This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Would it be right to say that the news of Leelah's death received attention from the 'online social justice community', as such?
I ask because I and one of my close friends were amongst the pioneers in spreading the word of her death, and both of us are very empathetically not members of the online social justice community, nor are many of the people who are discussing and raising awareness of this (though, of course, many are). This is because 'social justice' in this context has a very specific meaning, referring to a set of beliefs that many disagree with, some of which are extremist and even transphobic. It would be inaccurate and really rather insulting to those who participate in Leelah Alcorn-related activism but are not part of that community to characterize all of them as members of it.
I changed that to 'transgender community and allies'. Reddon666 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Name+pronouns
This isn't a forum to discuss trans* issues --Guerillero | My Talk 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The reason Leelah committed suicide was that she wasn't allowed to undergo a sex change operation, right? I'm sorry, but that means she (and yes, I use a feminine pronoun despite what I'm about to say) was, in fact, male her whole life. And unless she legally changed her name, she should be referred to as Josh, maybe Josh "Leelah" Alcorn or something. And she shouldn't be referred to as a "she". It might sound kind of dickish, but Wikipedia should be about facts, not feelings. And while our feelings may differ from the facts, Wikipedia shouldn't be using feminine pronouns for a biologically male person. Because without a sex change operation, Leelah was, unfortunately and by all factual definitions, just a "man in drag", as she put it herself.
By Wikipedia's own definition - "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells). Most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes."
And - "Gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender. ("subjective experience" being the key word here)
Saying she was "a transgender girl" could be fine, but that's one thing, because it's descriptive - feeling like a girl trapped in a boy's body is called a "transgender girl" (or is it the other way around? well, you know what I mean). But referring to her as a "she" or "her" in the rest of the text shows Wikipedia's position on the matter. It shows that this particular encyclopedia promotes the idea of a guy being a girl based solely on her state of mind, and not on biology. Should that really happen? Is Wikipedia now going to refer to people as whatever they choose, regardless of what they actually are?
Please, don't let your personal feelings cloud your judgement. She wasn't a woman - there was no sex change. It was the reason for her suicide. She identified as a woman, yes. But if Wikipedians set a precedent by referring to her based solely on her wishes, well that is going to foreshadow a wild departure from the world of cold hard facts and data an encyclopedia is supposed to be based on.
Thank you, and don't take this the wrong way. I just think feelings and opinions should be expressed elsewhere, not in a Wikipedia article. 89.176.209.84 (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
per WP:MOS:IDENTITYAn exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).. Therefore the subject shall still be referenced as a female. However the subjects gender is notable and therefore shouldn't be removed bc of emotional reasons Avono (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014
This edit request to Leelah Alcorn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the opening sentence, please change "...after committing suicide TO MAKE a statement about..." to "...after committing suicide AND making a statement about...". Leelah did not commit suicide specifically to make a statement, and saying so invalidates the difficult personal struggles that actually led to her death.
Kiproy (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Reddon666 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014
This edit request to Leelah Alcorn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change all of the male pronouns to female pronouns. Leelah Alcorn was a female.
Tsukiteacups (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Every source calls it a suicide and also every source says she died after getting hit by a vehicle, therefor the cause of death was suicide by vehicular impact. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 13:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014
This edit request to Leelah Alcorn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Leelah Alcorn (November 15, 1997 – December 28, 2014) was an American transgender girl who gained attention in 2014 after committing suicide. A suicide note was published (>EDIT< ::PLEASE ADD:: ---->) posthumously on her Tumblr page; in this letter she declared that she wanted her suicide to cause an impact and create a dialogue about the discrimination and abuse of transgender people.[1]
Neonblueclock (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Approximately 2.5 million people a year die in the United States. The subject of a teen being transgender is unremarkable. Troubled teens are not new or newsworthy. This is a single newscycle event with no social implication other than status quo. The Wikipedia article on an unremarkable teenager with the information known is simply LGBT spam, otherwise Wikipedia should publish the suicide pages for all teens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.50.99 (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This event is notable not because she died, or even that she committed suicide, but because of the widespread news coverage that it has attracted. Plenty of transgender people commit suicide, but few get the media attention that this one has. - erisrenee (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
"Widespread news coverage" is not a litmus test for Wikipedia. News coverage in and of itself is not remarkable unless the subject is remarkable. At this point in time the subject is ordinary.71.105.50.99 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The other six sources specify the (birth) names, ages, and bare bones facts of Alcorn's death (that Alcorn was hit by a truck, taken to hospital, and died; in Union Township, Ohio) but do not confirm details such as Alcorn's transgender-ism, the behavior of Alcorn's friends or family, the environment in which Alcorn was raised, the authenticity of the referenced suicide note, etc. Four of these legitimate sources are referenced only as examples of allegedly incorrect reporting, but there is no legitimate source that contradicts them.
There is no referenced source that demonstrates a preference of Alcorn's for female pronouns; all legitimate sources refer to Alcorn as male.
Can appropriate sources be identified and referenced?
All legitimate sources refer to Alcorn by the forename 'Joshua', yet the article is titled 'Leelah Alcorn'. Can the subject be said to be most well known as 'Leelah' as per Wikipedia's naming conventions for people?
She is well-known in transgender communities on Reddit and Tumblr as Leelah, where she went by the usernames, 'nostalgiaprincess' and 'lazerprincess' respectively. Her parents didn't accept her as transgender, so in the death announcement they used her legal (male) name. She only saw Christian therapists, as per her suicide note and her reddit account, so I doubt there will be any 'legitimate' source by *your* standards. However, self-published sources are allowed for articles about the publisher, and this includes social media posts according to Wikipedia:SOCIALMEDIA. That should be enough to verify that she preferred female pronouns and went by the name Leelah. - erisrenee (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Only being transgendered on reddit and tumblr doesn't really count as being transgendered. That's rather silly, and sort of an insult to the many people who have the bravery to go out through life and actually go through the process of transition as an adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reality156 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just added a link to her suicide note on tumblr since it is a primary source, as opposed to the articles about the suicide note (which I did not remove because they add a bit of legitimacy to the note). The articles remove some important formatting from the note, and I feel it is worth linking to the original source. - erisrenee (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
per WP:MOS:IDENTITYAn exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).. Therefore the subject shall still be referenced as a female. However the subjects gender is notable and therefore shouldn't be removed bc of emotional reasons copypasta from the pronoun discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.145.66 (talk • contribs)
Also, I know it can be difficult but the article should be written in an encyclopedic tone, and not like a memorial. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It's early on. It'll be more polished with revision. - erisrenee (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have attempted to improve the article with a more neutral, encyclopedic tone.
That article could be renamed "Suicide of Leelah Alcorn". We should wait and see if there is mainstream media coverage to keep or remove this article : take the Kenneth Weishuhn article as an example. Also we should be careful not to encourage suicide with posthumous celebrity. --Ardeau (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Since this person never actually transititoned, was a minor, and never changed their name anywhere besides tumblr, why are they consistently being referred to as "Leelah?" Their legal name is Joshua. Either delete the article or make it searchable under both names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reality156 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Check the top of the talk page. Wikipedia defers to the subject's latest gender identity for identification. I'll probably create a redirect if one isn't already created. Joshua Alcorn has already been created and redirects to this article. Tutelary (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Reactions - School
How about adding the reaction of the school? Short after her death they posted an eulogy on the front page rotator. After the suicide note (and subsequently the information of her being transgender) got public, they removed the eulogy (including the note of available counseling for students) from the front page rotator and the news side alltogether. Mela (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for this information? If so, we could add it in its proportion to due weight.Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a source which is why I didn't include that in the reaction section. However, I did see this happen personally, and there are screenshots available online. What actually happened is that prior to the suicide note the school misgendered her and had a picture of her as "Joshua" on the homepage. After the news came out that she is transgender and prefers the name Leela, they took it down. They have not put up a new announcement, but there will be a candlelight vigil at the school on Saturday. The school's official position on this matter is still unknown and should not be commented about on this wikipedia page until it becomes known. - erisrenee (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can't add stuff to the Wikipedia page unless it can be cited to a source. Given that this is a big event and there's lots of media coverage, I'm sure some source will cover it and we could add it to the page. Until then, we're out of luck--no matter how much we want to. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a good policy. I've added [3] as a source for the reaction section which, in addition to covering the support from social media, includes information that the school held a moment of silence, offering counceling, and that there will be a candlelight vigil. However, I was not sure how to word that in a neutral tone that would be suitable for wikipedia. - erisrenee (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately nothing reliable. Only my own research. I saw the screenshots (mentioned above by erisrenee) and went to the school's site. The eulogy wasn't longer there. I used the site search and found remains of it still in the search cache but already deleted on the pages mentioned in the search. I took two screenshots ([search result/search cache] and [news page without any mention of Alcorn]) and by now even the search results are free of any mention of her death. Mela (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014
This edit request to Leelah Alcorn has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello. I would like to request that you change "Christian therapy" to "conversion therapy" or "Christian conversion therapy" please. It's important to have a name to put to the horrible, horrible shit she went through and they are trying to get conversion therapy illegalized in Ohio, from my awareness, so it would be good to have this sourced to that page.
Thank you for writing about her and thank you for protecting the edits. <3
Ijustlovetea (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you could provide a source that describes the therapy she received specifically as conversion therapy, I would be happy to make that change, but from what I can tell the only currently available source is her note on Tumblr, in which she does not make it explicitly clear that the Christian therapists she was taken to see were attempting to "convert" her. Instead, it says she did not receive therapy for depression, which suggests she was seeing them for that purpose instead. Cannolis (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
She posted on Reddit months back about the conversion therapy and abuse, saying "I wanted to see a gender therapist but they wouldn't let me, they thought it would corrupt my mind. The would only let me see biased Christian therapists, who instead of listening to my feelings would try to change me into a straight male who loved God, and I would cry after every session because I felt like it was hopeless and there was no way I would ever become a girl." Is this considered a valid source, or do we need to wait for an article to be written about it? - erisrenee (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a valid source for now, there's no confirmation that this was indeed her, whereas the tumblr account and suicide note has been referenced by several news outlets. Should wait for a third party to confirm it, though once it is confirmed, should be fine to refer to it as conversion therapy. Cannolis (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. On the other hand I hope that news sources don't pick up on her reddit account. The transgender subreddits are prone to harassment as it is and we don't need more attention on there from critics. I'd love to see an investigation into these so-called "therapists" she was sent to. - erisrenee (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
When you search for "christian therapy for homosexuality wiki" you arrive at conversion therapy. I think it's pretty clear that's what she meant. Perhaps, "Christian therapy, often understood to be conversion therapy." Because her description of what she went through matches the wiki description of conversion therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4880:3600:7583:99AE:5727:D822 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Removing this because "not in article" doesn't make sense. Which article? This is what transphobia looks like. And other articles are talking about transphobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4880:3600:88D7:1777:DF6D:FFC8 (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
TP is the term describing the situation when parents reject their son/daughters chosen gender, or when people misgender others or use violence against them, therefore it is linked under the See also section. Though from a pathological perspective this has to be judged on a case per case basis, in some instances at least, i.e. parents might first reject starting signs of gender changes of their siblings, just to make sure. However, this is a relevant term, related to the person's life and event. prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If the post on Leelah Alcorn is deleted, it's an insult to her memory. She deserves to be remembered and everyone needs to know the truth about the circumstances in which she lost her life. She will be buried in a suit under a headstone with the wrong name on it, at least a Wikipedia page honoring her remain untarnished. Let this be a symbol of how many suicides are happening in the LGBT community because they don't receive the acceptance they deserve.
If this article is deleted We are going to fight for it, is just horrible to see how badly are the people reacting when she is becoming a symbol for the silent ones who are not here and wanted but were not allowed to. My support to Leelah, and I will spread to all wikipedia users to protect the freedom of speech and make what Leelah wanted for our LGBT community.
@Rubashkyn:Free speech is not a valid argument in this project, nor is announcing that you are going to be pointy in case your side dosn't gain consensus. And Accusing other editors of being transphobic is a personal attack which I advice you to apologize for. Avono (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
According to No Personal Attacks, bigotry is a personal attack. Nowhere does it state that accusing another Wikipedia user of bigotry is a personal attack. This makes it objective, and being honest, if every bigot on a website could dispel claims of bias simply by claiming personal attack, this encyclopedia would not run very well. Regardless of the final decision on deleting or moving this article, Rubashkyn has no need to apologise. 94.174.85.17 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved as per the deletion discussion comments Govindaharihari (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Nominate this page for speedy deletion
news coverage or not, this is just another rebellious teen who didn't get her way so she killed herself. 207.98.188.175 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion. WP:NOTCSD - erisrenee (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Even aside from trivializing her situation, the news coverage in this situation is in fact worthy of note in a dedicated article, not to mention such things as the petitions aiming to pass Leelah's Law illegalizing reparative therapy and the like. Also, notability is not a speedy deletion criteria. Reddon666 (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, it's impossible to know either way whether this is "just another rebellious teen" or an individual action like Mohamed Bouazizi who started the Arab Spring in 2011 (multiple dictators toppled, etc.). As an example, that article was also nominated for deletion [4]. Obviously, that comparison could mean very little, but maybe it shouldn't be "speedy" and we should move slower. See how it develops over the next few days. Snd0 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, hopefully that's the case. The current Death of Leelah Alcorn seems fine too. Snd0 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested edit
In the section under Leelah Alcorn's name, the text currently reads, "about the societal standards of transgendered people." There is a problem with the way the clause is worded.
In terms of grammar and clarity: "of" means "belonging to" or (in this context) "held by," but Alcorn in her letter did not take issue with the standards held by the community of transgender people. Rather, Alcorn criticized commonly-held societal standards that negatively affect people who are transgender.
Suggested edit: replace "of" with "affecting" or "adversely impacting."
Merellia (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)merellia
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Current WP:BOLD title is Death of Leelah Alcorn. A more current proposed move is in a section below. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Leelah Alcorn → Suicide of Leelah Alcorn or Death of Leelah Alcorn pending till investigations have completed – per consensus on the Afd discussion, subject was never notable alive. Avono (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
No consensus as I can see for 'suicide' - I have been bold and moved to 'death' - if suicide is the official verdict then we can move when that verdict is confirmed Govindaharihari (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Check the afd again, there was a split discussion and I've boldly moved it to 'Suicide'. Not to mention for encyclopedic reason, but because of the same style of Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd (Note that I'm not using that as justification, just a similar case in terms of title.) Tutelary (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we still don't have a response from law enforcement if a suicide occurred (the investigations are still ongoing), until then her death was an accident.Avono (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree totally with User:Avono - (the investigations are still ongoing), until then her death was/is an accident. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Well for encyclopedic sense, "Death" makes it sound as if someone deliberately killed her. News reports (and I have been wary of what they say as well) but they seem to be unambiguous in terms of it being a suicide. "Suicide of Leelah Alcorn" makes it very much clear and in due line with what the sources say. I'd love to hear more people's opinions. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to play semantics, but shouldn't we be specific about it and in terms of the sources and put 'Suicide' in place of that? That's what the sources have said. Tutelary (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that it should stay at Suicide. Wouldn't have changed anything anyway since the outcome of the investigation will probably conclude as suicide, and incase it doesn't we can then move it to death. Let it stay as it is per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Avono (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
death means she died - the press are the press but there is no official verdict - and wp:blp is about people that have recently died as well as living people - there is no official suicide verdict in regards to the death - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's just wait for more people's thoughts on this. I'm sure we'll get a lot of them. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Accidental death is going to be the likely final verdict - she was walking down the road and got run over - I pre-judge the investigation but so is the claim of suicide and the wikipediia article should not pre-support press claims as accurate Govindaharihari (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not our job to speculate the verdict of the investigations, I can understand your conclusion but at the moment all the sources say suicide. When the verdict is made we can restart this discussion until then we have to wait. Avono (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested edit
The bottom section says; 'and referred to her as "him," saying of her transgendered status'
This should read; 'of her transgender status', as 'transgender' is an adjective, not a verb. 94.174.85.17 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@AlexTiefling: Right here^. You can't 'transgender' a 'status'. 'Transgendered' is ungrammatical and deprecated.- MrX 13:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw that - I was wondering what Avono was referring to when they reverted your change. I have restored your version. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. I misunderstood what happened. 1000 pardons.- MrX 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Notability
No offence intended of course, but is this person really notable? I wasn't under the impression that anyone who killed themselves is granted a spot on Wikipedia. Mugsalot (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Her death is causing a lot of outrage on social media and in news outlets. It's becoming quite an issue and is raising awareness of how Conversion therapy is harmful. We'll have to see how it develops in the future but I think it's worth having a Wikipedia article. It seems like it fits WP:GNG - erisrenee (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that might be a good compromise. It all comes down to how notable this event turns out to be. Right now it seems pretty notable but we'll have to see how it develops. - erisrenee (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That it's causing "a lot of outrage" does not quantify how notable this person is. Couldn't she have been included in a list? I'm sorry if I come off as ignorant and rude. I just joined the conversation half-blind, to be sincere. Meşteşugarul - U 23:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There are several similar victims that have committed suicide due to bullying, and many of them have Wikipedia pages (see List of suicides which have been attributed to bullying). This article is obviously new and still undeveloped, but I do not see how this case is any less noteworthy than any of those teens. - erisrenee (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This has not generated the notoriety or cultural impact to even add a mention on an article on Wikipedia, much less its own article. Quit with the twitch article creation just because the media reports on it for a day. There were 40,000 suicides in the US in 2012 alone. Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Breaking_news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.128.218 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I've said plenty of deep things myself, but since I haven't committed suicide, I don't deserve a wikipedia page? In that case, there should be a wikipedia page for each meme and viral video. GGWP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.82.120 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with changing it to "Suicide of" or "Death of." Her death has inspired the Transgender Human Rights Institute to begin a campaign for Leelah's Law, which will ban conversion therapy. <refhttp://www.transviolencetracker.org/index.php/press-releases/116-leelah-acorn-suicide-a-call-to-end-conversion-therapy></ref> Also, according to the article's deletion page, someone removed the "Reaction" section of the article. Removing that section makes this article seem like it is merely derived from outrage. [5]Millodactyl (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Please note that there is no Wikipedia entry for Veronica Rutledge, who has received much news coverage because she was accidentally shot by her son in Walmart. The contrast in how Wikipedia is covering (or not) these two cases is striking, and would suggest that either Rutledge needs a page or this page should be deleted, unless Wikipedia would like to acknowledge a POV in how it chooses who is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.39.184 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Other stuff exists.Go and create that article if you wish. Do note that just because someone hasn't bothered to create an article on something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. However, you should be aware of the notability guidelines for creating a page. Additionally, there is no 'trigger' points for Wikipedia. If X is deleted, Y should be too. There are varying circumstances between the two, so they're not comparable. Tutelary (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the sentiment expressed by Tutelary; the Rutledge incident and its ensuing media attention may well be worthy of a Wikipedia article. Feel free to create said article if you wish. However, I would advise that you do not use its absence to criticise the notability of this particular incident, which is fundamentally dissimilar on several points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out the rather obvious fact that "notability" is by definition comparative. So it's nonsense to say we can't compare. Wikipedia loves to rattle on about how it is "objective" and tries to eliminate "POV," and I'm merely pointing out as others have had to far too many times, that this "objectivity" and a "lack of POV" is simply a way for those who make the most noise to get their way, which is not the same thing as some action or person being noteworthy. Or you want a comparison? My best friend's nephew committed suicide last year. In response, my best friend has turned this into a campaign to stop teen suicide. He has spoken to state legislatures in multiple states. This is a legitimate campaign that has a proven track record. Yet I wouldn't argue that my best friend's nephew's suicide is in itself notable. Sadly, teens kill themselves with some regularity. It takes more than a nascent campaign less than a week after the fact to denote notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.39.184 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to add more links here if you've found some but don't yet know how to integrate them into the article. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 10:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
A Tumblr software engineer just confirmed on Twitter that Leelah's parents went out of their way to have Leelah's blog (including the suicide and sorry notes) deleted. Reblogs and archives remain available on the web.
Not sure if the source is usable, or if the information is what Wikipedia would consider notable, so do with this what you will, everybody. Davidjcobb (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
We'll need secondary sources (not primary ones) to be able to include this fact into the article. Tutelary (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone was able to archive a large majority of her tumblr on a personal website, leaving most of her latest posts intact and even reblogable. The archived tumblr can be found here. Ixbran (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Several news articles duplicated the text of the Tumblr note in full in their articles. It would probably be best to just use one of those as a source for the text itself. SilverserenC 05:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
In the Life section (an odd section title for an article called death of), it states "The family attended the Northeast Church of Christ..." - Where was this church? It would seem to be a useful disambiguatory note. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
A very fair point. Unfortunately, the media source that is cited in this section doesn't actually specify the location of the church, but a quick Google search shows that it is based in Cincinnati, so I shall add that in to the article prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Leelah's deleted tumblr
There are at least two articles that mention this fact in the title of that article. Is it worth mentioning? 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that it's certainly worthy of a brief mention, perhaps under the "Death" section. Feel free to "Be Bold" and add it in, if you like. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I would caution that, at the current juncture, we lack sufficient information in this section to warrant its division into five sub-sections; for instance "Legislation" would presumably merely contain a solitary sentence on a petition to create Leelah's Law. However, should the situation escalate and a great many more sources become available to us then I think that we would have to consider expanding the Reaction section, perhaps according to lines akin to that which you have proposed. Until then, I would advise just waiting to see how this incident progresses; it may well be that it has completely fallen from media attention within a week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And if I may add an appendage to my previous comment, I would express concern with how useful the proposed sub-divisions would be. For instance, much of the "international reaction" would also count very much as "reaction to parents" (i.e. the comments that can be found in People magazine and The Independent). Attempts to divide up the information into such categories would (at present) be rife with problems. But thanks for the suggestion anyway, it's good to get people talking about these things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I was concerned about too much splitting, but the international section is looking disorganized and disjoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is disorganised and disjointed; the sub-section is currently divided into four paragraphs. The first focuses largely on social media responses to Leelah's death (also dealing with celebrity comments and the London vigil), the second focuses on the criticisms of the Alcorn parents, the third contains the Alcorn's responses to those criticisms, while the fourth contains some press commentary on the issue, much of which actually examines the Alcorn's aforementioned responses. I personally feel that that paragraph structure operates quite well, with each flowing on from its predecessor. It would be useful to read other's thoughts on the issue, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I made my original comment when the section was in organizational transition. 2601:9:4880:3600:B1EC:2EB8:3448:C1E (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 1 January 2015 (2) : rename the page to Leelah Alcorn
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing as a matter of procedure notwithstanding that the discussion has been archived. Noting also that the page now resides at Death of Leelah Alcorn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Suicide of Leelah Alcorn → Leelah Alcorn – Above a few users recently moved the page, ignoring suggestions from many users of the recent AfD discussion to either wait a few month or to not rename the page. There are several reasons why a page naming which focuses on death or suicide does not represent the context adequately. 1.) Legislation has been suggested to ban conversion therapy, in her name, called "Leelah's Law" - 2.) The attention she got evolves around her coming out and the reactions she recevied ( or didn't) from her family. 3.) We do not name pages from other people i.e. The suicide of Robin William - even when the Alcorn page is not considered a biography, it is disrespectful to reduce the circumstances and the mention (albeit different coverage) here on Wikipedia to her suicide/death. And to quote one argument from the AfD discussion, from user —Willscrlt( Talk | com | b:en | meta ): I am against renaming due to Wikipedia:Articles on suicides, and I think that is the wrong focus anyway. The "human interest" focus of the news articles on Alcorn was all the stuff going on in her life leading up to the suicide and the impact of her life and death. To focus solely on the suicide (which the changed article title would imply) would give short shrift to the full story. --- Thus, i ask to rename this page back to just her name. prokaryotes (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Move As outlined above i vote to move the page back to the old name. prokaryotes (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose : Essays are not policies, the petitions aren't notable as they haven't received any reactions jet and consensus on the afd discussion was to move her page. Robie Williams as his own page because he was notable before his death, Leehla wasn't. nor is is being "disrespectful" valid as this is not a memorial. She is only notable for this event not her life.Avono (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
So what about the coverage then, which evolves around her life? Imho, the title reduces the entire topic to just the death, it's bad naming. Additionally there wasn't a consensus, people changed their opinion too after reading on. prokaryotes (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Weak support for move back to old name - The article seems to be about the subject's life, rather than just her tragic death which made her more notable and drew her to our attention. It's a source of concern to me that a page like this was moved to its current title without significant discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Please state any notable achievement she had during her lifetime. Avono (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Avono, why not respond above to my point that the article covers her life and death? It's bad naming atm. prokaryotes (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Her Life section hasn't been deleted and is needed to provide context to her death, the title of the article will have not have an effect on its content. Avono (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: 1) Anybody on the Internet or at the pub can "suggest" legislation, it's WP:CRYSTAL right now to suggest it will ever exist. 2) And? That's part of the motivation for her suicide. It was never notable before the suicide, just teenager-parent argument that everybody has 3) Robin Williams committed suicide in 2014, but would have been a notable person in his own right had Wikipedia existed 25 years ago. People who were not notable until their death have articles titled on their death (Murder of Lee Rigby). Talk of "Disrespect" is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV'''tAD''' (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Teenager-parent arguments about gender are not that common, and the murder of Rigby wasn't associated with his life or gender. You missed the point. prokaryotes (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Nay, you missed my point. Read what I wrote again. Do you think if she had never killed herself, this article would exist and say "Leelah Alcorn is somebody who argues with her parents because she was transgender"? If you are saying that a special rule should exist for somebody who became famous on their death because they were transsexual, then the American Bible crazies would be right to say that LGBT people are supremacist '''tAD''' (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: Aside from her death and the reaction to her death, she is not notable. This article is primarily about her death and the abuse she suffered leading up to it. Similar articles are also named accordingly. - erisrenee (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose: I agree with the arguments for notability only at death. However, in an example I gave in section above, Mohamed Bouazizi (a Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation lead to the Arab Spring) has an article with his name as the title. He was not notable until his death. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind that article's title. Snd0 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: This poor girl came to public notability because of her tragic death, not because of anything which she accomplished during her life. As per Wikipedia norms, the correct think to do is have the title of "Death of...". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Circumstances leading up to the subject's suicide are the reason this article exists. Being transgender and committing suicide, while potentially interesting, are not themselves indicators of personal notability for Wikipedia purposes. Townlake (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per above - Mainly Midnightblueowl - However I word this it's going to sound awful ....- But prior to her death she wasn't even known and it's only due to her suicide that she's became more known to the world..., And also "Death of" sounds more neutral IMHO. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose – Midnightblueowl put it best: Alcorn is solely notable for her death. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment – Apparently people want the event in the title, fine. Because of overwhelming oppose of my request i think we can close the request then. prokaryotes (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Imagery and illustration
Dear all. Yesterday I devoted a few hours to revamping this article, expanding it, and generally pulling it into shape, as part of which I added two images to accompany the prose; one of councilman Chris Seelbach and the other of LGBT rights activist Dan Savage. Both individuals are quoted in the article and (so far) have been the most significant public commentators on this tragic incident. Recently, User:StAnselm has removed the two images, expressing the view that "both people are rather tangential to the article, and the pictures seem gratuitous or even promotional". Now, that's a fair argument, but it leaves us with the situation of having an article that lacks any illustration (aside from the lede image, of course). For aesthetic reasons I would support returning the two images to the text, although rather than engage in edit war I thought that I'd open up a conversation here on this talk page to see if we can develop a consensus on this issue. Perhaps some other users to have contributed to this page (User:Cognissonance? User:WWGB? User:Erisrenee? ) would be interested in offering their opinions on the issue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the images are "tangential" in nature (not taken in direct consequence of Alcorn's death), but they don't seem "promotional". According to MOS:IMAGES however, the pics were legitimate candidates for removal. But since the article is without much visual information, and I agree that aesthetically it demands it, maybe there is a way to come up with new options. Perhaps the Rest in Power tribute? It could serve as commentary for the National and international reaction that manifested in her support. Cognissonance (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy with alternative images, including the "Rest in Power" tribute; the main problem in that instance would be its copyright restrictions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I liked the images because I felt they helped make the article less of a boring block of text and broke it up a bit. Though they weren't really necessary, per se. The tribute images would work well to illustrate the reaction, but idk about copyrights, like you said, Midnightblueowl. - erisrenee (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have sent a note to the artist who made the tribute, asking them for it to be used on Wikipedia; specifically for them to upload it directly, referring them to the Upload Wizard form. The artist was identified here. Waiting for reply... Cognissonance (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I tracked one down. It was taken in Cleveland, Ohio which is useful, but has a mouse key on the lower right side. I could ask the copyright holders (I assume this is Scripps Media, Inc.) to fix the mistake by utilizing the original file and upload the image on Wikimedia Commons. Though I'm not sure if they'd do anything for free... What are your thoughts, Midnightblueowl and Erisrenee? Cognissonance (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I would think it extremely unlikely that a for-profit news organisation would be willing to upload their image to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia. Our best bet would be to find an image published under a CreativeCommons license or something of that nature over at Flickr. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Well, artist Mike Kirby sent me two versions of the Rest in Power tribute. One mirroring the original selfie taken by Leelah, and one depicting her in long hair; both open for different descriptions. She always wished for long hair. That'd be applicable information if we could find a credible source to confirm it. And is it practical to use both? If not, I vote to use the original version, despite how beautiful they both look. Cognissonance (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
That's great. I would use the former in this article, because of its clear(er) link to the lede image. Unfortunately, there are problems with the uploaded images; they are lacking in "evidence of permission" and that really has to be dealt with lest the images themselves get deleted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. And I should really have expected that. Sorry. Dealing with it now. Cognissonance (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to apologise; we all owe for for bringing about the upload of the image to Wikipedia to start with! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, Kirby just got back to me saying he sent the evidence of permission form to the specified e-mail. The templates should be deleted as soon as it's processed. Cognissonance (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: The image has now been removed; it seems like further discussion is needed here. Certainly, the article should not have images just for the sake of it. Generally, fan art, or artworks by non-notable artists are not included on Wikipedia. I know, because I've added a few such images from flickr over the years, and all those edits have been reverted. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I argue that should there be a sentence in the section itself indicating the existence of tribute artwork, it would create more of a comprehension to the National and international reaction. It's not a plea to add an image for the sake of it. The picture is directly related to the subject and would perform the appropriate purpose the section calls for, in name and notability. (Refer to the links below for more notability.) In relation to the term "Rest in Power", its existence specified in an image description can be sourced, sourced and sourced. Cognissonance (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reintegrated the image back into the page. It should not have been removed without some attempt to seek consensus, in my opinion. I have added a reference to the image caption, highlighting that it has also been published in a press source,this Daily Mail article. It is therefore notable enough to include within the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl, I found vigil images from Ohio whose copyright holder doesn't seem like a for-profit party. Before I ask Vogel to let one be used on Wikipedia, which one (from the Cincinnati article) depicts the vigil best? In other words, which one should I ask for? Please link to your choice. I favor this one, because of the subtle exposition and well done framing. Cognissonance (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that an image of a crowd is better at visually reflecting the idea of a communal vigil rather than an image that focuses on just one or two single individuals. However, given that Ms Vogel is a visual journalist and offers the opportunity for people to purchase her photographs, I think it unlikely that she will allow for any of them to be provided here for free, unfortunately. It is her livelihood, after all. Still, it can't hurt to ask. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion of the Kirby picture seems a bit random, since there's nothing in the article about tribute artwork being a meaningful aspect of how the subject is being remembered. I'm not going to remove the picture, but I wouldn't blame anyone else for deciding it's not really integrated into the article. Absent better context, it somewhat looks like activism. Townlake (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll agree with Townlake, The images used in the article should be related to her or her death. A tribute image stretches it, this page shouldn't become a memorial, it isn't our job to make her a martyr. Avono (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I added the image back up, with a different angle. This is not a consensus that justifies the picture's removal. However, I dealt with the issues you had. There is now a correspondence between the image and the subsection, thus it can't be considered "random". On the rest of your problems, I refer you to MOS:IMAGES. The image is "directly related to the article's topic". With its new focus, it illustrates exactly what the subsection exists to provide. Cognissonance (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that the portrait has been replaced with the vergil which I happily endorse together with the image of the road. Avono (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Other editors have removed the Kirby image, and I agree with that decision. The images of the highway and the London vigil make a lot more sense for a neutral encyclopedia than the "tribute art" image. I recommend going forward with those two images, and I applaud the editors who located and included those images. Townlake (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have to fundamentally disagree with the idea that the addition of the "tribute art" image (which annoyingly is being repeatedly removed by different editors who have not sought consensus for their actions here at the talk page) is inherently portraying Alcorn as a martyr or engaging in activism. Instead it reflects the creative outpouring that has been a key part of the public response to this incident; as I specified before, British newspaper the Daily Mail saw fit to include that very same image on their page, to illustrate this public response. Mainstream media sources are doing it, so why aren't we ? Why is this memorial image fundamentally dissimilar from a photograph of candles at a London vigil, the inclusion of which no one here is challenging ? I admit that having properly sourced text testifying to the production of such tribute art would be of great help here in legitimising its inclusion, and I would argue that should we be able to produce such referenced text, then the contested image be re-introduced permanantly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the number of editors who have deleted or raised concerns about the image, that's an argument you would probably lose. But let's cross that bridge when we get there. Townlake (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I generally think more images would be good, but I also think tribute art is stretching it and not that informative. However, given the numerous memorials a photo from one of them to show the global reach is useful. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Prozac
"On Reddit, Alcorn also disclosed that she was prescribed excessive amounts of the anti-depressant Prozac, a drug which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns increases the risk of suicide when taken in sufficiently high doses.[11] "
The current edit contains the section above. I argue that in it's current form it is not NPOV. It suggests that her prozac dose could have lead to this, but while the source cited talks about the dose being above recommended guidelines it's not accurate to pair that with the issue of the [box warning]. That warning is controversial in terms of it's accuracy and I'm not aware of that evidence that doses about the FDA recommended amount increase the risk further. The phrasing here is misleading and if the assertion that her particular dose of the medication (as opposed to just being on a therapeutic dose of the medication) is going to be linked in this way to the black box warning, there should be a citation supporting this. Right now this section reads with an anti-pharma bias.
I suggest revising it to this:
"On Reddit, Alcorn also disclosed that she was prescribed the anti-depressant Prozac. Prozac is one of a number of drugs that contain a black box warning from that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about increased the risk of suicidal thoughts among children and adolescents.[11] "
I don't see anywhere in the cite where Alcorn indicated that the dosage was excessive, only that it had been increasing and was at 60 mg/day. The cited source (David Badash) then argues in his own voice that 60mg/day is excessive. As written the article appears to misattribute who made the claim that the dosages were excessive. One tweak to the proposed wording, however- I would add 'increasing dosages of' as that is in the source, neutral, and relevant. So,
"On Reddit, Alcorn also disclosed that she was prescribed increasing dosages of the anti-depressant Prozac. Prozac is one of a number of drugs that contain a black box warning from that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about increased the risk of suicidal thoughts among children and adolescents.[11] " --Noren (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
At this point there are so many articles I've lost track, but at least one of them mentions the dosage being high. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I did some more digging on this issue. The PDR says 20 mg is the typical starting dose for adults and for children the starting doses can be 10-20 mg [6] for MDD. For reference they list 60mg as an appropriate starting dose for Bulimia so it's not an unheard of dosage for a person to be on. The PDR is probably a better reflection of what doctors agree with and practice than the FDA since FDA approval is so arduous. Unless we have a source suggesting that 60 mg is unusual or potentially harmful it seems inappropriate to speculate about the particular amount of her prozac playing a role in the suicide. I think mentioning the black box warning is reasonable, but I don't think we have sources to back up any reason to speculate that her exact dosage was problematic. Lyo (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the black box warning comment from the article. It's inclusion in the article implies that the medication was a contributing factor to Alcorn's death. Until a reliable source confirms this, it's speculation and shouldn't be included. Mike V • Talk 06:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Lead
Cognissonance seems to have a problem with my rewriting of the lead. This was done partly to reduce a little bit of extra detail and partly because the current lead is clunky, awkwardly worded, and, in some places, grammatically incorrect. Apparently, "Lonely and alienated, she ended her life by walking out in front of oncoming traffic, and blamed her parents in her suicide note" is "subjective" despite the current version reading "Alcorn cited the loneliness and alienation caused by these actions as a key reason for her decision to commit suicide. She ended her life by walking out in front of oncoming traffic. In her suicide note she blamed her parents for the situation in which she found herself" (very confusing and unnecessarily long-winded), whereas the lead having too much detail as I said in an earlier edit summary is a "misconception" despite MOS:INTRO saying, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".
I would like other editors' opinions on this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agreed with Cognissonance. Your revised version sounds too much like a story. The current form presents the evidence and tells us where that evidence came from. It certainly does not flow as well, but it conveys the information in a more accurate way. Lyo (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Also agree with Cognissonance. The statement "Lonely and alienated, she ended her life by walking out in front of oncoming traffic" sounds way too tabloidish for an encyclopedia. Such mawkish commentary would be more at home in The National Enquirer or the Daily Mail. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't completely understand the issue, but if it's the only significant one, then can't that one sentence be revised? I think there's a clear overall improvement from the current version. I don't think completely reverting my changes was necessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Because they are adjectives instead of nouns, yes, your version is read very subjectively. The lead section as it stands now tells the whole story in all its most important aspects surrounding the whole. If the paragraph in question had been longer I would agree with you. I still think your edits were of good faith. Just not needful. Cognissonance (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Please explain the other problems beyond the one "lonely and alienated" sentence, which I have already suggested revising. Please tell me what else is subjective. Please tell me why we should have a clunky, awkward, and confusing lead instead of one that contains the vast majority of the detail but trims the fat and words everything much better.
Here are just a few of the problems in the current lead, which were fixed in my rewrite:
"Alcorn was assigned to the male gender at birth" → Redundant when she is referred to as a transgender girl in the previous paragraph.
"Recognizing her transgender identity aged 14, she came out to her parents, Carla and Doug Alcorn, shortly afterwards. Refusing to accept her gender identity, when she was 16 they denied her request to undergo transition treatment" → May technically be grammatically correct, but it's confusing.
"Christian-based conversion therapy" → also redundant. Many (not all) conversion therapies are Christian-based, and the family's religious views are already mentioned.
"Following their daughter's death, Alcorn's parents publicly refused to accept her gender identity, resulting in strong criticism." → worded more concisely in my version: "Alcorn's parents were criticized for not accepting her gender identity in subsequent comments to the media."
This seems to be a case of IDLI and opposing a bigger change over one small detail. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It may be preferable (but tedious) to put up each change as a separate edit. That way, each one can be assessed on its individual merit. I agree with some of your proposals, such as the removal of "Alcorn was assigned to the male gender at birth", which sounds like some arbitrary decision, rather than the simple fact that he had a willy! WWGB (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
HE was born with a willy. SHE emerged 14 years later. And thanks for joining Wikipedia just to add that comment. WWGB (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's just end this off-topic side discussion now before it gets out of hand. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
This is actually relevant to "assigned to the male gender at birth". That she was assigned male at birth doesn't mean she wasn't always a transgendered person. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
We aren't talking about 1 day old Leelah Alcorn. We're talking about 17 year old Leelah Alcorn. She choose her identity, which she says she experienced, but did not know how to express, at least since she was 4.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Christian-based conversion therapy actually adds information what is not apparent without going to conversion therapyForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where "Recognizing her transgender identity [...]" is confusing ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I, also, generally agree with Cognissonance. There were some smaller changes that were ok. But the general sum of edits moved toward a more subjective tone, and shorter is not always clearer. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to know what specifically was "subjective" besides the one phrasing that was already discussed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There were some definite grammar and style issue that I have attempted to fix. For example, "raised into..."→"raised in..."; evidence for..."→"evidence of...", and so on.- MrX 03:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Chase made some good points above. I changed my mind on the basis of some of them. Other editors' arguments vindicated my remaining thoughts on past revisions. But the lead looks good now. That's what's most important. Thanks for the discussion. Cognissonance (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, Why anyone thinks it's appropriate and of encyclopedic value to add an image of the interstate where the subject died is quite honestly beyond me!. Remember we're not a memorial. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Added to that, Fort Washington Way (where the photo was taken) is about 30 miles from the scene of Alcorn's death. WWGB (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case it is not related to the article and should therefore stay removed. Avono (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware that the aforementioned image is actually irrelevant to the article, but I don't see why a relevant image of the location shouldn't be included in the article. Many articles about deaths (including the featured article Murder of Leigh Leigh) include images of relevant locations. I don't know of any relevant policies, but the majority of similar articles seem to be illustrated in that way. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It could be used if it was closer but 30 miles is to far. It should be a picture of the direct(or very close) spot where she died. Avono (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Avono beat me to it - If the image is closer to where it all happened then I don't think there'd really be any real problems, Cheers, –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I was the editor responsible for adding the image, largely in response to comments made elsewhere on this talk page that this article was insufficiently illustrated. However, I think that Avono and Davey2010 make a fair case regarding the need for more locational precision with regard to the image used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Daily Mail
This is a reminder that BLP still applies to parts of this Article. The Daily Mail should not be used to establish facts about living people per the end of the discussion at WP:RSN. Avono (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of this comment because it is revelant commentary on the Harshment Leehla's parents have recieved and can therefore be used together with Washington Post commentary. Avono (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not, though. It's just the (Redacted) opinion of a well-known controversialist, posted here by an IP user whose main contributions have been pseudo-rationalist apologias for racism. I removed it because it adds less than nothing to the article. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please watch out about making unsourced opinions about living people as BLP also applies to the article talk space. Thanks Avono (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In no way does this polemic belong in this article.- MrX 13:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for advancing the fringe opinions of non-notable people, and for the same reason that I removed an entire paragraph of transgender rights advocacy. The only way this source could be used is if it were cited by other reliable sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS]]). In short, the content is grossly WP:UNDUE. It's also a WP:QUESTIONABLE source promoting an extremist view. Feel free to get more opinions at WP:RS/N or WP:NPOV/N if you disagree.- MrX 14:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well the washington post also criticises the harassment. WP:SOAPBOX goes both ways. Avono (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "goes both ways", but the Washington Post is a respected newspaper that has been published for 138 years and has won 47 Pulitzer prizes. By comparison, Spiked has been around for 14 years, doesn't have a lot of readers, and is little more than a political opinion blog. It is not an acceptable source for a WP:BDP.- MrX 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I have restored my stated opinion of O'Neill's opinion. Please o not redactor my comments again. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
no, they have to immediately removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. This is not your soapbox. Avono (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that stating the nature of the extremism involved is important, given the subject matter of the page. And this is not a soapbox for the eugenics-apologist IP editor or Brendan O'Neill, either. There was no need for you to revive this unhelpful proposal. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If I may throw my two cents into the hat, I would suggest that we do include this information; after all, Spiked is a (somewhat) reliable source, and O'Neill is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article devoted to him (Brendan O'Neill (journalist)). We needn't include a whole sentence on the matter, however, or give it undue weight, in particular because it is the opinion of a figure who is a fringe thinker, if you will. For instance, we could go for something along the lines of: "Some individuals, termed "the Internet's self-appointed vigilantes" in The Washington Post, subsequently doxed and harassed Carla via her Facebook account "in revenge" for Leelah's death,[55] with Spiked journalist Brendan O'Neill comparing their behavior to that of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church." Surely that wouldn't be too problematic an insertion ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
O'Neill's comparison with Westboro is clearly intended to be provocative and offensive to the LGBT community (regardless of any individual member's views on the actions under discussion), and I feel its inclusion here is undue. And whether Spiked is otherwise a reliable source is irrelevant: the cited claim is nothing but O'Neill's unqualified opinion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
but that is your opinion. It is not our job to pander to group of people just because they could feel offended. If we should have a reaction section at all we should also present contrary opinions in order to make this a neutral article. Avono (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I see that this matter has been closed anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Or has it been re-opened ? I'm confused as to what is happening here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I reopened it after you inserted your comment and Alex reverted it to my closure. I think it would be wise just to close this as the Washington post already covers the Harassment. The Spiked article seems to be too controversial and is not really worthy of a big content dispute Avono (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
But you shouldn't give undue weight to fringe opinions in order to appear 'neutral' and 'balanced' if that's not the weight of reliable sources on the subject. That's why 'anti' opinions should be sourced to quotes in third-party publications like the Washington Post, not taken directly from a self-publicist like O'Neill. Where possible, that goes for 'pro' sources too, although this case has a very unusual relation to primary sources. But I'm also happy for this to be closed, but kept for the record. It seems the prudent way forward. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, we can all agree (I think) that O'Neill is a fringe thinker. A former Marxist turned extreme right-wing libertarian, his work is clearly designed to offend and cause controversy; if I may use the vernacular, he's a shit stirrer. But does quoting him directly in this article represent undue weight, as defined by Wikipedia ? That's the real issue of debate here. But I would rather see this conversation closed rather than have an almighty raucous of an argument kick off amongst us! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: http://www.fox19.com/story/27717471/pedestrian-struck-killed-on-i-71 would seem to disagree with you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Done - 
