Talk:Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle

The photo is public domain per copyright holder

@Discospinster

Pinging @Discospinster JSwift49 23:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to where the copyright holder released the photo into the public domain? ... discospinster _talk 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting another re-direct

I think a better title for this article would be "Anne Georgulas v. Jeff Younger" or "Georgulas v. Younger Court Battle" or "Georgulas v. Younger." Naming only Younger and not Georgulas seems to violate NPOV, and certainly goes against the convention of short-naming court cases with the first-named Plaintiff / Petitioner (here, Georgulas). Modern Law (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't written any other legal case articles, so I'm not honestly sure what the best practice here would be. Because, are all of the cases actually called 'Georgulas v. Younger', or do they all have different names depending on the state/circumstance? JSwift49 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In the Los Angeles Superior Court, the case is captioned:

Anne Georgulas, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Damon Younger, Respondent

Case No. 23STFL10031 Modern Law (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced material

@Modern Law, I have had to remove most of the unsourced material as it has to do with living people. Wikipedia is particularly strict about how living people are dealt with (see WP:BLP), and all claims must be substantiated by high quality sources. Here is a list of common sources with how reliable the community has judged them to be. Reliable secondary sources like news outlets are preferable, though quotations from court documents can also be used.

Also, since the child is legally named 'Luna', the article must also call them by that name (or whatever their most recent official name is). JSwift49 16:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49The material I added can and will be sourced to reliable sources, namely official court documents. (BLP violation removed) In fact, I am very curious what led to the prior version of the article, which presented the case in the past tense, ignoring that it is set for trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles.

I agree that quotations from court documents are acceptable under Wiki policy. I have links to all of the documents from Georgulas v. Younger, in both Texas and Los Angeles. I would appreciate help on the proper syntax. Thanks. Modern Law (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Modern Law I see; I was going off sources like this [1] that said the child was enrolled in school under the name 'Luna'. (BLP violation removed). Wikipedia has a policy (MOS:Identity) that you should use the most recent name someone identifies as, but how can you know for a child? (BLP violation removed)

Here is the "Cite court" template which should help you. Template:Cite court I have hardly if ever used it myself. JSwift49 19:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This article treats the child primarily as an object, with little mention of their own voice or desires, which is the one thing Wikipedia actually cares about when gendering people, as opposed legal or official name.

Per Vox (considered generally reliable):

In April 2017, Luna asked to be referred to by the name Luna. At age 5, Luna was diagnosed by a qualified professional therapist as having gender dysphoria [...]. Her pediatrician noted that at both her 5-year and 6-year checkups, Luna presented as a girl and has been persistent in her gender identity throughout her childhood.

I see no compelling reason not to believe that the child in question does not identify as a girl named Luna.

Under WP:BLPPRIVACY and MOS:DEADNAME I wonder if it would be prudent in the long term to omit all names for the child, who is still a minor at time of writing. The cat is certainly out of the bag, but personally, I wouldn't want something like this floating around about me. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and BOLDly implemented a version of the article which follows the lede of Dallas News and avoids using any name for her. WP:BLPNAME actually isn't as radical or proscriptive on the point of questionably-notable minors as I remember it being, but I think it's still prudent to err on the side of privacy—beyond being a transgender minor, her identity is not at all significant and can be omitted or elided without any substantial loss of understanding. Think of the children!

Regardless, we certainly shouldn't give out her deadname. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is not a WP:BLP. It is an article about a series of court cases.

Also, in addition to informing me regarding your source for "Luna's" legal name, what are your thoughts on renaming the article with both "Georgulas" and "Younger" in the title? Wouldn't that be more compliant with WP:NPOV? Modern Law (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changing it to Georgulas v. Younger as that was what the case was originally called, so I have done that. Again welcome others more experienced with legal articles to weigh in on the title.

Even if it's not explicitly a WP:BLP, the principle is still the same. Claims related to living people have to be reliably sourced. JSwift49 19:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I have changed it to "Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle" to keep it as close as possible to the original title until others have weighed in re. what case to classify it under. JSwift49 19:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My cite generated a warning of a possible unreliable source. I published because the cite is to official court documents in the L.A. Superior Court, a reliable source. Modern Law (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

So the issue is you can't use Google Drive files as a source. If you had a link to court documents on the L.A. Superior Court site or something like that, it could work.

Also, your additions were mostly not appropriate for the lead/top of the page. The lead is a summary of the article, and the detail/specific developments should be chronological, so if any of this content was added it should go under 'further developments'. WP:NPOV is a helpful resource on how to formulate content in an encyclopedic manner. JSwift49 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Jswift, sorry, you made that up. There is no absolute rule stating that documents on a Google drive are ipso facto prohibited. The issue is whether the source is reliable. In this case, the source is the Los Angeles Superior Court. Modern Law (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand it is discouraged [2][3][4] and if Wikipedia gave you that notification then it must be on some blacklist. Where did you get the documents from originally? JSwift49 22:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason "blogs" and "free websites" are "discouraged" is simply because they generally do not constitute a reliable source. But, as the warning flag stated, the issue is "reliable source," not "blogs" or "free websites." I got them from the Los Angeles Superior Court, I got them from attorney Georgulas' attorney Alana Chazan, I got them from Younger's attorney Tracy L. Henderson. Modern Law (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The main issue I see here is if it's Google Drive, how can we know the documents haven't been edited? Against what can they be verified by other editors? JSwift49 23:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You're again making that up. Literally, you could ask that question of any document from any source whatsoever. And why did you remove the "Star Chamber" section? That is sourced to a news article. Modern Law (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It was inserted unjustifiably at the top of the article and wasn’t written in an encyclopedic manner.

The daily signal was not considered reliable when it was part of Heritage Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Is the Daily Signal + congressional record RS for a congressional statement? since it is now independent I’m not sure it’s been discussed, but it’s still a partisan source JSwift49 02:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we absolutely should not be attributing any content about living people to court records or proceedings, let alone PDFs of those proceedings hosted anonymously in the cloud. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Anything article referring to living persons is covered by WP:BLP:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

—  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not a BLP. It is an article about a notable, ongoing court battle with the potential to alter the law nationwide. Modern Law (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Modern Law: All writing about living people on Wikipedia is subject to WP:BLP, not just articles which are specifically about a living person. Gender and sexuality are considered a Contentious topic on Wikipedia (meaning that content and behavioral guidelines are more strongly enforced), so please be BOLD but not reckless and aim to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies before proceeding. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Why knowingly make the article false?

We all understand that the criteria for inclusion is reliable sources. We also know that "reliable" is arguable. Question: Since we all know that Georgulas v. Younger is still pending, in Los Angeles, and the issue of whether the child will be allowed to undergo "gender affirming care" is yet to be decided, why should we support a version of this article we know to be false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Law (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Modern Law Because we have no rule anywhere on Wikipedia that says "if one parent insists their kid is not trans and lobbies to prevent them getting healthcare we consider their identity an open question". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL. I didn't say a word about "their" "identity." This lawsuit, brought by Anne Georgulas, is pending. The article is in the past tense, falsely stating that the case is over. It's not over. And it's not Jeff Younger suing to "prevent them getting healthcare." It is Anne Georgulas suing to lift an injunction that currently prevents hormones and surgery. Modern Law (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, particularly not a voyeuristic tabloid. If reliable sources (other than one hyperpartisan rag) discuss this case then we can talk about it. Given that it is apparently sealed to the public, I don't anticipate substantial buzz except by far-right wackos willing to act in contempt of court in the name of of harassing and invading the medical privacy of a 12-year old "protecting children." We have no reason to follow them off that particular cliff. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article at least mention that (a) is is still pending, (b) in Los Angeles, and (c) has been sealed to the public flushed down the memory hold by the Star Chamber Order? If no reliable source says this, then how do you purport to know? Modern Law (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If a reliable source reports such, sure. Wikipedia the free encyclopedia doesn't know anything about a Los Angeles court case, as it was only reported on by a source we consider unreliable for factual claims. Roxanne the human knows that a source claims this because it was linked previously and she read it to understand what your point was. Hence, apparently. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 05:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see the trouble. You believe Wikipedia is a person. The belief in corporate personhood is a common delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. Modern Law (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I was anthropomorphizing the encyclopedia to help you understand the discrepancy between information that random editors might believe (see WP:No original research and again, WP:BLP), versus reliably sourced and verifiable information that can be published in Wikipedia.

Sidenote, the Wikimedia Foundation (who host the English Wikipedia but otherwise has limited editorial control) is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, not a corporation. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact, Wikimedia Foundation is a nonprofit corporation, but I don't care. I used "corporate personhood" in the broader sense, referring to an entity that is treated a legal "person." The concept of this fictional legal anthropomorphized "persons" is state-sponsored mass delusion for nefarious purposes. I was just calling it out.

There is no misunderstanding. It's quite simple. Wikipedia keeps whatever supports the official story, and deletes anything that threatens it. The official story here is that the Georgulas-Younger case ended a long time ago, and everybody can go back to watching football. Never mind that Involuntary Human Medical Experimentation is being carried out on a mass scale for huge profit.

Wiki rules are modeled after civil procedure. There is no law. Period. The law is simply whatever the judge says and the government always wins. All of the endless purported rules - in court or on wiki - are just a smokescreen to keep average people playing the game, and the lawyers taking the money. Modern Law (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly wish I could be paid to have scintillating conversations like this. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can! Modern Law (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)