Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Krano (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 7 January 2015 (→WP:RPP: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leelah Alcorn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death: Suicide This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance). LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW keep.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Sharon Coolidge (30 December 2014). "Transgender teen: 'My death needs to mean something'". The Cincinnati Enquirer. By Tuesday evening, Leelah's story had become a worldwide story - one of how transgender teens often feel alone and afraid. The hashtag #LeelahAlcorn was topping Twitter; news sites worldwide had picked up the story; and someone had even created a Misplaced Pages page for Alcorn.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leelah Alcorn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Requested move 1 January 2015 (2) : rename the page to Leelah Alcorn

The request to rename this article to Leelah Alcorn has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. –Davey2010 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)

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:Glitchygirl? 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. Glitchygirl (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 Misplaced Pages; specifically for them to upload it directly, referring them to the Upload Wizard form. The artist was identified here. Waiting for reply... Glitchygirl (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe get a image of her high school tribute or one of the local vigils? 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 18:11, 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? Glitchygirl (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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Glitchygirl (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. Glitchygirl (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 Misplaced Pages to start with! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

◕‿‿◕ thx Glitchygirl (talk) 00:33, 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. Glitchygirl (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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Glitchygirl (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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Glitchygirl (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. Glitchygirl (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)

lumping and splitting: reaction

I was wondering if the reaction should be divided into:

parents

reaction to parents

local reaction

legislation

international reaction

But I worry about too much splitting. 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 20:41, 3 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)

Parents and siblings

Is there are reason her parents and siblings aren't listed clearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The names of her parents, Carla and Doug Alcorn, certainly do appear in this article, although I suppose that they could be included in the infobox and/or lede as well and thus could, as you suggest, be "listed clearly" than at present. Given that they are key figures in this whole incident and that their names have already appeared in reliable media sources, then I think it undoubtedly appropriate that their names are included in the article itself and that we need not provide them with anonymity. Their other children, however, are a different matter. Leelah mentioned their names in her "Sorry" note on Tumblr, so anyone can potentially look that up if they wish; these siblings, however, have not issued public statements or made themself known to the media as yet, and thus have not set themselves out to be public figures. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with living people here, who are connected to a very sensitive and controversial issue; see Misplaced Pages's policy on including information about living persons here. It is this policy which really must guide our inclusion of any such information in this article, and thus I would suggest it best that we do refrain from including the names of Leelah's siblings at present, much as all other media outlets appear to have done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME her parents' names should be included because they figure prominently in the event, but her siblings do not so their names should be omitted. T.C.Haliburton 16:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Included where? (newbie here) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightblueowl, and besides from policy, there is no need to include the names from other family members, it's superfluous. prokaryotes (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Add it to the info box. Not sure if it should be there or the lead. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:11, 7 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 wasn't sure if there was a reason or not. 2601:9:4880:3600:B1EC:2EB8:3448:C1E (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

random road close to where she died pic

Please, this is not a tribute page - "not random photo, she died near that interstate" - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Death_of_Leelah_Alcorn&diff=640994451&oldid=640993793#mediaviewer/File:Fort-Washington-Way.jpg I do not see that as a reason to include this picture, feel free to disagree, please state some wiki guideline that supports that pics inclusion and I will support it also - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:34, 4 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. –Davey2010 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, –Davey2010 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)

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. "

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 . 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. "

Lyo (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, and interesting info. prokaryotes (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

agreed, endorse change Avono (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

However, the dosage is noteworthy as being over the recommended guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4880:3600:B1EC:2EB8:3448:C1E (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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. " --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 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)

citation for black box warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/Fluoxetine#Suicide (i can't edit the main article, and I don't know how to this kind of link) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:14, 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

Glitchygirl 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 Glitchygirl. 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 Glitchygirl. 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. Glitchygirl (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)

She — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

HE was born with a willy. SHE emerged 14 years later. And thanks for joining Misplaced Pages 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 therapy ForbiddenRocky (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 Glitchygirl. 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. Glitchygirl (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Spiked

Brendan O'Niell wrote a good editorial comparing the harassment of the bereaved parents to the funeral-picketing of the Westboro Baptist Church: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/justice-for-leelah-behold-the-new-pc-intolerance/16419#.VKrKpCvF98E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.137.43 (talk) 17:52, 5 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)

I don't like it is not a valid policy based reason, if you have a valid reason why spiked online is an unreliable source please state it now. Avono (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages ? 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)

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)

Possible WP:ADVOCACY concern

I am concerned about this paragraph

The Independent contacted Mara Keisling, the Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, for comment about the incident. Keisling stated that blaming Alcorn's parents was unhelpful, adding that "Despite the great cultural and policy advances transgender people have made, there is still a lot of disrespect, discrimination and violence aimed at us. And being a child or a teenager of any kind today is very difficult." The Independent further quoted Allison Woolbert, executive director of the Transgender Human Rights Institute, as saying that Leelah's case was "not unique", before highlighting that research from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that LGBT youth are about twice as likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual, cisgender teenagers. Newsweek similarly placed Alcorn's suicide within its wider context of transphobic discrimination, highlighting that The Youth Suicide Prevention Program reports that over 50% of transgender youths attempt suicide before the age of 20, and that the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs recently published a report indicating that 72% of LGBT homicide victims in 2013 were transgender women.

I removed it earlier, but Skyerise disagrees and restored the content. My concern is that it drifts off topic, for example, by citing statistics and selected quotes that I think would be better in Suicide among LGBT youth. The tone strikes me as advocacy, although I'm not accusing anyone one of doing it intentionally.- MrX 20:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as engaging in advocacy: it is simply accurately reporting reactions of advocacy groups, which is relevant material. Misplaced Pages is not making a statement here: it is reporting the statements of legitimate groups and publications. Which is what an encyclopedia should do. Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I know there are at least two other editors who agree with my removal of the content, so I thought it would be a good idea to open a discussion.- MrX 20:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A statistic is not a reaction. Townlake (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure it is, when it comes from an organization and/or news publication as a part of a full response to being asked for their reaction! Skyerise (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Having surveyed the two WP:COATRACK and WP:ADVOCACY essays cited as supplements in this discussion, trying to understand, I agree that the paragraph could be more fitting in an article like Suicide among LGBT youth. It is true however that all sources cited as foundation of the text are all in direct relation to the subject matter, and could well serve as general reaction. And reading a comparable article will show that referring to statistics is not unheard of. I'd like to see it stay. Glitchygirl (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I was the individual who authored this particular paragraph, as part of my thorough expansion of this article several days ago. While I can appreciate why you might have some concerns that this drifts into areas of advocacy, I think it noteworthy that reliable media sources have made note of it in connection to Leelah Alcorn's death; as Skyerise points out, they at least certainly recognise it as relevant. After all, Alcorn's death is not an isolated incident, but part of a common trend for suicide among LGBT youth; pointing that out is not, in my opinion, advocacy. After all, it needn't be read in a pro-trans or trans activist manner, for one reader might actually think that such suicides are a good thing (although what that says about said individual as a human being I dread to think). So rather than being advocacy, I see this paragraph as offering important contextual information that is not offered elsewhere in this particular article. For that I would strongly argue that it needs to stay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the wording of the paragraph and its integration into the flow of the article could probably be improved, but I'm of the mind that a number of cited sources have taken a look at the implications of this sad case for those issues, and that it's not really ADVOCACY or a COATRACK to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made some alterations to the wording of this paragraph and that above it in the hope that this fixes some of the issues that have been raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of this aligns with the Leelah's suicide note "My death needs to mean something". It gives insight in what that meaning might be. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

While I have no doubt that such "treatment" exists, it was never suggested by Alcorn that this particular process was applied to her. All she mentioned in her suicide note was meeting with "Christian therapists", not the discussion that took place in such meetings. While some editors may have a personal opinion about the nature of these meetings, I suggest that calling the process "conversion therapy" is inappropriate unless it is verified by someone who actually took part in Alcorn's meetings. WWGB (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It would have been courteous of you to raise this concern here before making sweeping changes to the article. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So, the removal of three words constitutes "sweeping changes"? Get real! WWGB (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You added a bunch of 'fact' tags too. And your changes changed the meaning in a sweeping way; the number of words isn't the point. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, a "bunch" of two fact tags, which any editor is entitled to add to any article. Methinks someone is being a tad precious. WWGB (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a reliable secondary source that calls it conversion therapy in the context of Leelah's note. There are quite a few other sources that say the same thing. A simple Google news search can save us from unnecessary editing when verifiability is in doubt.- MrX 00:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant whether Alcorn specifically called the meetings as such. What matters is whether reliable sources refer to them as such. Silverseren 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea is to provide to readers a brief explanation of why "conversion therapy" would be objectionable to a transgender girl - that it effectively rejects and nullifies her identity. We cannot assume readers know what it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I agree with your general idea, but you're going to have to find a reliable source to cite, and avoid synthesis.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

1) In her suicide note and her reddit describes some of what happened in therapy. It lines up with conversion therapy. 2) Reliable sources have states as much.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some tension between whether or not to include Christian as part of the text about her therapy, and whether to use conversion therapy at all. Further up the talk page Chase argues that Christian is redundant next to Conversion Therapy. Here WWGB thinks Christian without Conversion Therapy is correct. I think both together are correct as each catches a nuance that is important. I also think that it's clear that she was sent to a Christian therapist who engaged in conversion therapy per Leelah's descriptions of what she experienced and what the entry for conversion therapy describes. Also, as mentioned before - reliable sources have called her experience Conversion Therapy. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur. There are forms of conversion therapy that are not Christian in orientation; for instance, a number of the nations governed by officially atheist Communist Parties during the twentieth century had programs experimenting with conversion therapy (with no success, it should be added). Stating that the therapy which Leelah underwent was Christian captures important information that should be reflected in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reaction section organized by geography

I'm thinking that organizing the reaction section by geography is wrong. Local and nation/international aren't that germane to the reactions. The reactions are:

relative to her message

relative to her death/suicide as a transgender person

relative to demographic (i.e. Transgender like Janet Mock, Andreja Pejić, and Laverne Cox, LGBT, allies, advocates like Dan Savage, etc)

relative to her parents and their reaction

Where these reactions are doesn't seem to be the key organizing point. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RPP

The article's semi-protection was recently removed and there is a need to request another one due to vandalism. Glitchygirl (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

is already there. Avono (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• Unassessed Suicide articles
• Mid-importance Suicide articles
• Suicide articles
• Unassessed LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Unassessed WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Requested moves