Jump to content

Talk:Elisa Rae Shupe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Elisa appears to have passed away.

[edit]

There aren't great sources confirming this, but the following has been written: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2025/01/va-patient-died-by-suicide-at-top-of-hospitals-garage-in-syracuse.html

https://zerodoesntsleep.substack.com/p/vet-found-hanging-draped-in-trans Cheesyc (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this has also been confirmed by journalist Erin Reed. I think we need to wait for a non-self published source to report on this before changing anything, since this is still a WP:BLP and substack is self published. How tragic. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have to wait for WP:RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've compiled the following list of sources, though they all appear to be self-published (except for the first, which doesn't mention Elisa by name). Is there a policy that can bypass WP:BLPSPS after a certain amount of time?
May Elisa's memory be a blessing. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think the closest thing we have to verifiability is Erin Reed or Sue Kerr's posts, as they could be considered subject matter experts on trans topics per WP:SPS's exception for experts. However, even in that case, the policy that specifies that the clause doesn't apply to BLPs. I tried the other day to look for an obituary for her but could not find anything; I'm honestly a bit shocked that no major source has reported on this yet. Per WP:BDP, BLP continues to apply until we have an RS and even then a bit past the time of death, so there is no way to bypass BLPSPS. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wouldn't WP:BLPSPS not apply since it states " as sources of material about a living person" and she is apparently no longer living? Can't really approve something being self published if the person has apparently passed. GeekInParadise (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BDP, BLP can still apply for a short period of time after the subject's death. Funcrunch (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies regardless until her death can be verified by reliable sources - policy presumes that someone is living until reliable sources say otherwise, so we can't use non-BLP-quality sourcing to demonstrate that BLP no longer applies. Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 13 February 1910) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. In the unlikely event that no reliable source ever covers her death then per WP:BDP, BLP will apply until she would have been 115 (ie. until 2078.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will be delighted if Wikipedia still exists in 2078. Though as I was born in 1970 I likely won't be around to celebrate. :-P Funcrunch (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found an obituary via the Guardian Moments Facebook page: https://eternalchroniclesnews.blogspot.com/p/elisa-rae-shupe-obituary-elisa-rae.html
That Facebook page links to this url: https://guardianmoments.blogspot.com, which says this at the bottom: "Guardian Moments is a news outlet focused on providing reliable information about sensitive topics, including death notices, obituaries, and tragic incidents like car accidents, shootings, and suicides. Committed to accuracy and compassion, it serves as an essential resource for communities to honor the lives of the deceased and to gain insight into the circumstances of their deaths." Achilles999 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little hesitant as guardian moments shares this post, but it's published by this "eternal chronicles" blog spot which seems a little harder to pin down for reliability, and guardian moments seems itself a little hard to be sure about? I want something to fit though ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 04:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC) ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 04:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.blogspot is a pretty immediate red flag IMO for an unreliable source, likely at the very least self published. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking at it more closely it's mostly text from the wiki page. It also gets the date of death wrong. I think it might be AI generated. My thought was that it AI generated by pulling from some sort of court record service, but if the date of death is wrong then it must be aggregating from the open internet. Achilles999 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another piece of evidence: [1]
She is dead. Drop your allegations, transphobes.--Il Gatto Obeso (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source is already listed above. The issue is that none of those above pass the non-BLP-quality sourcing requirements. Historyday01 (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there is a WP:IAR argument for adding content about her death. At this point her death is the main reason our readership is coming to this page, and not having the information is doing a disservice to those readers. People who were close to her have written publicly about it, it seems to be certainly true that she has died. We could add a bare bones blurb about her death while waiting for a more reliable source to add details in order to avoid ignoring more rules than we absolutely have to. Very open to opinions about this, wanted to put it out there as an idea given the amount of attention this issue has gotten over the past few days. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the way to go, and I completely agree with your reasoning. That being said, my main concern with waiting for a reliable source for more details is that it's already been a couple weeks and there isn't one—if this continues to be the case, can we add the information at some point with our current sources? The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For consideration, we could have a death section with the following contents:

<​!-- Please do not expand this section without a reliable source. See talk page. --> Shupe died on January 27, 2025.[1][better source needed]

We could also change the rest of the article to past tense and add the information to the infobox. Pinging other people involved in this discussion to review this proposal, since it's IAR I want to be sure there's a consensus before proceeding: @Aquillion, @Cheesyc, @Funcrunch, @Achilles999, @Zenomonoz, @Historyday01. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I would be fine with that sentence and hidden text. Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes to this ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has my approval as well. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that hidden text is frequently ignored, unfortunately. Though as long as the article remains protected hopefully that will be less of a problem. As far as the wording, I would prefer to include something like "reported" rather than just saying in Wikivoice that she died when we still don't have a reliable source stating this (though I'm not doubting it happened, sadly). Funcrunch (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that but I'd push for more. It seems there's a consensus among us that's it's highly likely Elisa has passed. There's no evidence as far as I can tell pointing to either the veteran's suicide being someone else or Elisa continuing to be alive. There are now a variety of sources all pointing to the same conclusion. I'm not too familiar with all the wiki policies but it seems to me the policies might be worth adjusting for cases like this in the future. Media is ultimately a gatekeeper. It seems in cases like this marginalized folks are the victim of being under-covered and ignored by "reliable sources". She sent her suicide letter to multiple news stations and none have reported it. So it's not for lack of information of the part of "reliable sources", it's a lack of interest. I don't think that should hinder us from updating the page. Achilles999 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we have consensus, I have gone ahead and made the edit. To address funcrunch's concerns, I put the comment in all caps to draw attention and added "reported" to the wording. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have knowledge/thoughts about the reliability of Into? It appears they published this piece, but it's unclear to me if it meets our standards. If so, we could justify adding a bit of detail, but I can't tell. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 02:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to unsigned comment) I haven't heard about it but poking around the site it seems like this could be our first reliable source on the matter. It has hallmarks of a non-self published source (multiple authors, official social media accounts, etc). This is the only mention of it on RSP where it does appear to be being used in a positive way. I'd be in favor of using this to expand the death section. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it doesn't give a lot of details but could be a justification to mention that she left a suicide note and could be more the level of reliability that we're going for. This source does use they/them but doesn't confirm anything about Shupe asking for those pronouns. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 03:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and updated the article with what's in the Into source. Like you said, it's pretty sparse, but def an imporvement. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding a note here in case folks are still watching this talk discussion for sourcing: I found and added an unquestionably reliable source which only briefly touches on the death, but that mentions Shupe's name, death date and method. It's a CBC article about a joint vigil for her, Sam Nordquist, and Tahiry Broom. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 04:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding and adding that source! I just came across this Pittsburgh Union Progress article that gives a few more details about her death, but I'm not sure whether it counts as a reliable source. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks reliable to me! Though I'm not seeing much info there that isn't already in the article unless we want to add info about the vigil. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I should've been more specific. The source verifies that the place of death is Syracuse, New York, which I think could be added to the infobox and the section about her death. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good point! I can add that. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kerr, Sue (February 14, 2025). "I Knew Elisa Rae Shupe (1963-2025) and She Deserved Better". Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondence.

Death

[edit]

Last month one article came out on Syracuse.com stating a Veteran had been found dead in the Syracuse VA parking garage from suicide. They were wrapped in the trans pride flag. Rest in Power 2603:7080:EF3B:876D:4808:1D25:53F2:EB7B (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2025

[edit]

Remove Elisa's deadname. There's no need to know the "former name" of a trans person, that's a violent act, especially when that person is now deceased. 2A02:B125:10:17AE:ECD6:EF99:159C:20D7 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per MOS:DEADNAME. The individual was notable as Jamie, but not as the name assigned at birth as far as I can see. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but she did detransition and was a public figure as a detransitioner for a few years under that name, which I think is why it was still in the article. That said, she was definitely far more notable under the names Jamie and Elisa, so I think this is probably a reasonable interpretation of MOS:DEADNAME. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure that the references identified her as such (it all seemed to be as Jamie in those times); if I made a mistake then I'm ok with anyone reverting. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted, because some references from that period referred to them as James ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting this for the time being. I wouldn't say that the notability under that name is significant enough to require our inclusion. This article currently uses one source from that time that identifies her with her deadname (from Ocala News). Said Ocala News article says "Jamie" before it says "James" (when it says she legally changed her name back), and it mentions the name Jamie more times later in the article. Other prominent discussions of her detransition are from after she came out again as Lisa/Elisa (e.g. Seattle Times). I'm not sure if MOS:DEADNAME has a clear enough guideline for this to be a cut-and-dry case and we might need more discussion about proper procedure--this isn't similar to Elliot Page or Caitlyn Jenner, whose initial notability was under their deadnames, but someone who assumed that name after initially becoming notable and later rejected it. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 04:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2025

[edit]

Change the pronouns she to they, since they (Elisa Rae Shupe) are non binary as the article states itself. 88.215.113.80 (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description of death

[edit]

Hi there, I suggest we remove the detail of the suicidal action that caused Elisa's death, but I would like to know if we have consensus on this. My understanding is that it is unnecessary detail, and that it is generally best avoided to provide information on methods of suicide, due to the influence this can have on vulnerable people. My thoughts are with everyone affected. Audrey Woolf (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia policies, it's clear that we'd want to avoid detailed description/"step by step instructions" per MOS:SUICIDE, but it's less consistent or clear what level is applicable. I'm making a minor edit -- rewording to show 'found at the VA' rather than mentioning the method. I believe part of the initial reasoning for inclusion was largely around the gathering of reliable sources, more of which now exist than in the earlier stages of writing this section. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at those MOS guidelines, I also removed discussion of the suicide note; there's clear guidance to omit such mentions. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another seemingly good article on her death is: https://www.them.us/story/elisa-rae-shupe-obituary-army-veteran-activist-vigil, I suppose, since it notes much of what we already have, but something I didn't see yet (it cites this source for evidence which notes Shupe but strangely does not name her), saying in part:

More than 150 mourners held a vigil on February 23 for Shupe, Sam Nordquist, and other trans people who have died by violence and suicide in New York State...A suicide note purportedly written by Shupe also circulated online in the intervening months; per best-practice standards for reporting on suicide, we will not excerpt or link to the note here...Kerr also criticized the VA and Department of Defense for their silence on Shupe’s death.

Some of the above, and possibly more from that article, could be incorporated into the "Death" section with the possible text: "On February 23rd, more than 150 individuals held a vigil for Shupe, Sam Nordquist and other transgender people who had ended their own lives or from violence within the State of New York." Or something along those lines. Historyday01 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be overinterpreting policy but in context MOS:SUICIDE seems to be talking about notes in the context of using someone’s suicide note to “explain” their suicide. Shupe’s last note does do that, but it’s also a political statement, and I wonder if there’s a way to discuss that part of it in a way that does not violate the spirit of the guideline. Something like “In a letter sent to news outlets shortly before her death...” 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is more than appropriate to somehow incorporate acknowledgment of Elisa’s final political statement. I’m happy to think on it and come back and edit the article when I have time, if nobody ends up having a go before then Audrey Woolf (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elisa_Rae_Shupe&oldid=1291516982"