sex. Stating Leelah Alcorn was 'assigned male at birth' therefore carries the implication that she was born intersex ....which I believe is incorrect. Furthermore, the idea that all people are somehow 'assigned' a sex at birth negates the fact that the vast majority are either obviously male or female, and no 'assigning' is ever needed. --Internetprofile (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The more widely understood definition of sex assignment is when a doctor declares a baby to be either male or female, not physically "giving" a gender to an intersex baby. I do appreciate your reasoning, but according to WP:COMMONNAME, it's recommended to use language most familiar to most readers. Codyorb (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Sex assignment is specific to the intersex community and any mis-use of the term because it is simply more familiar to readers does Wikipedia a disservice; its function is to supply proper/factual information and not to win some popularity contest. Again, the vast and overwhelming majority of people are male or female, and no 'sex assignment' is needed. If Leelah Alcorn was deemed intersex at birth then I concur that the wiki entry should describe her as 'assigned male at birth' - however I do not believe this to be the case, and until such evidence proves otherwise, the phrase 'assigned male at birth' should be stricken or modified.--Internetprofile (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What wording would you like to see instead? Codyorb (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
How about "born biologically male"? 67.169.243.110 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
'Assigned male at birth' is in fact commonly used terminology for trans women. If you read up on sex assignment you'd see it is not meant to only apply to intersex people. Rab V (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that by using the term "assigned male/female at birth" would be more suitable and convenient since it's what the majority of Wikipedians are used to and it's no use changing it now because if it is changed,then all the transgender-related pages would have to be altered and rephrased.However,I do acknowledge and appreciate your idea. FYI bookgirl (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"she was given the name Joshua Alcorn"

I don't think that her dead name should be included in the article. As someone who had to fight for respect and recognition for her whole life it seems disrespectful to tell the world her dead name in such an easily accessible article. Yamcultperse (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yamcultperse given half the article is about people deadnaming her after her death, it seems relevant to put it in there. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yamcultperse: Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We are here to reflect what the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES say, and we should not be deviating from that course of action to show someone some form of deference or respect (or, conversely, disrespect). Reliable Sources regularly refer to her birthname; thus, so should we. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

Take out the "had" in "Within a year, the city of Cincinnati had criminalised conversion therapy. " please, it's not needed and might be taken to imply this was just the beginning of many such effects Ur Momma Non-Notable (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Short description

Do short descriptions on WP need to match those on Wikidata? Because while "American transgender girl" is an adequate short description of "Leelah Alcorn" (which is what Wikidata has an entry for), it seems inadequate for this article, which is more of about "suicide of American transgender girl". -sche (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Length, BLP

1. Shorten it. 2. Take out the names of the parents. 3. Article is written as an eulogy. Zezen (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Why?
2. Why?
3. No, it's not.
freshacconci (✉) 14:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Brendan O'Neill

See the RfC close below.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Midnightblueowl: The quote from Brendan O'Neill was not in the article at the time of the FAC; you added it six months later. I'm happy to discuss this further and seek a consensus, but the only argument that's been made for including the quotation is spurious, so there isn't much to discuss. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Thanks for bringing the issue to Talk. Thanks also for correcting me about when I added that information; in my head I thought I added it in around about the time when I brought this article to GAN, way before it even reached FAC. Clearly my memory was wrong. That still means, however, that the text has been a part of this article since 2017, so WP:BRD certainly applies regarding the need for consensus prior to removal. I do believe that the original removal (by Cpotisch, not you) was politically motivated POV-pushing, which is the main reason why I reverted. Their claim that they were removing a "few lines that just quoted far right sources" pretty much confirms that (for what it's worth, neither The Washington Post nor Spiked are far-right sources, so I get the impression that their understanding of "far-right" might encompass almost anything they disagree with). The fact that this piece of commentary is being singled out for removal, when the inclusion of press commentary from other sources—like the more geographically restricted The Cincinnati Enquirer—is not being questioned again suggests to me that such removals are politically motivated. Political POV pushing is, of course, something Wikipedia likes to avoid. Moreover, nothing has been presented suggesting that O'Neill or Spiked are not WP:Reliable Sources so I really don't see a strong case for removal here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside entirely irrelevant comments about other editors' political motivations, I'd point out that WP:RS is not the issue here – of course O'Neill is a reliable source for his own views. Rather, the issue is whether his views are significant or encyclopaedic, or whether including them ascribes undue weight to a minority perspective. What is it about O'Neill's perspective that makes it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia article? His views are clearly not mainstream (I presume we can agree on this). They haven't, to my knowledge, been reported on or discussed in other reliable sources. At present O'Neill's opinion is actually the only opinion featured in the article on the question of the harassment of Alcorn's parents: there are no quotations articulating opinions that are directly at odds with his, so the weight we're ascribing to his view vastly exceeds what's warranted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Midnightblueowl that it is reasonable to include this content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
My edit was not due to any political motivation, and I apologize for both coming off that way and accidentally deleting the reference to the Washington Post. However, O’Neill is objectively a far right source who pushes his POV endlessly in that article. He uses slurs, goes on a tangent about the left being “intolerant” and conservatives being harassed for no reason, and perhaps most importantly, continues to misgender Alcorn throughout the article. I do not think that sort of language is suitable as a source here. I strongly agree with @Arms & Hearts: that this gives undue weight to a fringe stance on the issue. Cpotisch (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Saying that "O’Neill is objectively a far right source" based on personal opinion is not really helpful. If such a judgment were "objective", there would be evidence for it independent of personal opinion; say, a reliable source actually describing him as "far right". The article about him doesn't contain anything like that. Simply disagreeing with O’Neill's article, or disliking the language it uses, is not a justification for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you dispute that this is an opinion piece, and not an article? And that it seems a bit POV to say that liberals are “intolerant toward anyone holding conservative views on social issues”? That seems to be a subjective attack on the left that doesn’t lend any relevant information to this page. I wouldn’t have any objection to an actual non-opinion article that criticizes some of the hate toward Alcorn’s parents. That is a reasonable point to have here. But a piece that repeatedly calls gays “fags”, and refuses to acknowledge that Alcorn was a girl, seems to be more hateful conjecture than fact. Cpotisch (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The material about O'Neill's views is in a section titled "Reaction." It seems quite appropriate to mention an opinion piece in a section dealing with Reactions to the event the article is about. Your disagreeing with O'Neill's views is irrelevant, as noted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, I would appreciate it if you would stop claiming that I’m only objecting due to differing political views. That is not the case. I am simply taking issue with the inclusion of material that seems to represent a fringe opinion, by someone who uses repetitive offensive, homophobic≤, and anti-trans language. I believe that that lends doubt on whether these are opinions worth listing here. The fact that it is the “reactions” section does not mean that we have to include every response or opinion. Cpotisch (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, are you confusing me with Midnightblueowl? It was Midnightblueowl who suggested that you made a politically-biased edit; I don't know or care anything about your political views. The relevant point is that you want to remove certain content based simply on unsupported assertions that it is "fringe"; I'm left trying to explain that that won't do. Remember that the content is presented as O’Neill's opinion only. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Many commentators more notable than O'Neill expressed opinions on Alcorn; I lean towards agreeing that inclusion of his views would run afoul of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Rab V (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE states, "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." O'Neill isn't expressing a "fringe theory", or any kind of "theory". He simply expressing a personal opinion. Shouldn't the difference be clear? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
First sentence of WP:FRINGE clarifies fringe theory does not just refer to scientific theories, for example, but any ideas that are far out the mainstream. "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Near every mainstream English language news source discussed Alcorn, and they included opinions from many more notable people. It seems like we are valuing marginal but extreme opinions by including Spiked magazine over say Jessica Valenti, with PFLAG and Trevor Project, in The Guardian or Jennifer Finney Boylan in the NYT. That is what WP:FRINGE warns against.Rab V (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Should we just vote on this? Cpotisch (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I've opened a request for comment (which is not a vote, but will hopefully result in getting other editors' input and arriving at a consensus) below. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

The consensus is against inclusion of this passage per WP:UNDUE.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Alcorn's parents section of this article include the following passage, or should the passage be removed?

Writing for the United Kingdom-based website Spiked, the columnist Brendan O'Neill stated that those harassing Alcorn's parents represented "a new breed of illiberal liberal" who were intolerant of anyone holding conservative views on social issues. He compared their tactics with those of the Westboro Baptist Church, for both "view harassment of the bereaved as a legitimate form of politics".[1]

References

  1. ^ O'Neill, Brendan (5 January 2015). "'Justice for Leelah': behold the new, PC intolerance". Spiked. Retrieved December 28, 2017.
– Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion per WP:UNDUE. First, the views articulated by O'Neill in this passage, including but not limited to his comparison of LGBT+ activists to the far-right hate group the Westboro Baptist Church, are not mainstream views; there's no evidence they're held by anyone else, or that any reliable source has ascribed any significance to them. Second, O'Neill's point of view is the only point of view the article offers on the specific issue of the specific matter of harassment of Alcorn's parents, which would be questionable even if his views were mainstream. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "O'Neill's point of view is the only point of view the article offers on the specific issue of the specific matter of harassment of Alcorn's parents". With respect, I don't believe that that is entirely true. The sentence above includes some commentary on the issue from The Washington Post. Granted, it's not as extensive as the O'Neill sentence, but it is there. Midnightblueowl (talk)
  • Yes, I suppose that's true. I don't really like the phrasing of that either – it's a few words of opinion, stripped of context in an otherwise factual sentence – but that's neither here nor there. (Also, "self-appointed vigilantes"? Aren't all vigilantes self-appointed?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. The sentences are cited to a WP:Reliable Source and have been in place for two years with no prior concerns being raised about them (although the latter is not in itself a reason for retention). They reflect press commentary of an event discussed in the section, with press commentary from other sources (some from even less mainstream sources than Spiked) appearing at various other junctures throughout this article: it is thus pertinent that this piece of commentary is being singled out for removal while no concerns are being raised regarding the inclusion of commentary from, for example, The New Republic or The Cincinnati Enquirer. For this reason (among others), I have concerns that this attempt at removal is a case of political-POV pushing. Obviously a lot of progressives might not be too happy with seeing comparisons drawn between certain progressive activists and the Westboro Baptist Church and I fear that it is this, consciously or not, which underpins the present attempts to remove this prose. Accordingly, removal of these sentences would be in contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which makes it quite clear that to achieve NPOV, an article must "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, [include] all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Removal, in my view, represents just such an "editorial bias". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it is that you only just reverted my edit, three months after it was made, since apparently no one else disagreed with my choice strongly enough to roll it back. Also, I think it would be best to stop claiming that the motivation for its removal is just my (or anyone else’s) political beliefs. I’m not accusing you of any ulterior motive, and I think for the sake of a productive and respectful discussion, allegations like this should be kept out of it. Additionally, the best decision here should stand on its own merit, and not based on why people are or aren’t supporting it. Cpotisch (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I only raise the issue of political POV pushing because in this particular case I believe it has clear relevance. I really don't want to make personal attacks or criticise editors for their personal viewpoints (particularly as I may share said beliefs - hell, I brought this article through GAN and FAC, which probably says something about my views) but I cannot shake the conclusion that at the end of the day, attempts to remove this sentence come down to an attempt to erase the views of a notable commentator because they are critical/hostile to a lot of progressive and/or LGBT activism. I think that the comments which have appeared bear this out: claiming that O'Neill needs to be removed because he's "far right" (he isn't); claiming that his views are not "mainstream" and thus can be removed; or that because he doesn't accept Alcorn as a female his op-ed cannot be a Reliable Source (at the end of the day, 'gender critical' attitudes to transgender topics are still the mainstream view across the majority of the world, and one very widely held in Western countries). Erasing reliably sourced viewpoints because they are seen as right-wing or anti-progressive is bad for Wikipedia. There's already a fairly widespread social perception that Wikipedia has a "liberal agenda" and is dominated by progressive-leaning editors, and stuff like this just plays right into that narrative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion This article exhibits a fringe take on the issue, and the way it is presented here includes and emphasizes some completely irrelevant claims. Why should Wikipedia be claiming that this “represents a new breed of illiberal liberal that are intolerant of anyone holding conservative views on social issues”? That seems seriously POV and completely irrelevant. I also strongly believe that O’Neill’s repeated use of slurs and emphatic denial that Alcorn was a girl should really demonstrate that this is not a reliable source presenting facts; it is a deliberately inflammatory opinion piece. Therefore, its inclusion lends undue weight to extreme views. Cpotisch (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • But Wikipedia isn't making that claim. Wikipedia is stating that Brendan O'Neill, a cultural commentator, made this claim. Big difference. That's why it isn't POV at all. In fact, WP:NPOV explicitly states that to achieve NPOV an article must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Attempts to remove these sentences are a textbook case of editorial bias, seeking to strip out views that are seen as critical of progressive and/or trans activism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Moreover, the fact that O'Neill does not hold to the view that trans women are women does not mean his op-ed cannot constitute a WP:Reliable Source. That's just not how things work at Wikipedia. You may disagree with O'Neill's view (and I may disagree with O'Neill's view) regarding transgender issues but that does not mean that his published article ceases to be an RS. As I said above, at the end of the day most people in the world today probably regard trans women as men; does this mean anything any of them publish on the topic suddenly cease to meet Wikipedia's reliability guidelines? Clearly not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also argue that this does not in any way represent WP:FRINGE. For something to be FRINGE it would necessitate pushing a pseudo-scientific or otherwise widely rejected notion. O'Neill's analogy—that the harassment of the bereaved by a few progressive activists is a bit like the harassment of the bereaved by the Westboro Baptists—is hardly on a par with claim that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese. In my view, the use of FRINGE here is being used against political analogies and commentary that some editors find distasteful, but that doesn't actually make it FRINGE, under Wikipedia's definition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I perhaps was a little verbose above and for that I apologise, but at the end of the day every argument presented at RfC should be up for discussion (including my own). In the case above, I believe that Cpotisch fundamentally misrepresented three Wikipedia policies (NPOV; FRINGE; RS) and it was important that that was flagged up, both for them and for other editors reading this. Critical scrutiny is important. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion per Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have concerns about the neutrality of the wording of this RfC, specifically the inclusion of "or should the passage be removed per WP:UNDUE and/or WP:FRINGE", which implies that these policies apply in this case (which is in dispute) and neglects to mention policies that could be cited in support of the retention of this text. I would be happy to see an RfC but would like to see wording that I feel was less slanted toward supporting the case for removal. Arms & Hearts, would you agree to either removing the wording which I find objectionable or ending this RfC and launching a new one in its place? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV, most specifically, but rather than adding additional text to the RfC I would recommend removing the wording I flagged up. You would of course be completely free to then bring up arguments about WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in your comments. As it stands, however, I think that the RfC wording is slanted and that will probably invalidate any outcome (whatever the outcome may be). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion I am actually surprised that anyone considers Spiked to be a WP:RS to begin with. But perhaps more to the point, I think there's an important difference between a journalistic report of an event, and a report which uses a current event to push a particular viewpoint or agenda, which seems to be the case here. While good reporting can come from anywhere and should obviously be cited if it is factual and neutral, an article which tangentially reports on something as 'proof that conservative voices are being silenced' is pushing its own unrelated agenda, quite separate from the subject of the article, and is surely therefore not notable or Reliable by the standards which would merit inclusion. Bonusballs (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Spiked's reliability: We are using it as a primary source for the editor's opinion. Are you arguing that it is not reliable for its own editors' opinions? Galestar (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the question here is whether these are opinions worth listing, not how accurately it represents its own editors’ opinions. I also think that the comparison to the Westboro Baptist Church draws a serious false equivalency, and isn’t really relevant to the article. And again, my motivation here really isn’t political, and I don’t have an issue with the inclusion of a conservative take on the issue, but this strikes me as far too POV to fairly represent that side. Cpotisch (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Saying that we should not mention O'Neill's views because we disagree with them (because they draw a "serious false equivalency", or whatever) doesn't have any basis in policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
IS anyone saying that we should "not mention O'Neill's views because we disagree with them"? Again, I'm not simply pushing to have this removed due to my own political views. If irrelevant anti-conservative opinions were expressed somewhere for no logical reason, I would remove them as well (and I have in the past). So your argument strikes me as a bit of a strawman. What I AM saying is that this is a fringe take on the issue, that it pushes the author's irrelevant anti-liberal opinions, and that its inclusion lends undue weight to extreme views. From WP:Fringe,
"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."
I don't think Spiked is a mainstream source, or that the opinions it expresses are widely held. O'Neill is not simply criticizing the people who went after Alcorn's parents. He–and I know I've said this many times already–uses inflammatory language and slurs, and refuses to accept Alcorn's trans identity, which diverges considerably from what Wikipedia stands for, and from the other sources here.
From WP:NPOV (due and undue weight section),
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
Someone simply holding a view and expressing it through a site we know does not necessarily make it worthy of inclusion. Cpotisch (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed so, nobody disputes that Spiked is a reliable source for its own opinions, but the matter here is whether those opinions - which are actually on a different subject - are actually notable, or relevant to THIS article. Just as you wouldn't include a section outlining the political views of the Unabomber in an article about the postal system. Bonusballs (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial removal? (failing that Support Inclusion) How about remove the first part about a new breed of illiberal liberal and leave just this: Writing for the United Kingdom-based website Spiked, the columnist Brendan O'Neill compared their tactics with those of the Westboro Baptist Church, for both "view harassment of the bereaved as a legitimate form of politics". Galestar (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

So at what point should we say that we have consensus? Cpotisch (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Best wait a month or so. That's how long these things often play out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
As well as waiting enough time to let people comment, you'd actually have to have a consensus. I don't see one here. Galestar (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - Summoned by LegoBot - Oppose per WP:UNDUE. The commentator appears to primarily notable for making controversial/trolling statements in general. That he said one here does not seem noteworthy unless it were to have been discussed by multiple secondary RS. Above it was noted that two RS picked it up, but compared to comments by Dan Savage and others, this was minimal coverage at best. Inclusion of these inflammatory statements seems to be an attempt at false balance to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion as per legobot, this is not encyclopedic content, simply an inflammatory statement by a commentator in a dubiously reliable source --[E.3][chat2][me] 03:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing the O'Neill content until we get consensus otherwise. My previous edit stood for three months before Midnightblueowl undid it without getting consensus, so I think mine should be viewed as what was the "current" version. -Cpotisch (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've restored it. Best to wait until an uninvolved editor comes along and closes the RfC with a specific decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you have consensus to revert my edit in the first place? Because again, it stood for three months without any objections. At the moment, I see no consensus that my edit should have been reverted in the first place. I won't put it back, but this seems like a double standard - Cpotisch (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not how WP:BRD works, Cpotisch. The text in question was in place for several years: that was the "current" version. Your edit was the BOLD alteration. Let's just wait and see how the RfC pans out rather than getting ahead of ourselves. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The consensus right now is unequivocally clear; it can always be restored later if it swings the other way. Also, Cpotisch is correct that it was removed for over three months with no objections - I would say that that's the most recent stable version. It was your restoration, in this context, that was WP:BOLD. (Truthfully, given the increasingly one-sided nature of this RFC, I would say it was reckless. It is not correct that we have to wait an entire month when an RFC's outcome is obvious; a consensus is a consensus.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion Agree with other opposes, in particular this seems like giving undo weight. PaleAqua (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. It's a thinkpiece in a not-very-high-profile source; it seems WP:UNDUE. These sort of chest-beating culture-war pieces veer towards WP:EXCEPTIONAL (the author is making sweeping claims about society and culture) and rarely meet that standard. Regarding the argument, above, that it's just opinion, WP:RSOPINION sets a lower bar but is not a blank-slate to ignore reliability for opinions - we still rely on the reliability of the source to do basic fact-checking and editorial control in terms of eg. an opinion at least being representative of something and not being completely groundless, and we particularly rely on the source to establish WP:DUE weight. This feels like a quote that was dropped in because it reflected an editor's views (and in an effort to express a framing that cannot be reliably sourced as fact) rather than because it represents any significant commentary or line of thought about the topic. The purpose of opinion pieces is to say "here is what someone important thinks"; who is this and why should we care about their opinion? Some commenters above have accused remove !votes of simply not liking what the quote says, but I think the opposite is much more likely - there doesn't seem to be any reason to care about what O'Neill thinks, outside of some people agreeing with him. If you think what he says needs to be included because it's true, find sociologists or the like backing it up; if you think it's a major reaction to the topic, find secondary sources covering it. Don't cite it to a random quote in a thinkpiece from a not-very-reliable publication. Some of the arguments presented above also veer towards WP:FALSEBALANCE, ie. this idea that criticisms of progressive ideals must be included regardless of how obscure the source is in order to "balance" things out in some ineffable way. That's not how inclusion or balance works - we decide balance based on the reputation and prominence of the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2019

Change "Jill Soloway, the writer of the television show Transparent, dedicated her Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series to Alcorn." to "Jill Soloway, the writer of the television show Transparent, dedicated their Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series to Alcorn." This is to be consistent with Soloway's pronouns, as listed on their Wikipedia page. Ripleelah (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Tumblr isn’t a reliable source read the rules on Wikipedia

It says plain as day that Tumblr is a self published source in the rules. You shouldn’t be using self published sources whether or not it is related to the topic. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Read: WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK JaneciaTaylor (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The fact is that something was posted on the site. No more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn’t matter. You can’t use it as a source. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I also think you've misunderstood the applicable policy. WP:ABOUTSELF explains that it's acceptable to use self-published sources (e.g. Tumblr posts) "as sources of information about themselves" provided they don't fall foul of any of the listed restrictions. In this article a Tumblr post is used precisely as a source of information about itself; i.e., we're saying something to the effect of "a Tumblr post says x, y and z" and citing it to that same post. Do you think we're using the source to say something beyond what's permissible per that policy, or do you think one of the five areas where the policy advises caution applies (that it's "unduly self-serving [or] an exceptional claim", that it "involve[s] claims about third parties", etc.)? Of course, none of this means we're obliged to use the source, and there may be other good reasons for not doing so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I change it?

Should I change it to leelah alcorn, born Josh alcorn? New3400 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't. see the above discussion. Mgasparin (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing the Dead Name of Leelah

Leelah's dead-name should be removed from the page. It's incredibly disrespectful to her, especially as a trans-woman who's death was used to start a conversation on the violence that trans individuals face. It is also not common practice to dead-name other trans individuals in their Wikipedia pages and that standard should be upheld for this page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis2049 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes! I agree, this should happen. Deadnaming trans people is part of the problem. Leelah was her name and there's no reason to mention her even having a deadname other than stating that her mother used it for her funeral as a fucked up power trip. Gaybabyxan (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it should be removed. She stated that her name was Leelah, on her Tumblr page, which I assume is good enough as it is used to describe herself. There is no good reason to deadname her, though I do agree with Gaybabyxan that it ought to be mentioned that her parents used it at her funeral, to recognise that they still refused to accept her identity. Amekyras (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis2049, Gaybabyxan, and Amekyras: I don't have any objection to removing the name, but would appreciate clarity on which instances (if any) others think should stay in the article. At present "Joshua" is used six times in the article and "Josh" once. Is there a consensus to remove the three instances that don't appear in quotations (in the lede, infobox and first sentence under "Life"), while leaving the four in quotes (quoting her suicide note, her mother, her school and her father)? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I assume we can't remove the quoted ones, but I would support removing the lede, infobox and "Life" section instances. It might be worth making a note by the first instance of the quote that this is Leelah's Deadname, so as not to confuse readers. Amekyras (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Removal from the lede shouldn't prove too controversial but removals from the main body may raise concerns about contravening WP:NOTCENSORED. Given that this is rated as a Featured Article, this might be a decision that needs to be made through a Request for Comment (RfC). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: I don't really see the need for an RfC unless anyone wants to argue the name should be removed in every case, or that it shouldn't be removed in any case. It looks like there's a reasonably clear consensus to remove the uses not in quotes and leave those that are in quotes. @Amekyras: It's not so much that we can't remove the instances in quotes, but rather whether those quotations are significant enough or useful enough to the reader to outweigh the other concerns. It would be a shame not to mention her mother's Facebook post for example, which was widely reported and commented upon, though I suppose we might find a way to discuss it without quoting it – that would be a topic for further discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
My ideal situation would be that all instances of her previous name are removed, including the ones in quotes, but obviously we need to balance it. If there's additional consensus to remove the ones in quotes and replace them with [Leelah] (out of respect), I would recommend that. The fact that her mother still uses her previous name is definitely significant enough to warrant inclusion, though the name itself does not necessarily need to be included, I suppose? Amekyras (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
While using deadnames is incredibly disrespectful, I think that it should remain once, perhaps twice if we include the direct quote from her note, but once in her parents' quotes, and then the rest can be replaced with Leelah. It should be noted why the name is being inserted as (Leelah), as to avoid confusion and/or more people trying to find out why rather than reading the article for what it is. Troutleap (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Merging

Please unite this article with Wikidata item Leelah Alcorn  (Q18697285) and let it link to articles about same topic in other languages. Doomsday cloak (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doomsday cloak: That would have to be done on Wikidata, so you'd probably be better off raising it at wikidata:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is this person designated only in relation to [his/her/whatever] suicide ?

The article is named “Suicide of Leelah Alcorn”. I find this extremely disparaging (much more so than the so-called “deadnaming” mentioned in above discussions -- a term I just discovered reading this very page by the way, so this whole debate merely amounts to niche nitpicking and should have no bearing on the writing of a general purpose encyclopedia) to refer to an individual exclusively in relation to that individual's death, specifically death by suicide, which implies that this is the only “notable” thing about that individual's whole life, the only worthwhile thing that person was ever capable of doing. Perhaps it is, in this particular case, and it would somehow give credence to George Carlin's stance expressed in Life is worth losing: "That's probably the most interesting thing you can do with your life--end it!" But nonetheless, the majority of other languages Wikipedias which have an article about this individual named it “Leelah Alcorn”, without mentioning the suicide part right there in the title, which seems definitely more respectful and more logical (unless both articles are present as in the lone case of turkish Wikipedia).
Leelah Alcorn:
es - fa - gl - it - ko - ru - tr - zh-yue - eo - no - cs - he
Suicide of Leelah Alcorn:
de - tr - uk - zh
--Abolibibelot (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the previous discussion on this topic from Jan 2015 (linked toward the top of this page as a move discussion)? --Equivamp - talk 10:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't -- now I have. But what about Thích Quảng Đức, then, for instance ? That individual, likewise, became famous worldwide only because of his suicide, there would be no Wikipedia article if the guy hadn't put himself on fire and stoically let himself burn to death in full view of everyone -- so the same arguments should apply, shouldn't they ? Interestingly, most murderers have an article with their name only as the title, not something like "Murders of John Doe" or "John Doe's shooting spree" (or when there is an article about the event there is also an article about the perpetrator(s)), which would seem to imply that, although they became famous only because of their criminal actions, their whole life up to that point should somehow be deemed significant enough to grant them that kind of consideration. Perhaps that Alcorn individual should have murdered 30 or 40 people and then committed suicide by cops to be treated with some dignity, rather than some cipher to advance a cause... (At least (s)he wouldn't have traumatized a poor truck driver for the rest of his life.) --Abolibibelot (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Abobibibelot, there is no real standardised criterion, I believe, at which the renaming of a person-centric event Wikipedia article to the name of the person themself becomes appropriate. I made this change awhile back with Maria Hertogh riots --> Maria Hertogh because I'd significantly expanded the article to include more about Maria's life after the riots, and there were no objections raised. Recall WP:BEBOLD. Also, I must point out that per WP:TRANS, you must refer to the subject of the article by her pronouns and appropriate gender. Ms Alcorn used she/her/hers and was a girl in life; we are bound to respect that in the wake of her death. I am satisfied that while you have raised a pertinent issue about the naming of the article, you do so in language which means to demean her. Be a better Wikipedian, please, and thank you. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 23:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Help

Some friends are trying to make me pray about it and they are trying to make me a cis girl . I’m a trans boy not a girl . I don’t want this conversion it’s not working . Freedomnowandforever (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for discussing transphobia except as it relates to Leelah Alcorn. If you ask at the Reference Desk (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities) they will be happy to point you to appropriate resources. Best wishes! Marnanel (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Joey Soloway

The caption for one of the images here refers to Joey Soloway by their deadname. I feel like that should probably be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.185.76 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Equivamp - talk 11:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suicide of Blake Brockington which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Deadname

Why in the world is her deadname shown. Bbymtl (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Normally, per WP:DEADNAME if a person was not known under their deadname, it shouldn't be mentioned. If, such as in the case of Caitlyn Jenner, the person was well known prior to transitioning, an explanation is included in the bio, but the person is at all times referred to by their chosen name outside of the historical context. In the case of Leelah, unfortunately a big part of her story is her parents continuing to deadname her, including on her tombstone. If we don't include her deadname, it would be difficult to convey accurate information when discussing her family, particularly since her parents' bigotry lead to her death. With biographies of trans individuals, we need to go on a case by case basis, but it is policy to use the preferred name and gender (i.e. she/her/they etc.). freshacconci (✉) 23:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean, truthfully, her deadname should be removed, especially in the lede as she's unknown under that name. However, we then have to deal with the section on her parents and the quotes using her deadname. If that comes out of nowhere, it's confusing for the reader. This is something editors should further discuss. Can we introduce her deadname only in the section about her parents? freshacconci (✉) 23:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're looking for consensus, I definitely agree that her deadname could be removed from the lede and instead to the first graf discussing her parents. 2600:1008:B01B:1D26:1921:F771:FF25:E3BD (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed a couple of years ago and the upshot of that was a version broadly the same as the current version. I'm not sure why the deadname was added back to the lede in the interim given the fairly clear existing consensus. I don't think there's much risk of confusion in the current version – the quotes from the parents and school are preceded by She rejected the name she was given by her parents, and signed her suicide note "(Leelah) Josh Alcorn"., which is pretty self-explanatory. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Southbound?

The article says she was walking southbound on I-71 before she was struck near the South Lebanon exit, but the South Lebanon exit is north of Kings Mills? Either there should be some clarification here or it's wrong. QoopyQoopy (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The source appears to be saying that the truck which struck her was traveling southbound. This should definitely be fixed. --Equivamp - talk 17:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

its Leia Alcorn, not leelah alcorn

hi, used to come to our support group in cincinnati. she named herself after princess Leia. leelah alcorn is a deliberate mispelling. it was a fem version of her dead middle name. understand the definition of terf is one who premeditatedly inserts themselves into positions of power above us to harm or deny access. it is not the bear makn issues over bathrooms, it requires an activist component. these terf think their saving the world everytime they kill a trans kid. my ex-dr of 6 yrs, sarah pickle, is one such terf; guised as a hormone provider in cincinnati to manipulate social concensus surrounding leia alcorns suicide, she came for that reason only. i know all this because i meet leia, i did sound for the 2nd and 3rd memorials.i helped the founder of heartland trans wellness (Jac) keep that organization a trans focused resource (when sellbach and kabanoff tried to turn it into an lgbt center.) i was also targeted for holding keys to trans healthcare (if you google medical necessity of electrolysis, ill be the first thing pops up, the powerpoint , wordpress , fundraiser.) and keys to outright birth certificate corrections, not the ACLUs amendment that still outs us in any background check whatsoever. see theve developed themselves a mob hierarchy within the BDSM scene, picking up menard cult theory, working off protestant catholism, named Hellfyre (everything on fetlife with the name Sincinnati is part of them, including club Sinday in middletown an the playspace that closed last yr after my statehouse speech was played on NPR) dr sarah pickle was the access point to a heart surgeon who performed an experimental surgery on a trans sub 20 yrs ago. the surgeon won acclaim for inventing a trick of stopping the heart befor it was approved by the FDA. she told me he lost his job last yr [2020] over refusal to take a covid vaccine (though told by sarah its cause he came forward about the dog he practiced on first) black heaveyset keloid scars pilots liscence originally from NY (supposedly from christ heart center. he threatened my life. they pull kidneys an guinie pigs from the disabled an poor at the central clinic, for the UC medical arts building that is their landlords, though central acts without any oversight from UC autonomously. for 12k you can sell a kidney apparently. they dont do the surgerys in a hospital, they did them in a basement of a house they burned down last month [nov2021] to cover the evidence in franklin township ohio. i used details of that heart surgery, as told me by the sub they performed it on when i was being inducted (one of evelyn heffliners clients 2016, we had a pilot trans group at central), during my statehouse speech interjection of the 2020 ohio barbering bill, towards the end to express fear. yes im the trans kid who took out the speaker of the ohio house over the nuclear buyout in cleveland at gunpoint, deplatformed dave chappelle, an herald the end of the world in a theatric manor, while deregulating the hardest state to work in for any hair related field. i was there due to overegulation on the field of cosmetic therapy (electrolysis hair removal, as ive won 99+hrs of face and genital work under medicaid but cant find a provider in state willing too, so i have to become the missing component; the state is denying trans people surgery by denying us the preop). the sub wrecked their black mazda on the cinci/nky loop 2016 an went to prison with the scars from the heart surgery on their chest to prove everything. their domme is Heather, a cinci state student ambassador 2016 in clifton. they lived in NKY at the time i knew them in an apartment, shes originally from illinois. heather has an anesthesiologist brother in another state they utilize. they had a storage locker an knew the owner. im since been studied intently by various groups including the mob. was told by sarah pickle, after the buyouts the threats an the blackmail didnt work, that i would be framed or murdered if i didnt leave state an go offgrid. Sarah is admin at university of cincinnati and planned parenhood sw ohio. a legislative aid to aAntonio who pushed the fairness act which didnt cover trans at all in its conception, she worked at both [2016]central clinic and mark donovans office in urology, shes bigboned, only one person will fit that work history...this pack of terf use "tactical aquisition" on their targets and in their manipulations learned in the navy. the highway memorial was a way to deliberatly "rename" Leia alcorn so as to detract from her impact. if leia is the resistance, all the trans organizations in cincinnati are the empire.. they made a fake profile for officer Angela Vance who released leias' suicide note (that wasnt sellbach) on linked in. according to her partner now acting LGBT liason officer, Angela never has or will be on social media. they use a black girl who was recipient of the UC buyout when their cops killed that black man, she bought a gold grandam with it, shes who cut the brakes on the NKY amazon distrbution centers trans couple, worked there for the sole reason of targetting them. she also loosened bolts on my transmission and followed me waiting for my car to flip in a shelter in columbus she business being at. im attempting to come forward for the health and safety of a community ill never know. my lifes in danger but so is everyone else. im kittysbelle on wordpress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.69.53 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all of this (and it's very unlikely anyone will), but article titles use the the name by which the subject is most commonly known, which in this case is "Leelah". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
?????? QoopyQoopy (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright, most of this is incomprehensible so I'm just addressing the name thing - do you have a public source for that, and how the hell did she get to a support group??? Her parents tried to cut off her access to anything gender-affirming, as shown by the existing article and many Tumblr posts. QoopyQoopy (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Also her dead middle name was Ryan QoopyQoopy (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leelah_Alcorn/Archive_3&oldid=1161193909"