Talk:Lindsay Shepherd

Neutrality issues
The main reason for Lindsay Shepherd's notability is that some found her lecture to be harmful to transgender people (or transphobic). This article, however, appears to go out of its way to avoid discussing those widespread objections. The only mention of the word trans or transgender in the body of the article – "one told a college newspaper that students had used the discussion 'as an excuse to make fun of trans identities'" – is not even directly about the negative reaction in the public discourse to what she had done. The article should reflect the substance of the allegations made against Shepherd as well as the polarized public response to the issue. Accordingly, I have placed a POV template on the article. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. She's notable for the high level of coverage for the way in which she was treated by her employer, which was found to be inappropriate.  But, If you have sources to support your position, please add them to the article.  As long as your sources support your position, you can be WP:BOLD and fix the article yourself, instead of just tagging it for others.  --Rob (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Was there not, in your view, a public debate which arose from the incident? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Age
Date of birth? Also she identifies as a Feminist still Nlivataye (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Aug 2022 lead changes
, your changes to the lead (restored here ) are problematic. Adding "what she is called" to the lead without it being part of the body violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Additionally, using such labels, which can be viewed as loaded, instead of the factual description violates IMPARTIAL. Rather than applying those labels to the lead the reasons for those labels, assuming they are DUE, should be in the article body. Since this is a BLP we need to err on the side of not including such content, especially when there isn't a consensus to make such changes. For those reasons I've restored the lead from before those changes were made. Springee (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've edited this article in the past and have it on my watch list, and Fred Zepelin has asked me to chime in now.
 * Springee, It's pretty weird that you would cite BLP as a justification for restoring the medium.com blog source to the lead. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was only restoring the long term stable lead. I'm not specifically endorsing that version so much as rejecting a series of changes.  However, you are correct, medium shouldn't be cited.   fixed the issue with this edit.  I will redo that removal which makes no changes to the text of the lead.  Springee (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late to the party here, but starting the first sentence of the lead of a biography with a list of quotes which are critical of the article's subject is a bizarre thing to do for any biography on Wikipedia. Following it up with a very long quote from the subject of the article about her own political beliefs is also bizarre. The sources those quotes are pulled from are bad too -- I've never heard of Canadian Dimension before (looks to be a small left wing/socialist magazine?) but it doesn't look to be a reliable source, Vice is really not great, and the quote in the Toronto Sun only appears in the WP:HEADLINE so is not usable.
 * The lead should be summarising the body, and should start off with why's she's notable and related context (e.g. nationality), not start off by litigating how right-wing or left-wing she is. Endwise (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Canadian Dimension is a very well-established mainstream Canadian publication and is, AFAICT, an impeccably reliable source. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * MBFC says it's pretty far left but the reporting is mostly fact . It doesn't seem like a "mainstream" source but not a total throw away either.  Regardless, using it to apply a subjective label to someone (alt-right folk hero) in the second sentence of a BLP article is not OK.  Endwise is spot on here. Springee (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

September changes to lead
, thank you for working on that lead! There was way too much play by play in there! Springee (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, its a weird article all around... In parts it feels much more like an article about the scandal and not the person, which makes sense because the person doesn't actually appear to be independently notable suggesting that we should perhaps have an article on the scandal instead of a bio on its key figure. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuits
What happened with the lawsuits? van Lustig (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The most recent update that I can find is from May 2021 that says the suit "is still pending." MartinezMD (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)