![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() |
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation: |
---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Notability
- 2 More sources
- 3 Requested move 1 January 2015 (1)
- 4 Requested move 1 January 2015 (2) : rename the page to Leelah Alcorn
- 5 Requested edit
- 6 Removal of Leelah's suicide note from Tumblr
- 7 Imagery and illustration
- 8 lumping and splitting: reaction
- 9 Northeast church of christ
- 10 Parents and siblings
- 11 Leelah's deleted tumblr
- 12 random road close to where she died pic
- 13 Prozac
- 14 Lead
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)
- "BLP1E comes to mind but YMMV --Guerillero | My Talk 22:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Moving the article to Death of Leelah Alcorn or Suicide of Leelah Alcorn would fix that. SilverserenC 23:21, 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. [1] Millodactyl (talk) 06:13, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Moving the article to Death of Leelah Alcorn or Suicide of Leelah Alcorn would fix that. SilverserenC 23:21, 30 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)
More sources
I'm sorry I don't have the capacity to work on this article myself, but using more legit news sources could help save this article from deletion. Here's one, it was posted on CNN today, there's an interview with Alcorn's mother: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/ohio-transgender-teen-suicide/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
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)
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/12/31/leelah-alcorn-rallies-thousands-laws-proposed-protect-trans-youth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4880:3600:88D7:1777:DF6D:FFC8 (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/leelah_alcorn_posted_disturbing_details_on_reddit_that_now_refute_mother_s_claims 2601:9:4880:3600:7598:73BF:F93C:39FE (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/2km6yt/is_this_considered_abuse/ 2601:9:4880:3600:7598:73BF:F93C:39FE (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/comments/2lt3cf/im_sure_someone_on_here_can_convince_me_not_to/ 2601:9:4880:3600:7598:73BF:F93C:39FE (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.people.com/article/leelah-alcorn-death-sparks-emotional-debate-parents-speak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 1 January 2015 (1)
- 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)
- We can go by the sources for that. We don't need to assume things, just follow the sources. Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 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)
- death means she died Govindaharihari (talk) 20:30, 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 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)
- We can go by the sources for that. We don't need to assume things, just follow the sources. Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 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)
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)
-
-
-
-
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 move 1 January 2015 (2) : rename the page to Leelah Alcorn
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. –Davey2010 Merry 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)
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 - Thank you for lending your time to help us improve Wikipedia. If you are interested in editing more often than once in a while, we welcome you to log in and participate in our WikiCommunity.- 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)
Removal of Leelah's suicide note from Tumblr
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.
- https://twitter.com/EntirelyAmelia/status/551227294086602752
- https://twitter.com/EntirelyAmelia/status/551227372809519104
- https://twitter.com/EntirelyAmelia/status/551227534030176256
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)
- 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.
-
- A secondary sources for deletion of tumblr:
- http://www.ibtimes.com/leelah-alcorn-update-mom-transgender-teen-speaks-tumblr-suicide-note-deleted-1772370 I'm not very familiar with IBT as a secondary source, fyi.
- http://jezebel.com/leelah-alcorns-funeral-moved-after-family-receives-thre-1677158164
- http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/evidence-leelah-alcorns-short-life-removed-tumblr020115
- 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895534/Heartbreaking-suicide-note-17-year-old-transgender-girl-DELETED-Tumblr-page-candlelit-vigils-held-honor.html 2601:9:4880:3600:1C6C:40B4:1E49:41D2 (talk) 22:27, 3 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 Wikipedia; 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 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. 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 Wikipedia 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 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. 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 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. 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)
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Northeast church of christ
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)
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 [more] 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 Wikipedia'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.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 16:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Included where? (newbie here) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:57, 5 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/w/index.php?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 Merry 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, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:20, 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)
- In that case it is not related to the article and should therefore stay removed. Avono (talk) 22:25, 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)
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.[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] "
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)
- 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 [2] 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/wiki/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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- She — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 03:27, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)