Talk:Leelah Alcorn

"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)

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)

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)

Brendan O'Neill

@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

Should the Alcorn's parents section of this article include the following passage, or does should the passage be removed per WP:UNDUE and/or WP:FRINGE?

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".

References

– Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion for reasons outlined above. 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 sentence is cited to a WP:Reliable Source; it has been in place for two years with no prior concerns being raised about it (although that is not in itself a reason for retention). It represents press commentary of an event discussed in the article; the article also contains press commentary at various other junctures, including from even less mainstream sources than Spiked (but no one is calling for their removal). I also believe that there are concerns about political-POV pushing here. 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. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion This article exhibits a fringe take on the issue, and the way it is presented here, includes some completely irrelevant claims. Why should Wikipedia be claiming or quoting 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 just flat out irrelevant here. I also strongly feel 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 an intentionally inflammatory opinion piece. It’s inclusion lends undue weight to extreme views. Cpotisch (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)