Talk:Elliot Fletcher

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zander62015. Peer reviewers: MiriaamMP, PlantLover51.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

Hi, my name is Elliot Fletcher. This is my wikipedia page and people keep putting misinformation about my birth name. My birth name is Elliot Fletcher. I'd be happy to send you a copy on my birth certificate which clearly states that my name since birth has been Elliot Fletcher.

Elliot.fletch (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Discussing below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

JuliaFletcher (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Please remove

Born Holly DeMita[1][2] June 30, 1996 (age 20)

from the page. It is not accurate information. I am the mother of the person profiled, and would be happy to submit a copy of his birth certificate.

• Discussing below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Birth name

This is a tricky situation. Editors claiming to be associated to the article subject are requesting the birth name be removed from the article. I'm inclined to agree, but this is hardly a straightforward situation. While it's factually correct, I don't know that the existing sourcing warrants the use of the birth name. It also may be synthesis, as there's a bit of a leap of faith to say that the subject talked about in those articles is also Elliot. I'm inclined to omit the birth name entirely as per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Thoughts? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that Elliot's identity is now verified for Elliot.fletch. We really need more participation here. If participation continues to be lackluster, I plan to remove the birth name, with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE being applicable. Pinging MusikAnimal and David.moreno72, as they were involved in the reverting and eventual protection. Your comments would be appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done some research on the subject and it would seem that when Elliot was a girl, her name was Holly. She was mentioned in this article 'If they enroll their 4-year-old daughter, Holly, next year, it will jump to $1,400 for two--a crushing obligation that puts them both on edge.'

There is also a photo of her here , which clearly shows the same person as in the article, with the name Holly DeMita. Here is even an article about the family changing his birth name.

That his birth name was Holly DeMita is totally accurate and factual. David.moreno72 03:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@David.moreno72: Verifiability, not truth, and not even all verifiable information goes into articles. WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The reliable sources show the following:

• The family had a daughter named Holly.
• Elliot previously had a different name.

They do not show that Holly and Elliot are the same person. Can you find a single source that says "Elliot was formerly named Holly"? (The yearbook is obviously not a reliable secondary source, and given the possibility of familial resemblance, it doesn't establish much of anything. I look quite a bit like my father did at my age, but if you place pictures of us side by side, that doesn't mean we're one person.) Moreover, doesn't the fact that no source exists equating the two show that it's WP:UNDUE to emphasize the fact in the infobox? As a side note, if this is borderline, we should default to keeping it out in the spirit of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I have to agree that there is an element of synthesis, but what I was concerned with was the removal of (apparently) sourced information with unsourced information. Now, with some in depth checking, it would appear that the sourced information was synthesised, I agree that the information should be deleted unless there is a reliable source that unequivocally shows that Holly and Elliot are the same person. Thanks for your comments. David.moreno72 04:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your input. And just to be clear, I totally understand why you reverted and I agree that we can't add the birth name of Elliot based on the sourcing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The July 2000 Los Angeles Times article (now a deleted reference) states the de Mitas had two children, five-year-old son Connor and four-year-old daughter Holly, whose birth date would be consistent with this article's birth date of June 1996. Hence Holly = Elliot. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

... which is synthesis. I still haven't seen a source that says Holly = Elliot, just sources that can be strung together to say that. We have a policy against presenting information resulting from synthesizing sources like that at WP:NOR. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh please. It's simple logic. The parents have one daughter, who just happens to be the right age. Unless this article is lying about the identity of Elliot's parents, the conclusion is inescapable and uncontestable. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Use of prior name/"dead name"

I believe that while the article name and primary usage should be under the person's current name (and what the birth certificate has been reissued as), however the rules at WP:GENDERID would still allow *IF REFERENCED* for the name originally given to the person to be included in the article. In this regard, I don't see a difference between the way that Wikipedia would refer to Mr. Fletcher, John Wayne or Nancy Reagan. (The latter two having (born Marion Robert Morrison; May 26, 1907 – June 11, 1979), and (born Anne Frances Robbins; July 6, 1921 – March 6, 2016) as part of the first sentence in the article.Naraht (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, I agree with you. See Caitlyn Jenner. But I think it depends on whether sources connect the two and whether the person was reported on substantially before their transition. We generally follow what sources do in terms of weight, as per WP:UNDUE. Sources have assigned zero weight to Mr. Fletcher's birth name in the coverage of Mr. Fletcher as a public individual (i.e. as an actor, etc), and so I think we must as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. If a woman became notable only after marriage, there would be nothing wrong with including her maiden name in the first sentence. While Nancy Reagan may not be a *perfect* example of this, I think that Madeline Albright is such an example. She married her husband in 1959 and I don't believe she became notable until the mid 1970s. Even if her maiden name was pulled out of an obscure single source (say a published wedding announcement), it would be appropriate to have there.Naraht (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the obscure single source would usually still connect the two names. We also have to consider somewhat the spirit behind WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. While article subjects don't own their pages, we do have written into policy that we consider their views on privacy and potential harm from the article when making close decisions. This is more-or-less directly applied to names in WP:BLPPRIVACY, which states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." But clearly the full name has not been widely reported here and the subject does object. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13I think there would be a different balance should it be referenced by a source that is both relatively reputable and less concerned about Privacy (New York Post???). However should another source do the Synthesizing, things would change.Naraht (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article for 24-hours for continual disruptive editing, and blocked the most blatant offenders. Anyone who's transphobic, please feel free to not let the door hit you on way out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of suicide attempts and hormone therapy

I have removed the information on this article regarding suicide attempts and hormone therapy under Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people items #2 and #4. I think it wise that we consider what compelling reason there is to include this material in the article. I don't think that the subject of a BLP should decide what goes into an article or not, but we do have some basic dignity to address, as outlined in the Foundation's resolution. Please discuss. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The hormone therapy and mastectomy doesn't seem like a violation of BLP. Though assuming he has completed transition, that would seem to be obvious, so it's pointless. The suicide attempt discussion is a lot harder, and if he hadn't talked about it publicly, it would be cut and dry. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As an editor being involved with the reverts and blocks of the article subject, I have no problem with Hammersoft removal edits, my only issue was the COI editing. Thank you Hammersoft. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think FlightTime should step away from this page. The edits I was trying to make are the exact same as Hammersoft made. But somehow they are more valid when Hammersoft makes them. Aside from that, I would also like to change the phrasing of “assigned female at birth” to “Fletcher is a trans man”. They mean the exact same thing, one just drops the use of the word “female” which is potentially misleading. If we can remove certain things pertaining to my transition, I fail to see the problem is switching up certain terminology to communicate the same idea. Elliot.fletch (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Elliot.fletch: @Hammersoft: restored your edits, which is fine. I never had an issue with the information or the removal of it, my issue was the COI editing. As you're the article subject you should not be editing the article at all. You can think whatever you want. If you want a change made to the article, you must make a request using the {{Edit requested}} template, this will alert watching editors that a request has been made, otherwise the only way someone will see your wanted change is if theyjust happen to be trading the thread. This is a collaborative project and I'll edit any article I want to. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

My life isn’t a “collaborative project”. You can think whatever you want too. Doesn’t change the fact that the events occurred in the order they did. Doesn’t change the fact that you blocked my account for continually editing the page, even though you did the same thing. Following the items #2 and #4 that Hammersoft cited, you did not take human dignity or respect for my personal privacy into account, nor did you meet my complaints with patience or kindness. That’s very clear. Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Elliot.fletch: please show me where I said "your life" I said this project/Encyclopedia is collaborative. As I said before I have no issues with the article's information, the issue I had was you editing the article about you, we have rules and guidelines we need to follow and one of them is Article subjects DO NOT edit the articles about them, and do us all a favor and read Help:Talk pages. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 03:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is exception to WP:COISELF: if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. –xeno^talk 04:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Article subjects DO NOT edit the articles about them" You can embolden and capitalise as much as you like, but that is not a "rule" on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could do us all a favour and read Wikipedia's relevant policis and guidelines? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"As you're the article subject you should not be editing the article at all." That's not what Wikipedia's CoI policy says. "If you want a change made to the article, you must make a request using the {{Edit requested}} template" Nor is that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone, let's drop the sticks please. At this point, people are just yelling past each other. Collaboration indeed. Let's work moving forward, not a forensic examination of what has happened. Elliot, welcome to the talk page. This is where we will hash things out as needed. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should repeat myself? Following the items #2 and #4 that Hammersoft cited, you did not take human dignity or respect for my personal privacy into account, nor did you meet my complaints with patience or kindness. That’s very clear. Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• There is no need to repeat yourself. Again, let's work moving forward, not a forensic examination of what has happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have been attempting to move forward, I have requested another edit be made, both on my talk page and on the talk page of the wikipedia page about me. Any response? Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that I get such quick responses when everyone thinks I’m being out of line (legitimately just sticking up for myself) and then I’m met with radio silence when I make an actual request doesn’t fill me with any sort of reassurance or confidence. Elliot.fletch (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Try using the template I posted. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of people watching this page, and people have replied to the post where Elliot made his request. A template is not necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word “female”

I would very much appreciate if we could change the wording of “assigned female at birth” to “Fletcher is a trans man” as they are equivalent. The word “female” is misleading and, if we’re taking guidelines found here: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people into account (#2 and #4), out of respect, I just wish for it to be reworded. I’ve gone to an awful lot of trouble just to try and change this one thing, I would be very appreciative if we could just agree. Thank you. Elliot.fletch (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just done this. I see someone has suggested it above, but in the future it will be helpful if you accompany any edit requests (such as this section) with the template {{edit request}}. That alerts editors that someone has requested a change to the article, and will help it be attended to more quickly. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the NYT source

I noticed that the NYT article link does not work at all anymore. I was wondering if it would be possible to remove it as a source, as well as the part of the “early life” tab that uses it as a source. That means starting at “In a 2018 collaboration with the New York Times ....” to the end of the paragraph, which is “ ... after coming out at the beginning of his senior year.” There’s now no source to back any of that info up. Please note that I am not accustomed to wikipedia’s format so I apologize if I’ve gone about this the wrong way. Thank you. Elliot.fletch (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Elliot.fletch: You've done this right! I just want to clarify: do you actively want this info removed, or are you just noting the fact that the link doesn't work? Normally what we would do in this case is replace the link with an archived copy of the article, but in this particular case because it does not seem particularly crucial to the article I think it would be fine to remove it, too. Just wanted to make sure that was your preference before doing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

With edit requests, we ask that COI editors provide reasons for why certain changes should be made. In the case of your request, the reason that you've provided for the deletion is that the reference link is not working. As GorillaWarfare stated, that reason alone would not be sufficient to delete the information, because there is no "working-link requirement" for sources to be used in Wikipedia. The fact that the source's main information is still described — such as the title, the publication, the date and the author — these are all that's needed for the claim to be considered "sourced". That being said, if there is another reason why it should be deleted, such as for personal reasons, that would be acceptable — because ultimately the claim is anecdotal, and not indispensable to a reader's quest to gain knowledge about the main points of the subject (as GorillaWarfare also mentioned in their reply). All that is needed to proceed is your request with the corrected reasoning that you'd like it removed for personal reasons. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Regards,  Spintendo  06:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, I did that correctly. Yes, I’d like it removed for personal reasons mostly relating to language used. Thank you for your help. Elliot.fletch (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Regards,  Spintendo  11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

References