Talk:Leelah Alcorn/Archive 2

Possible WP:ADVOCACY concern
I am concerned about this paragraph

I removed it earlier, but 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. Wikipedia 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. Cognissonance (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. Silver  seren C 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)

WP:RPP
The article's semi-protection was recently removed and there is a need to request another one due to vandalism. Cognissonance (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is already there. Avono (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the request or the semi-protection? I don't see the emblem anymore. Cognissonance (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a request a little over an hour ago.- MrX 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your swiftness. Cognissonance (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My thanks, too! You beat me to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 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)
 * A big part of the problem would be that much of the information that we currently have in the Reaction section does not fit neatly into these four categories. For instance, Savage's statements would tick a number of those boxes, so where would we put it ? I'm certainly not innately averse to a reorganisation of the section in question, but let's be careful and ensure that if we do decide to do so, then we do it in the best possible manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting those as the categories to use so much as they are some of the categories that could be used. I would like fewer than more, but Local v. international just doesn't makes sense. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've re-divided the section into "Criticism of parents" and "Tributes, vigils, and activism", which I think improves things, although if you have any further suggestions it would be good to hear them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Been away. And now I can't edit the page. I was thinking if the Leelah's Law stays merged, then that should get it's own section - "legistlative" section maybe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 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)
 * 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)


 * ForbiddenRocky, I just saw you here, which led me to this talk page. I'm only commenting here because, above, you called yourself new. Just a quick look at your contributions, however, tells me that you are not completely new. Anyway, if you reply to this, the reply should be here; not on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty conversant about the topic. But the editing and style guide for Wikipedia are new to me. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror as sources
Hello again. When this article was being constructed by myself and others, we endeavoured to make use of a wide variety of mainstream media sources (which would count as reliable sources here at Wikipedia). Among those were two British tabloids, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror. Now, I'm under no illusion about these sources; they are not of the highest quality. But they do fall under Wikipedia's remit for reliable sources: ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." However, User:Lukeno94 disagreed with the use of these sources, and removed every trace of them in an edit on 12 January, adding the edit summary that "bin Daily Mail refs, not a RS and is a totally inappropriate source to use here. Remove the one bit of information that no-one else seems to back up. Same done with The Mirror."

In some cases, that didn't cause us too much of a problem, because we had other, better sources to back up the information. But in a small number of instances we didn't. For instance, the information that Alcorn supporters found ways of keeping the Tumblr suicide note online after Tumblr took it down was only cited to The Mirror, and thus that piece of information itself had to be culled from the article altogether. In another instance, when discussing Alcorn's suicide post we referred to the fact that "The Boston Globe described it as a "passionate post", while British tabloid, the Daily Mail, termed it "heartbreaking". However, after Luke's removals we were left simply with "The Boston Globe described it as a "passionate post"" – this despite the fact that the Mail has a readership far greater than that of the Boston Globe and on those grounds is arguably the more significant and influential of the two publications. Further, in this instance the Mail was simply offering an opinion, and could not be accused of providing factually innacurate information. I attempted to reintegrate these smaller elements into the article over the past hour, although again Luke removed them with the edit summary of "''It is absolutely not a reliable source, and that is not just my own viewpoint. Having it in ANY article is inappropriate. Pure tabloid rubbish''". After a brief (and friendly) discussion over at my talk page, I suggested that we open up a discussion here.

A further concern of mine is that there is an Anglocentric bias of sorts here. As a British-based editor, Lukeno94 has rejected those British media sources that he deems to be less reliable and more sensationalistic than others. But this article also cites media sources from other parts of the world with equally 'dodgy' reputations, like RT, Fox News, or Perez Hilton's website. Why have the British sources been culled when those of other, similar media outlets been left in ? Does this not cause us problems ? I personally think that in a few cases, we should retain these two tabloids as sources of information, because (like it or not) they do constitute reliable sources under Wikipedia's understanding of the term and offer us information not provided elsewhere. What do you guys think ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * have a look at the WP:RSN archives. Multiple people have expressed the concerns that The Daily Mail should not be used in BLPs due to their poor track record. I lack knowledge about The Mirror and can therefore not comment about that paper. Avono (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mirror is, broadly speaking, on a par with the Daily Mail in terms of the quality of reporting; albeit it has a centre-left orientation in contrast to the Daily Mail's conservative axis, and is aimed at a working-class rather than lower middle-class, Middle England readership. However, the statement made by The Mirror in this issue is not controversial and is not about named, specific living people. Further, the Daily Mail comment is a descriptive term about the suicide letter. Neither of these instances really intersect with BLP issues or would cause a problem of that nature here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I culled the British sources simply because I'm familiar with them; I happened to spot a Mail ref, and went immediately into full-on nuke mode. In almost every single case, the information was already referenced in the article anyway, or was easily found in reliable sources. I would strongly agree that Perez Hilton and Fox News are not reliable (even as a UK editor); I simply didn't look for those at the time as my immediate response when seeing Mail refs is to look for other Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and The Sun references. I'm not familiar with RT at all. The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror do not fall under the reliable source guidelines as they are tabloid sources, and as Avono has pointed out, the Daily Mail has been frequently discredited at RSN. The Daily Mirror is nowhere near as bad, but it's still not really appropriate. One of the guidelines here is that "if you can't reliably source it, it shouldn't be there" - and that's why I pulled those two bits of information. Also, I reject the argument Midnightblueowl initially made about the readership levels meaning that we should include the sources; lots of people read TMZ, but that is something we would never, ever consider to be a reliable source for anything bar perhaps themselves. I'd be more than happy to go and replace every single unreliable source wherever I can (I'm not the sort of editor who just deletes things wholesale when they're unreliably sourced; if they wouldn't be otherwise referenced by things in the article, I go and look up better refs, and my edit shows that). I will object vociferously to the Daily Mail every single time it comes up, as it is basically as bad as the aforementioned TMZ; the Mirror I would be a bit more likely to concede on, but would still object to being used. We don't need an opinion from every single location, so there's no need to keep the gutter press in here. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a very fair point regarding the issues of non-British media sources there. However, while I concur that this article (and any article) should not rely heavily on tabloids like the Daily Mail, I still would argue that the two instances that I have highlighted deserve 'special treatement' (i.e. exemption from a flat-out ban) for the reasons outlined. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply don't see why that should be the case. There are enough decent sources around from the UK that we don't need the gutter press; opinion piece from The Guardian being perhaps the most obvious opinion piece from an RS (there's another Guardian one as well) that we could use to replace what the Daily Mail wrote about her. Otherwise, there's literally no reason to add superfluous extra refs with unreliable sourcing, as was going on in 90% of the cases. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not defending the 90% which has been more appropriately referenced. Here, I'm only defending two specific references: one to the Daily Mirror, the other to the Daily Mail. Just the two. Otherwise, I share your concerns about said tabloids as quality sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a bit more clear now. Well, as I said above, we can junk the Daily Mail commentary for the one in the Guardian there. And as a rule of thumb, if you can't reliably source something (whether it is controversial or not isn't relevant), then it shouldn't be in the article at all (with regards to the one thing sourced solely to the Mirror). If The Mirror (as a UK paper) is the only place that reported that... it makes it seem somewhat dubious. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian opinion piece doesn't contain any useful quotations regarding the suicide note in the way that the Daily Mail article does, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO, there are no really reliable sources for "celebrity gossip" (where "celebrity" is not restricted to just movie stars but anyone who is "in the news"). Therefore we must be careful and conservative in making any claims based on such articles or columns, erring on the side of omitting such claims rather than inadvertently promoting them. The sources presented are fine for most claims about living persons except where the claims are contentious, where we ought to be extremely cautious. Collect (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * would a rephrasing to something like "Alcorn's parents have been criticized for their involvement in her suicide" be less contentious? Avono (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope -- it states in Wikipedia's voice that they were "involved" in the suicide. As such it is a "contentious claim" no matter how infallible Savage is.   WP:BLP applies to contentious claims about the parents here -- and if (say) a person said "Avono was involved in her daughter's suicide" and used Dan Savage as the source for that "fact" - would you be thrilled?  I doubt it.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No I wouldn't be, so how are we supposed to approach it then? As it would be denialism to not state that they were criticised for their involvement in her death as this was what made the entire case notable. Avono (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By doing what I have iterated - if we cite opinions, they must be presented as opinions. Opinions alleging crimes are problematic - and should generally not be used at all.    We might have
 * Dan Savage opined that the parents shared some blame for the suicide.
 * But anything more or suggesting they "pushed" or "caused" or were "involved in" the suicide is pretty clearly a BLP violation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for that as a maximum. Savage's opinion must be clearly stated as such. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead image
Are there other photos that could be used? The selfie / cameraphone shot seems rather unencyclopedic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Un-encyclopedic ? How so ? Surely that is a highly subjective interpretation, no ? I do appreciate that a selfie might not seem "official" or "professional", but I do not think that that makes it inevitably un-encyclopedic. Given that it is one of very few images that depict Leelah Alcorn in female clothing (and thus reflects her gender identity) I would actually argue that it is one of the most appropriate images available; most, or all, of the others that are circulating on media sources depict her in "masculine" attire and thus would perhaps be less appropriate given the circumstances. This is an image that shows Leelah Alcorn in a manner that she would have wanted to be seen; it shows Leelah as Leelah, not Leelah as Joshua. Additionally, by showing her dressed in feminine clothing, the image better illustrates the fact that she was a transwoman to the readership, who might not otherwise fully understand what a "transgender girl" is; this pictorial depiction of her should help them in that. Its a visual aid in that respect, and that's what lede images used on Wikipedia should be. I'd vote for keeping it as the infobox image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's also the most circulated image of Alcorn on the Internet. Cognissonance (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That image comes from her own tumblr in proximity to her suicide note and apology note. It speaks to her transgenderness and her self-identity. That seems about as encyclopedic as it can get. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see what your expectation for an "encyclopaedic" image could be, to be honest... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My expectation is not for an encyclopedia article to feature a mirror-shot selfie as its main image – unless it is about selfies / internet culture / cell phones, etc. – when there are other images available. The claim that it is the most circulated image of Alcorn online? I would like to see proof for this – I'm not super familiar with how the Google Image system works, but I do know that a search for "leelah alcorn" does not return the current infobox image as the first result. As for depicting Alcorn in feminine clothing, I think that claim is shaky at best – gender is an inner quality that would remain the same had she never taken a picture of herself in a dress. (Refer also to Chelsea Manning.) What is wrong with the image featured in this CNN article? Alcorn also (presumably) authored this image, which would suggest that she did not take issue with it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the first criterion is being able to use the image. There are no free images available AFAIK, and the current one is used as "fair use". In any case, the fair use rationale is dependent on being a "unique historic image", which would seem to depend on it being "the most circulated image of Alcorn online". I also note the image is being discussed at Non-free content review. StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "unique historic image" depends on "the most circulated image of Alcorn online". Explain the rationale? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * there is nothing about that selfie that warrants non free usage under a claim of unique historic about the picture imho, is it the fact she is wearing a dress? Removal of that picture will give a chance for someone to upload a free commons compatible picture of her. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is the selfie not uniquely historic? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is recent, not historic in any way Govindaharihari (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Removal of that picture will give a chance for someone to upload a free commons compatible picture of her." - you do realize that there is nothing stopping someone from doing this right now, right? However, no such image appears to exist. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Lukeno94 - the incentive to upload a free to use licensed picture is totally removed by the premature inclusion of the non free picture. The claim that no such picture exists is guesswork. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no it isn't. If someone has a free image and has any interest in uploading it, they'd do so, particularly if they perceive it to be a superior image. And please show me a single crumb of evidence of a free picture that is known about? I haven't said that one doesn't exist, as you can't prove a negative like that; I said it does not appear to exist. It is your opinion that this image stops people from uploading another... and it's not a very credible one. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lukeno94 and ForbiddenRocky. The image is fine until someone can replace it with a better one. It has sufficient encyclopedic value to be considered fair use under U.S. copyright law.- MrX 16:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is recent, not historic in any way"; this is an intensely problematic statement to make. History encompasses everything that happened in the past. 30 seconds ago is history. 1 millisecond ago is history. Simply because Alcorn died a month ago, as opposed to 100 years ago, does not deny the historical nature of the image. It is recent, yes, but it is history too; hence the term "recent history". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Govindaharihari's use of historic is a misuse of the word - historic doesn't just mean old, it is also meant to be used as in "documenting the past". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disputed information regarding Alcorn's funeral
Yesterday I came across an article by British newspaper, the Daily Mail, that added fresh information on the situation surrounding this particular incident. On the basis of this, I proceeded to add the following prose to the article:


 * Alcorn's best friend, Abby Pieper-Jones, had not been invited to the funeral, but instead received a phone call from Alcorn's mother, Cara Alcorn, to criticise her for allegedly making images of Alcorn in female clothing public, something which she denied doing. Pieper-Jones' father expressed the view that Cara "had no right to call and harass my daughter".

Several hours later, User:WWGB removed the entirety of this information (see here), accompanying it with the edit summary that "it's the family's business who they invite to the funeral, this is just trivia published by the tabloid rag Daily Mail. It's also pathetic that some editors can't resist a cheap shot against the family". Not only was their accusation aimed at me in clear violation of Wikipedia policy (see Civility and Wikimedia:Don't be a jerk), but I also disagree with their decision to simply remove correctly referenced information on such spurious grounds. Had they done a quick search then they would have found that sources other than the Daily Mail also reported this information (see for instance New Now Next, Gay Star News). From their edit summary, I might draw the conclusion that they appear to sympathise with Cara and Doug Alcorn and are potentially trying to shield the couple from what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as excessive or unfair public criticism. Rather than engaging in an edit war, I hoped to bring this situation to the attention of other editors with an interest in this page (User:Cognissonance? User:StAnselm? User:ForbiddenRocky? User:AlexTiefling? User:MrX?) in the hope that the situation can be discussed in a civil manner. I for one would like to see this information reinstated within this article, as I believe that it adds a further, somewhat significant dimension to the incident and its aftermath; it is clearly one that is testified to in reliable sources. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose as not only is it undue weight but it also comes from the Daily Mail, If it is covered by reputable source I might be persuaded otherwise.User:WWGB is right in his assessment. Be reminded that BLP applies here Avono (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The material seems of little value and importance to me as well, despite the fact that it's true and able to be sourced. Cognissonance (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What if we were use alternate wording, such as "Alcorn's best friend publicly expressed her upset at not being invited to the funeral". ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A case could be made for its inclusion, but the only way I see that happening is rewriting the sentence to correspond with what's already there, which would include the mother: Alcorn's best friend was prohibited from taking part in the funeral and had publicly expressed her upset at Carla Alcorn, who reportedly held the friend responsible for "everything that got posted online". Something like that. Cognissonance (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with the inclusion of this wording, properly cited to the three aforementioned media sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * have the other two sources deemed to be reliable? Until then I would prefer Midnightblueowl version. We have to be extra careful about making statements about living persons that are contentious. Avono (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They pass the WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is okay with using magazines as sources. Cognissonance (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they certainly do not pass NPOV - they explicitly adopt a pro-gay stance. The claim "who held Jones responsible for the public release of images of Leelah following her death" needs the very best quality sources, and PinkNews is simply not good enough for BLP issues. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This does go to the transphobia that Leelah writes about; I think it's very relevant. I think GayStarNews and NewNowNext were citations of Daily Mail, but WaPo has an article now about it here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops was looking at two articles at once WaPo and Daily Mail. WaPo related, but does not cover funeral. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The story has now also been covered by Pink News here. I now believe that there are sufficient sources other than the Daily Mail to allow us to include the information in the article without controversy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, PinkNews isn't a reliable source - see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay - sorry for getting into a minor edit war there, User:StAnselm, I thought that your removal of the information was unintentional because the edit summary talked about something else, then realised it wasn't. I will not re-add the information to the page without further discussion. Apologies, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To make it perfectly clear, PinkNews was ruled as a non-reliable source for a particular edit, which was about rumours surrounding a politician's sexuality. That does not make it a non-reliable source across the board. Its reliability can be judged on a case by case basis. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I read PinkNews quite regularly, but given that they tend to rebroadcast versus do their own reporting, it's usually better to find the original source if possible. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - moot by now, but no, this is extremely inappropriate and was sourced to the Daily Mail as a "WORLD EXCLUSIVE" - which is their code for "we made this crap up". Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess most editors are against me on this one, and don't view any of the mentioned sources as reliable enough for use. Which is a shame, in my opinion, because it means that this article itself will lose out on containing noteworthy information. But I shall respect the decision for now; perhaps fresh sources will allow the debate to be re-ignited at some point in future. Thanks for your feedback. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Include a sentence or two if a better source can be found. Because the material affects living people, it must have a solid source. I don't see that the Washington Post mentions the funeral.- MrX 12:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that might be useful: - MrX 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Independent.co.uk cites Daily Mail as their source ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * was allegedly prevented  is a bit of a red flag - The Independent does not make any claim of fact that anyone was estopped from attending a funeral or "prevented", but only of an allegation about a living person. Collect (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another source. Cognissonance (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NCRM cites Daily Mail ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide"
I recently went to the effort of expanding the lede section in accordance with Wikipedia policy on the issue to ensure that it properly covers the scope of the information in this article. As part of this, I included the brief statement that "Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide" within the third paragraph of the lede. There is referenced information in the rest of the article attesting to this fact; for instance, we refer to Dan Savage making this very accusation. However, User:WWGB has repeatedly undone this addition, accompanying it with edit summaries such as "grossly untrue" (which, quite frankly, it isn't). I have had previous disagreements with this editor before (see above section), where they have accused me of trying to smear Cara and Doug Alcorn (which I emphatically deny); in turn, I have expressed concern that they have been attempting to prevent the inclusion of negative information about the Alcorn parents, thus pushing their own POV. Rather than ending up in another instance of edit war, we should try to establish some sort of consensus here as to whether such a statement should be included in the lede or not. So, other opinions would really be welcome here. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pushing her to suicide" is a description that can only be made by a psychologist or other health professional. If that phrase is used by an independent reliable source, then I will desist. Otherwise it is just an inflammatory phrase intended to denigrate the parents. A faction of editors seem intent on running down Alcorn's parents by any means. One editor even added the category Child Abuse Leading to Death. It remains unproven that Alcorn's parents would do anything to harm her. It really is time that this snide character assassination comes to an end. WWGB (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you that it would be wrong to outright refer to the Alcorn's parenting as child abuse. The issue at hand is not whether or not they were guilty of child abuse or pushing Leelah Alcorn to suicide. We are not a court of law. It's not up to us to decide. I'm sure that both of us can agree on that. But it is demonstrable fact that the Alcorn parents have – rightly or wrongly – been publicly accused of pushing her to suicide. We have referenced information from reliable sources attesting to that. And yet you continue to remove such information (through a disruptive process of edit warring) because you think that its inclusion is nothing but "snide character assassination". It's really not, and to be honest it is somewhat annoying and upsetting that you have thrown aggressive comments toward your fellow editors (calling me "pathetic", for instance) and made accusations that there are a whole "faction" of us intent on denigrating the parents, when I have seen no compelling evidence of the sort. Assume good faith. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I say again, point me to a reliable independent expert who confirms Alcorn was "pushed to suicide" and I will desist. WWGB (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong? Conversion Therapy is considered abuse by both APAs and at least one state.  Look it up, it's on their websites. It's even cited on wikipedia elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#cite_note-Psych-7 174.62.68.53 (talk)


 * Once again, there is a difference between saying "Alcorn's parents pushed her to suicide" (which is factually dubious/debateable and would require highly reliable independent expertise) and saying "Alcorn's parents were publically accused of pushing her to suicide" (which is unequivocal fact). These are two fundamentally different things; myself and MrX are arguing for the latter, so stop misrepresenting our argument by making it look like we are asking for the former. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is quite adequately sourced. It is factually true that her parents were accused of pushing her toward suicide, not that they actual did. The fact that the accusers were stating opinions does not diminish that fact that the accusations were made, publicly.- MrX 13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. It's an objective fact. Cognissonance (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So we currently have three editors calling for its inclusion in the lede, in contrast for one arguing for its removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I expect that WP:BRD was intended to last longer than 59 minutes. So people need to sleep you know! WWGB (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that BRD is over. I am simply keeping a tally. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps also noteworthy to highlight that as a result of their persistent edit warring over this issue, (see here) WWGB has been now been taken to the administrators' noticeboard (Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) although a judgement has yet to be decided as to whether they will face disciplinary action or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is definitely noteworthy that the closing admin found that there was "no violation", also noting that "there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted" . WWGB (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support including I'm neutral on this article, having never contributed to it or any related article or subject. Having read it through, the lede clearly should include the accusation levelled at her parents. It is a material part of the article and substantiated by reliable sources. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, we now have four editors in favour of including the statement in the lede, including from one editor neutral to the article; contrastingly, there is only one against. This being the case, I am re-integrating the sentence back into the lede. That should not be taken as a statement that the debate here must end or that this shall be the final solution, but reflects that at present there is a broad consensus on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have gone with "Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of culpability for their child's death and faced online harassment." Not only does this accurately reflect the information as it is contained in the article but I also hope that it might allay some of WWGB's fears that my edits, and those of others, are part of a concerted effort bent on demonizing Cara and Doug Alcorn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes Properly sourced. (Also, "accused" is necessary.)ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Opinions must be cited as opinion and the accusation is clearly "opinion." To be used, the accuser with that opinion must be specified, and not weasel-worded as "publicly accused".  Also, accusing anyone of "pushing a person to suicide" is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP which may not be overridden by any local consensus, and had better be well-sourced -- Dan Savage is quite likely insufficient to make such a criminal charge or allegation,   we should have some authoritative source for such a claim.   Find one.   Collect (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. As one can see in WP:NEWSORG, attribution of opinions applies to opinion sources, not factual news reports about an opinion of someone else, in this case Dan Savage, a recognized authority on the issues of LGBT youth suicide (see It Gets Better Project). Accusing anyone of "pushing a person to suicide" is a "contentious claim, but that has nothing to do with the content in discussion since no one here, or in our sources, made such an accusation. The accusation was made by a notable person commenting directly about Alcorn's suicide, and those comments were reported by several reliable sources.- MrX 00:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What an intriguing claim! Nope -- we can not ever use opinions as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice.  Where a news source specifically attributes opinions to specific persons, that attribution is the "fact" and the opinion remains opinion.    Is this quite clear?   "George Gnarph called Wilbur Wharf a 'raving lunatic'" is an opinion - we can not use it to say "William Wharf is a raving lunatic" or make any such implication that "William Wharf is widely viewed as a 'raving lunatic'". Collect (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Straw man?- MrX 12:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly misstated policy - I stated the policy. Snarky replies seem rather uncalled for from you.    Where a source states something as opinion and specifically cites the person holding that opinion, then we follow suit.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing snarky in my reply. You have taken my argument, created a new pseudo-analogous argument, and then argued against your own manufactured argument. That's a logical fallacy. I did not misstate policy. A report, by a reliable source, that someone (Dan Savage) stated something (blamed Alcorn's parents), is a report of a fact. That Dan Savage blamed/accused the parents is an irrefutable fact, plainly obvious from his tweets, and the secondary sources that discussed his tweets.- MrX 13:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Where the source specifically ascribes it as Savage's opinion, then so must we. You seem to think that because Savage says something that therefore it is a fact to be reported in Wikipedia's voice.  It isn't.  And accusations of criminal acts are, in general, considered "contentious claims about living persons."  Savage saying his opinion is that the parents acted criminally can not be used  to in any way imply that the parents acted criminally.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just use quotes of Savage's tweets? "If Tyler Clemente's roommate could be prosecuted—and he was—then the parents of #LeelahAlcorn can & should be" "#LeelahAlcorn's parents threw her in front of that truck. They should be ashamed—but 1st they need to be shamed. Charges should be brought." ""ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have removed the statement. It had a citation tag, but that must not be used for BLP claims - the statement must be removed immediately. The word "culpability" does not occur elsewhere in the article. This is a specific claim that must be sourced. It also should have a secondary source - that is, a reference reporting the accusation of culpability. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Game jam in memory of Leelah
So I came across a story about a possible charity game jam in memory of Leelah. Does anyone think that it should be included into the article? GamerPro64 20:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not unless it is cited in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by cited in reliable sources? Polygon is considered to be a reliable source. GamerPro64  03:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If Polygon is indeed a reliable source, then I am happy to see a brief mention of this game jam included in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted it at the bottom of the "Tributes, vigils, and activism" section. GamerPro64  22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Exclude at this stage. The fact that it is only "possible" means that it isn't necessarily noteworthy enough to include. The Polygon notice was raising awareness and/or promoting the event. Perhaps we could wait until after it has finished and reliable sources report on how successful it was. StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This "possible" quibble doesn't make sense. The jam is happening. If that's the only basis for removing the passage, I'm going to revert the removal. Polygon is a reliable source. And in this case, the fact that it is happening doesn't need that much sourcing does it? Since there's no opinion or original research here, just a fact that it's happening, the primary source itself should be enough? (http://itch.io/jam/jamforleelah) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But we don't know the extent to which it is happening. We don't know how much it is taking off. We don't include everything that is reported, only the things that are significant. The wording of the Polygon article doesn't indicate any particular significance to the event. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Include -The game jam has direct relevance to the awareness of transgender issues resulting from Alcorn's death. Here are some additional sources: .- MrX 12:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, like the Polygon article, the Daily Dot article is raising awareness and/or promoting the event: "The game jam will run for one month from Jan. 17 to Feb. 17. Participants can submit their game through the website once it officially opens." It doesn't indicate that the event is as yet significant: "They hope the jam will create more diversity in both the developer community and that community's output." StAnselm (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Exclude unless and until it gets major mention in major media as an actual event Wikipedia is not a crystal ball,  especially not one to assign high visibility to something which does not have major media coverage and might not ever become newsworthy, much less encyclopedia-worthy. Collect (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Include: Albeit make it clear that the game jam is planned to take place, rather than that it has taken place already. We don't have to see that it is of the utmost significance to recognise that it has pertinence to this article and thus warrants inclusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jam has started. also mentioned here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And mentioned in what secondary reliable source not directly related to this article topic? NYT?  Any other such source? Collect (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted earlier Polygon is considered reliable. Also, since this is neither original research nor an opinion, and just a bare fact that something is happening, the primary source alone should be enough per Identifying_reliable_sources]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again -- what secondary reliable source?  The source given is one of the groups promoting the "jam" thus is not "secondary" (that is - not an outside source reporting on news, but a blog which is active in organizing the jam).  All you need is actual outside secondary sources indicating that the "jam" is notable.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015
I think this page is highly one sided and full of opinions. including the false "opinion" that someone with a y chromosome is a "she"

174.107.237.192 (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 01:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for offering your opinion on this article, although it has not been acted upon. To quote from WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Thus, if mainstream media and other reliable published sources are "one sided" on this issue, then this article will reflect that. Similarly, if the opinions of extremist and fringe groups are not reported on by these reliable sources, then they won't get covered in Wikipedia. The opinion that you express, that transwomen are not women and should not be treated as such, is one that – while vociferously promulgated by certain religious conservatives and some cisgdender feminists – is clearly on the decline, as health professionals and psychologists generally disown it, and Western society as a whole comes to better understand and acknowledge the existence of transgender people. The reliable published sources that discuss the Leelah Alcorn incident aren't mentioning these anti-trans views (presumably because it doesn't think them notable), and for that reason this Wikipedia article isn't mentioning them either. Should the situation change, and reliable sources report on these fringe perspectives, then this article will have to be amended to reflect that. I hope that that explains the situation for you, and helps you to understand why (from your perspective) this article might come across as promulgating a particular biased slant. We're not trying to be biased, we are just following Wikipedia's strict policy of reflecting the perspective of "reliable, published sources", which of course have their own inherent biases to start with. In this way, Wikipedia broadly reflects the perspective and prejudices of mainstream Western society, leaving those with fringe, minority opinions (whether they be religious, political, or anything else) sometimes feeling a little left out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

'faced online harassment'
Is this noteworthy? 'faced online harassment'? The citations near it don't bear this out, although I wouldn't doubt it. But really? It seems rarely non-noteworthy that someone who committed abuse - or employed controversial care - would face disagreement in public. Every public figure faces online harassment given this description. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording that you refer to appears in the lede, and as per Wikipedia policy on this issue, most of the statements that appear in the lede aren't actually directly referenced there-and-then (the exceptions are as a result of contentious claims which have caused fierce debates here at the talk page). Instead, the lede offers a summary of the more in-depth information elsewhere in the article, which is indeed properly referenced to what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources". Therefore, while the citations pointing to the fact that the Alcorns faced online harassment is not are not in the lede, they are actually contained elsewhere in the article, should you wish to give it a more thorough read through. Hope that helps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015
A fake support group for Leelah Alcorn and her parents has been established on Facebook: Support for Joshua Ryan Alcorn's Family. Their goal is to incite anger amongst the transgender community and inflict hatred under the guise of supporting the Alcorn family.

Bizzacks (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avono (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avono. Absent coverage from outside sources, there's no reason to publicize this Facebook page by mentioning it in the article. Townlake (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To the Admins: By "reliable source", do you mean the Facebook page link?  If so, here it is:  https://www.facebook.com/pray4theAlcorns I would ask that you view it yourselves and reconsider.  Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzacks (talk • contribs)
 * Did you actually go read our reliable sources policy? "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." --Neil N  talk to me 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the group existed in a reliable source it's inclusion would be undue. Avono (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mention of the Facebook group might not be WP:UNDUE under certain circumstances (i.e. were the group to gain a particularly substantial number of members or were it to attract particularly strong press attention, thus testifying to its notability), but I am jumping the gun here. With no mention of it in reliable sources, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 152 likes, zero press coverage. I think that would be a "no".  freshacconci  talk to me  16:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge Leelah's Law

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My WP:BOLD merger was reverted. The subpage Leelah's Law has no unique content. All material on that page already exists on the main article, so I believe it should be redirected here. Any other material that could be added to it would be much more relevant on this main article. Reywas92 Talk 05:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge. This brief article offers nothing that cannot be covered in the Death of Leelah Alcorn article. A content fork is unnecessary and undesirable. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge, at least for now. It's WP:TOOSOON for the law to have its own article, although it may justify one in the future. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. I was initially thinking it was too soon to merge, since there was a an article in thefederalist.com a few days ago (Leelah’s Law Is Bad Law And Bad Medicine). But the interest in this is fast dying down - the number of signatories has only increased 4% in the last four days. Many petitions have gone much more viral than this one. At this stage there is nothing to suggest there will be any independent long-term significance to the petition. However, it would be a very different matter if and when such a law is enacted. StAnselm (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per Lukeno94. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per St. Anselm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative Merge per StAlsem. If this law actually picks up steam and is enacted, then we can talk about making its own article. - erisrenee (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The subject is a legitimate WP:SPINOFF of the main article, and there are plenty of sources to more than meet WP:GNG. The subject is not a POV fork, nor does it violate WP:NOT. Leelah's Law is still a subject that is drawing interest from the media. At the current price of disk storage compared with WMF's available budget, I see no reason not to have a separate article.- MrX 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge – perhaps one day the "Leelah's Law" article will have enough reliable sources to stand as a seperate article (possibly as more reliable news sources comment on it), but as of now I think a merge is appropriate. – Jordan Hooper (talk to me here, or view my contributions here!) 17:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:TOOSOON.This also suffers WP:RECENTISM as we cannot asses the future impact the petition will have, if it becomes too large after the merge it can be again procedurally be split up. Avono (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The law is it's own thing. The poor quality of that article is not a reason to merge with Leelah's article; make that article better. The issues covered in Leelah's Law existed prior to Leelah's death. The law will affect more people than those immediately related to Leelah. Yes, Leelah's death sparked this particular version of the law, but other laws like it have been out there. It is possible that the Leelah's Law aritcle should be expanded to cover all conversion therapy laws. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, at this point in time, there is no law. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But there are laws banning conversion therapy. This is a proposed law - the proposal mechanism being relatively novel. In any case Leelah's Law belongs by itself despite being eponymous or in an article about laws banning conversion therapy. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when were laws being proposed by petitions particularly novel? These petitions happen all of the time. Sure, it's a notable petition... but it's not independently notable of this case right now. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Novelty (or not) doesn't matter as to whether or the proposed law is it's own topic. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * amended position: Oppose Leelah's Law merge with Death of Leelah Alcorn. merge Leelah's Law with conversion therapy ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, separate from this subject, a legitimate WP:SPINOFF of a subject different than the subject of this article. Skyerise (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Unless substantially more information about the law not relevant to her death can be added, there is no reason to have a separate article. We don't have every single law named after a person as its own article do we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.78.177 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)  — 173.3.78.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. \

7 Merge, 3 Oppose. Any further discussion? (I still think the merge should be to conversion therapy.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussions are not votes. Collect (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I just wanted to get this discussion finished. It looks stalled. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And in no why should Leelah's Law be merged with conversion therapy. Totally undue weight. Avono (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While Leelah's Law is eponymous, the topic of that law is more about what's happening in the legal arena of conversion therapy than it is about Leelah beyond the fact that she's the spark for it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL nuff said.Avono (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's moving the goal post. The petition and laws like it are noteworthy. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a vote, but I count 9 merges to main (where all information already exists), 1 merge to other article (I'd support a brief mention there), and 2 opposes. I'll give it a few more days. All information is redundant to the main article and no content would be removed. Reywas92 Talk 05:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you are an involved editor, so I understand why your merger was reverted. On the other hand, it was reverted with an edit summary mentioning 30 days, but no such requirement exists. I think the discussion has finished and the thread can be closed. StAnselm (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

White House and Leelah's Law
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/04/08/white-house-we-share-your-concern-about-conversion-therapy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I just saw something similar here. If this gets legs then I think we can restore Leelah's Law.- MrX 02:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NYT source ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * MSNBC ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.advocate.com/ex-gay-therapy/2015/04/10/watch-us-surgeon-general-opposes-conversion-therapy ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Leelah Alcorn and Games
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/lgbt/22-new-trans-positive-video-games-honor-leelah-alcorn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Allegations against Leelah's Parents
Wouldn't it be more accurate to report the information concerning Leelah's treatment by her parents as alleged, since her parents refuted a great deal of the information and there is no way to corroborate Leelah's story? I would also point out that writing a suicide note is an emotional moment and its entirely possible some information was reported from Leelah in a biased fashion. Is it really good fact-finding policy to use a suicide note as absolute fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:AD00:3B2C:C140:A235:FF66:7A24 (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This article already uses terminology such as "According to her suicide note", "According to her note", and "She stated that", so I am of the opinion that – generally speaking – this article already makes it fairly clear that when discussing Alcorn's life the information relies upon the note and is not necessarily corroborated by other sources. However, if are there instances where you feel that we should perhaps emphasise this further, please let us know and we can discuss it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of a non-free image in the infobox
Because my question concerns two articles (this one and Caitlyn Jenner) as well as WP:NFCC, I have centralized it at WT:NFCC; please comment there. -sche (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of words "misgender", "misgendered"
"Misgender" is not a neologism. It's in the Oxford. Please don't move, change, again. Skyerise (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't use the term "misgendered", so that characterization may not be appropriate. When talking about the concept using the term is okay, but to use it as a verb in writing should be avoided per MOS:NEO, especially when the sources don't use the term. A neologism "is the name for a newly coined term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language." It isn't in a lot of dictionaries (at least that I've been able to look at), and it fits the definition of a neologism. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's in the Oxford. It is not a neologism. I'm a bloody linguist, and you need to chill. Skyerise (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not is a neologism aside, the source(s) don't use the term, so it is original research. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, sources are paraphrased and summarized all the time. You're only picking on the word because it's in articles on transgender subjects – and essential to them at that. Skyerise (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Making speculative statements like "You're only picking on the word because it's in articles on transgender subjects – and essential to them at that." adds nothing to the discussion, and isn't good conduct. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The passage in the source "Alcorn’s mother came under fire after writing a Facebook post about her daughter’s death in which she referred to Alcorn by her birth name, Joshua Ryan, instead of Leelah, and used male pronouns." is reasonable summarized as "misgendered". There's no original research.- MrX 23:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think a tag at least, would be due. To be clear, I have no issue with referring to the concept using the word, I just don't think it should be used as a verb per MOS:NEO. Sort of along the lines of the Use–mention distinction. This  article and Janet Mock are the only two that use the word in this way as a verb. — Godsy  (TALK CONT ) 02:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Are readers not going to immediately understand what it means? The prominent link to Transphobia should clear up any confusion. Is there a better word that conveys the same meaning?- MrX 03:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think misrepresented (perhaps with the same link) would convey the same meaning and would be a better choice of wording. It is a much more common and easily understandable. "Misgender" was just added by Oxford in 2014, and isn't present in a lot of other dictionaries. I'm not sure about its first known use. Our encyclopedia says in Transphobia that it was "coined by transgender American writer and biologist Julia Serano" (added a citation needed tag), I assume in this century. It's a neologism (neologism guideline- MOS:NEO). Misrepresent on the other hand dates back to 1647 . — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, "misgendered" is a lot more obvious in meaning than "misrepresented", which I think is confusing. If misgender is a dictionary word then we have no good reason to avoid using it where it's the most accurate word to be used. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mis-(meaning wrongly, badly, or unsuitably)gender(the state of being male or female). Sex and gender have traditionally been used interchangeably, though more modernly (see Sex and gender distinction) that isn't necessarily the case. I personally view "misgendering" to be a more confusing word, more likely for the read to have to look up (perhaps too much so per WP:TECHNICAL), and even possibly an opinionated term. Misrepresented meaning "give a false or misleading account of the nature of" is accurate, neutral, and more common.
 * Dictionaries present challenges (WP:DICTIONARIES). By adding good reliable sources that use the term to describe this instance (the Death of Leelah Alcorn) using the term "misgender", I would be inclined to withdraw my opposition to the use of the term. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Misrepresented is maybe more common, but it certainly is not more neutral, at least according the definition in your post above. The word carries a subtle implication of intentional wrongdoing. On the other hand, misgendendered simply means improperly assigned to a gender. As Jeraphine Gryphon mentions, the meaning of "misgendered" is obvious, certainly to anyone with a basic understanding of the English prefix mis-.- MrX 02:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I echo the opinion that "misgendering" is probably more easily understandable in this context than "misrepresenting" and thus would put my support behind the use of the former term in this article. Nevertheless I think that Godsy raises the valid point that we should ideally have reliable sources that specifically use the term "misgendering" within this context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

He's a guy, cut the bull
This article needs to refer to JOSHUA alcorn, as a MALE, he never underwent gender reassignment surgery, he was born male, and died male. I support the LGBT Community and i support gays, transgenders, and lesbians, but i do not support false information on Wikipedia. His name was never legally changed, no hormone therapy, no gender reassignment surgery, as far as i can be concerned, he was simply a homosexual crossdresser, not a transgender female. This is sad that this Wikipedia article has not been either fixed or removed for inaccuracy.

--Luis Santos24 (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This article adheres to Wikipedia's style guideline on gender identity, which was developed following extensive discussion on these issues and reflects the consensus among Wikipedians. The guideline prioritises self-identification over things like legal name-changes, hormone therapy and genital surgery. If you believe the guideline needs to be changed you should begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk: Manual of style. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Luis Santos24, read the transgender article and you won't be confused. A person need not have had reassignment surgery to be transgender. Leelah Alcorn identified as female, so we refer to her as she. I somehow doubt you "support" gays, transgenders, and lesbians with that mindset.  freshacconci  talk to me  00:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Freshacconci, who are you? you do not know me. 4 of my best friends are either gay or lesbian. That type of argument may work on Tumblr but it won't work on here. I AM supportive of LGBT Rights and i AM supportive of Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and Asexuals. I'm not some fundamentalist christian who bashes gays for who they are. I'm agnostic. I do not judge, i do not hate. I do SUPPORT them, however, i can say i am black but am i black? Of course not i'm Puerto Rican. I can say i'm a veteran of the American Civil War but am i? Clearly i am not because i wasn't around in 1861. Saying you are female doesn't make you female. And i do not have a mindset you say i have, i am simply curious on why we are calling a male a female, when no processes were made in order to make him a female.

Cheers mate, --Luis Santos24 (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What kind of therapy?
The lede paragraphs say that Leelah was subjected to conversion therapy, which of course is the common thread of all writing about Leelah's story. But in the paragraphs about Leelah's life, where citations are employed here in Wikipedia, there isn't any mention of conversion therapy. The news articles seem to describe the therapy as "Christian". Could somebody please confirm that Leelah's therapy was in fact conversion therapy? (If I had the access, I would put "Citation Needed" next to the words "Conversion therapy" in the lede paragraphs.) Thanks, 146.23.3.250 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy ban law dedicated to Leelah
On June 3rd 2015, the province of Ontario banned the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth. The bill, introduced by NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo, was dedicated to Leelah Alcorn.

ODOT dedicates stretch of I-71 to memory of Leelah Alcorn
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/warren-county/odot-dedicates-stretch-of-i-71-to-memory-of-leelah-alcorn ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016
I request that politically correct gender usage, that has no basis in hard science, be removed and claims of gender that are contrary to actual chromosomal gender, and birth gender. This person did not legally have a name change. This person was not named, leelah, but Joshua. This person was born and died male. this person did, indeed attempt to present himself as female in Gender, but was not.

the purpose of any encyclopedia is to provide verified information, not to promote a worldview, or a social fiction based upon feelings and political correctness. As such any inclusion of claims of fact that this person was, indeed, female are opposite to the goals and ends of any informational communication.

Buzzbbird (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ - You will have to build consensus for that change. By convention, we identify individuals by their chosen gender. See MOS:ID. - MrX 13:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Buzzbbird. There is no factual basis for referring to a chromosomal male as a female or vice versa. To do so violates the very premise of neutral information and promotes a controversial political agenda that has no place being presented as fact in an encyclopedia. If this is your convention, then your convention needs to change if you want to be considered a legitimate source of knowledge. I'm disappointed in Wikipedia for not seeing the obvious. Venqax (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus
In June 2015, Miley Cyrus founded the Happy Hippie Foundation, an organisation to raise awareness of homelessness and LGBT issues among young people, partly in response to the death of Leelah Alcorn. To promote the organisation, she released a new series of Backyard Sessions videos, the second of which, Dido's "No Freedom" was dedicated to Leelah Alcorn.

I feel that this is worth a mention, but because this is a featured article I thought I should look for consensus first. I'm also not sure where exactly it would go. The Tributes, vigils, and activism section is quite long, and it could go nearly anywhere in there. Scolaire (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm personally uncomfortable with using the Daily Mirror (or any of the UK red tops) as a source in this article. The other source is obviously better though. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's only the ref that was in the Backyard Sessions article. There are plenty of alternatives: MTV, Music Times, Independent. --Scolaire (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this content as long as we don't use the Daily Mirror as a source.- MrX 15:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting those alternatives. I think it should go in with the Paper and Independent references. I'd put it at the end of the paragraph that begins "Among the transgender celebrities". – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I notice Ray Toro is in among the "transgender celebrities". He should probably be moved, or the paragraph reworded. Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)