Talk:Eli Erlick

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because all notability requirements are met (significant coverage; independent, reliable, and multiple sources; etc) --Anon523 (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if all the notability requirements are unquestionably met, but that requires a full discussion via Articles for deletion. Speedy declined. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rape claims

Tumblr blogs are NOT valid citations for Wikipedia and she was NOT prosecuted, nor was she taken to court publicly. Thus any attempt to edit in a false allegation is merely slander. Nothing has been actually PROVEN against her. The person who wrote the post on the tumblr blog was also openly mentally ill. Mentally ill people writing an unconfirmed tumblr blog post are not valid citations especially by wiki standards. I am posting this since there have been two people who have tried to edit in that she is a rapist, despite not having any solid proof.

ShimonChai (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Slander is when someone makes a false claim that causes damage to the slandered individual's reputation. An admission against interest is a long-standing exception to the rules of evidence in Anglo American law's prohibition on hearsay, because the legal presumption is that most people would not willingly admit to a crime unless they were confessing to the truth of it. The mental status of the victim (which itself is a vicious and unproven slander leveled by yourself) is entirely irrelevant to her actual, uncontested admission of guilt.

Here there are actual screenshots where she is repeatedly challenged by a victim that was a minor at the time, who accuses her of repeatedly being preyed upon, raped, while a minor attending a conference that the subject spoke at. From the subject's multiple responses, she not only accepts responsibility, but even admits that she is guilty of the claims, and says she'll seek therapy to do better going forward. Clearly the subject is admitting to the repeated rape of a child. The failure of the state to take action is entirely irrelevant to the proof she has provided herself. 47.200.199.43 (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"a child" Uh, perhaps this is also irrelevant, or perhaps this is not referring to the D. Diamond posts, but, unless my math is way off, E. Erlick is a year younger than D. Diamond, according to the "22" age given on the 2016 archived tumblr biography page. Adult-on-child sexual assault shouldn't be implied through omission. If a younger child has actually sexually assaulted an older one, that's already bad. 2A01:E0A:8A7:D1A0:7155:539C:4C97:AC97 (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

there are existing screenshots of Erlick acknowledging the accusations agreeing that they are true. Wikidyke (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

I am not bonded to this subject, I was simply attracted by the enormous edit warring that's been going on. Please, remember that edit warring (reverting another editor's edits over and over) is not constructive and is a blockable offense. Please see WP:3RR. Instead, start a conversation here and find consensus. There's a request to protect this page in process, I hope a cooling off period stimulates discussion here instead of fighting on the article. Ifnord (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified allegations

I believe it is relevant to reference the unspecified "serious" and "concerning" allegations against Erlick. The website INTO released a press release cutting ties with Erlick citing these (unspecified) allegations. While no "reputable" source has published that these are rape allegations from multiple people, and thus it might not be fair to publish these allegations as rape allegations on Wikipedia, it is fair to publish them as unspecified.

The death threats and Erlick disabling her Twitter for a brief time... I don't think is relevant on it's own unless it is fleshed out more. Both that she was receiving death threats for her Ariana Grande piece and also because she has been accused of rape from multiple people, and these conversations were happening simultaneously. Endwealth (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Regarding Special:Diff/880969231, I believe that reducing the content of the citation to the Twitter account "deletion" (isn't it online again? Any recent sources about this?) would be a case of undue weight. The article is not mainly about the Twitter account deletion, and its other content seems to be relevant (or even more relevant) to the article topic. Furthermore, I'd like to point to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cecelia199/Archive. This is not how discussion works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. On second thought, I have entirely removed the disputed section, because WP:SYNTH may be an issue and it is the biography of a living person. While the terms "serious" and "concerning" do indeed appear in the sources, the connection to the article subject is not as clear as I'd expect it to be when reading this in Wikipedia. For example, the intomore.com article describes the allegations as "concerning", but does not mention the name of the person. To keep or restore the Wikipedia sentence, we need a source that mentions both the name and the allegations in one article, in a way that does not require original research to extract this information. To me as a reader, it did seem as if the Wikipedia statements have been factual, but that may be caused by a subjective interpretation that the Wikipedia article imposed on readers before they were able to verify the sources. Maybe someone knows of a better source than etcanada.com, intomore.com and thewrap.com. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2022

2601:192:7F:FFE3:7D31:4FED:2279:E7F9 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section

@Matza Pizza, Yahoo was not the original publisher of the article you linked. If you click on the link you can see that it was originally published by Fox News and Yahoo reprinted it crediting Fox News. Citing Yahoo is like citing Google if you googled something and wanted to cite the first result. If you cannot find a reliable source for a claim, then it should not be on Wikipedia. This isn't a reason to add it and cite an unreliable or primary source like Twitter. Similarly Matt Walsh's claims should not be on Wikipedia unless they have been quoted by a secondary source, this is important to establish notability. The parts of the section that I deleted were the parts that notability had not been established for using a secondary source. TWM03 (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yahoo accepted Fox's reporting, giving it added credibility. Not that there is anything wrong with your using Fox, but there was no need to remove Yahoo.

Using YT and Twitter to use a direct quote or direct claim from the person is perfectly acceptable on YT. If you'd rather not, that's your choice, but one should not remove someone else's work on that basis. I certainly did not use either YT or Twitter as a "source" of independent information. Matt Walsh said on the Matt Walsh Show in Matt Walsh's voice that he had done so and so. I used that, not to write that so and so had happened, but to write in the article that Matt Walsh said he had done so and so. Same for Blackburn's tweet - I showed her tweet to support that which I said she'd written. If you have a preferred source with which to replace the given source, that's fine, but there is no reason to remove chunks of relevant information when the given source more than adequately backs up every word in the article.

Matza Pizza (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yahoo! News is a news aggregator. Just because it links an article, does not mean it endorses it. Since Yahoo does not edit the articles it republishes, this gives no more credibility.

You might like to read Wikipedia's policies on using primary sources and reliable sources. There are an enormous number of tweets published about many people every day. Some are relevant for Wikipedia and others are not. To determine which are relevant, we rely on reliable secondary sources. The only such source provided so far is the Fox News article, which only backs up some of what you wrote. If you want to add the rest back in, you would need to find other reliable sources to back the statements up.

Finally, please do take it personally that what you wrote is being removed, I am just trying to ensure that Wikipedia's core policies are being followed. TWM03 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Matza Pizza, Please respond to my objections here rather than engaging in edit warring. Please also note the 3 revert rule. You say it is "clearly" not the case that there is an overriding reason to remove the claims despite my objection being that you did not include reliable sources for all your claims - one of the most basic rules that must be followed on Wikipedia. TWM03 (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Please pay attention.

You wrote, and I quote, "There are an enormous number of tweets published about many people every day." Exactly! Published "ABOUT many people", which is very different than BY the person. The notability claim clearly doesn't work when a US Senator tweets in response to a tweet by the subject of the article. The notability is clearly established by definition. Similarly, Matt Walsh's notability, particularly in relation to this issue, is hardly in question. A response he gave regarding an issue in that article is notable by definition.

Let us say that President Biden, or former President Trump, were to Tweet (or "Truth Social", however it is called there). Even if no one had reported on it, would you consider it "not notable"? It does not work that way.

Indeed you will find as you spend more time on Wikipedia that YouTube videos and Tweets are in fact used in situations such as I used it here. That is an accepted part of Wikipedia, and in no way violates their rules. (Please don't start deleting every such instance, really.)

As to your closing paragraph: "Please respond to my objections here rather than engaging in edit warring", I say the same. Don't revert first and ask questions later. This is particularly true once BrownHaired Girl, a former Wikipedia Admin with 2.8 million edits to her credit, already saw my additions to the article and simply upgraded the referencing work, but left every word of my edit as it was. Certainly you are not claiming better knowledge of Wikipedia's rules than she has?

I am respectfully asking you to not overstep your bounds and remove the work of other editors without solid basis to do so.

Thank you.

Matza Pizza (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Matza Pizza, if Joe Biden or Donald Trump tweets something that doesn't mean it should go on Wikipedia either. There are rare circumstances where primary sources including Twitter can be used, often to add context to other claims, but it is the only source you included for the entire controversy regarding the US supreme court statement. This is not one of those cases, especially in this article since it is a WP:BLP article. If you are claiming that another editor agrees with your edit, maybe you should invite them to contribute to the discussion rather than speaking on their behalf?

It is an accepted part of Wikipedia that editors remove content placed there by other editors. This is not out of bounds, and in my opinion the basis for removing what I removed is solid. TWM03 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Matza Pizza: The edit you mentioned by @BrownHairedGirl was performed by a semi-automated tool. I wouldn't take that as an endorsement of your prior edits to this article. Tagging her so she can speak for herself if she chooses. Funcrunch (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Funcrunch.

@Matza Pizza: @TWM03 is entirely correct. My edit[1] was a semi-automated driveby technical edit, which merely identified that a bare URL needed to be filled. It is one of many thousands such edits which I make every month, without even looking at the article: all I see is a tiny fragment of wikicode.

I did not examine the merits of any preceding edits, let alone endorse them. However, now that I look these edits,[2] I see far too much reliance on a tweet. I agree with TWM03 that this is wholly inadequate sourcing, and that the section should be removed until better sources are found: per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds material to justify its inclusion and to provide suitable high-quality sources.

Matza Pizza, this would be a really good time to re-read and study WP:V and WP:RS. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of WP:BLP articles which use YT and/or Twitter as a source under the circumstances described. The WP:BLP restriction exists because of the sensitivity of the situation, so it is absolutely necessary to make sure the information is correct. In this instance, would anyone deny that Erlick wrote her Tweet about SCOTUS assassinations? The tweet is linked, as is Senator Blackburn's response, thus making the claim irrefutable. (As it is, IIRC, Erlick's deletion of her tweet, and dismissal as a joke of such, was quoted in the Yahoo article, and therefore, presumably, in the Fox article.) If you would like to call in a third party to arbitrate the situation, please feel free. I will happily respect their ruling on the matter. But please refrain from reverting until that point. Thank you. Matza Pizza (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I added a source on the SCOTUS thing.

Matza Pizza (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

And now I added one more. I hope we're all good now.

Matza Pizza (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Matza Pizza These extra sources are useful, I don't think the section needs to be deleted anymore but I may make some edits to it at some point. TWM03 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That said, I think we need better sources if we are going to keep the statement about sexual assault allegations, since this is a serious WP:BLP issue and the Fox article is effectively engaging in hearsay by quoting Matt Walsh stating allegations made by someone else. TWM03 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As to the first point, happy to hear. Always best when we can work it out to everyone's satsfaction. As to the second point...had Erlick not supplied quotes directly addressing the situation, then I think we can all agree that it would not belong. But once he acknowledged that the claims existed and then directly addressed them, and we prominently include Erlick's denial and explanation, I believe we are on safe ground. Matza Pizza (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made some edits now. I still think there are some issues with the sources' reliability and bias, but I think this is close to NPOV and verifiable based on what we have to work with. TWM03 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Matza Pizza: Eli Erlick is a trans woman and goes by she/her pronouns. I hope your misgendering her as "he" was accidental? Funcrunch (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I removed the entire section. It was using Free Beacon, Christian Broadcasting Network, Twitter, Fox News, and The Matt Walsh Show as source. Really, that's not the kind of sources you should be using for a trans activist. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Without reading every word of this section, a few things needs to be stated:
  

1. Information in BLPs needs to be verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Editors can find those on WP:RSP. Fox News, Breitbart, content aggregators, Twitter, etc are not acceptable sources, especially for BLPs. Breitbart is on the WP blacklist, and Twitter is a social network (wee WP:RSPTWITTER). If you are not sure about a source, ask on the RSP talk page or on the article's talk page.

2. From WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively... it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." The headlines being added from low-quality conservative outlets and social media sources not only don't meet sourcing requirements, they are also sensationalist and POV-pushing.

3. Anyone can edit WP. If you are new to editing and aren't sure what is appropriate to add, or how to get information to "stick", visit the Teahouse or ask a more seasoned editor. In the meantime, highly contested articles are not the best place for trial-and-error.

Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that Fox News is not an adequate source for this controversy. They're biased, sure, but none of the information in the article seems to be inaccurate. And even if some info is inaccurate, we could simply use the information that is. I would suggest saying in the article: "In August 2022, conservatives, including Matt Walsh, criticized Erlick for detailing a plan on social media to send hormone therapy prescriptions to people in U.S. states working to criminalize such drugs. Erlick defended herself from criticism, saying that "all trans people should have access to gender-affirming care"." Nothing in this statement from Fox is inaccurate. Fox News is not acceptable? That's not what WP:RSP says: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." X-Editor (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Everything is free, no questions asked" is integral to the controversy and explains the allegation of "drug pushing". Leaving that out is a mistake. I believe that everything Erlick has said in her defense regarding any issue has been very clearly represented in the article.

Matza Pizza (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What phrasing woulg you suggest? X-Editor (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no secondary source for this quote, so until one is found it can't be added. TWM03 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @X-Editor. It doesn't really matter if individual editors think it's fine to use Fox News as a source for a BLP. Consensus has determined they are not an appropriate source when dealing in politics for a BLP, as seen on RSP. You just said they are biased, which is of course true. We can't pick and choose which sentences we want to use out of a biased source that RSP says we cannot use. If you think Fox News should be allowed to be used, that's a topic for RSP, not this article. --Kbabej (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears the Fox News article is, well, an article. I thought it was from a Fox News talk show, which is treated differently at RSP. Ignore the above comment! --Kbabej (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not what RSP says about Fox: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." I dpoesn't say to never use, it just says to exercise caution. X-Editor (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, for now, we'll leave it out, if only because I want to move on from this already, and totally lack the patience to continue down this path. That said, I did put back in some basic information which had been stripped out, information without which this article would be sorely lacking. Matza Pizza (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

And now, a few minutes later, I just belatedly read this section through and found that I'd misunderstood @BrownHairedGirl: earlier. I'm worn out from this page. I still think that the SCOTUS comment and the illegal drug distribution deserve a mention, but if I'm outvoted, then so be it.

Matza Pizza (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing "illegal" about the drugs that she is purporting to send to minors, in the states they reside. (Her sending the drugs to minors IS illegal however) These are LEGAL drugs; they must be prescribed by a doctor though, like most other prescription pharmacuticals.

To claim these drugs are "illegal" is misleading. 98.110.28.126 (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You're beating a strawman. The illegal act is distributing prescription drugs to people who don't have prescriptions. It's a crime.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:29C3:92A0:893A:208E (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Glesn 2012.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

Change "She could not her school's restroom" to "She could not use her school's restroom" to add the word "use" to complete the sentence correctly. Alicepuderbaugh (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Early Life Edit Request (Sources don't add up)

Doing some background, and verifying sources before continuing down my project further, and I noticed that her education citations can only be partly verified. I see that she did graduate at least at Pitzer College in Claremont, but the course she completed is only a three year degree, and the cites does not confirm that she graduated with honors. Both of these two statements should have cites to confirm that she did graduate early as well as with Honors. 99.145.188.43 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Assassination challenge

Should it be indicated that Erlick called for assassination of Supreme Court justices in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned? It seems noteworthy, especially considering that he's accused others of "stochastic terrorism" just for criticizing university administrators and encouraging people to email them. A sitting US Senator also commented on it and called for the Department of Justice to get involved [3][4] [5][6]. 174.5.52.32 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)