Talk:X González/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reaction

This young lady was really captivating, a seemingly agreeable opinion. What else can be added here to indicate the reaction her speech fostered? ev (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Change line ‘ She was openly criticized for making invalid statements, however, such as Florida law allows the purchase of automatic weapons, and Australia hasn't seen a mass gun attack since 1999, both of which are untrue.[7]’ to

‘ She was openly criticized for making invalid statements, however, such as Florida law allows the purchase of automatic weapons, and Australia hasn't seen a mass gun attack since 1999, both of which are untrue.[7] (the Australian Port Arthur massacre, and consequent changes in gun laws, occurred in 1996) Kruscica (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the suggested change is to make clearer the fact that the error in her statements was that the ‘gun attack’ occurred in a different year and not that further ‘mass gun attacks’ have occurred in 20 years. - though it may depend on one’s definition of ‘mass gun attack’ as to whether the ‘Lindt cafe siege’ or other small gun death incidents (ie where a few {2-4} people were killed in modern, murder/suicides, terrorist incidents, or police killings) are included.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ToThAc (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 United States gun violence protests

Please do not delete Emma Gonzalez' page. she speaks the truth Should Gonzalez be mentioned at 2018 United States gun violence protests? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Automatic Weapons

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.

---

Hi,

Referring to the section on Criticisms, as I understand it, it is possible (albeit very expensive) to buy an automatic firearm in the United States. There's an application process, but it's less strict than the process for obtaining a shotgun in the United Kingdom.

Thus, the claim that they are nearly impossible to obtain seems untrue.

--192.41.131.255 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs valid secondary sources claiming that Gonzalez said something untrue -- us, here, making such claims, constitutes original research and is not permitted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer:, I don't believe the Ip User was saying Gonzalez said something untrue. Rather, I think they were saying the article said something Gonzalez said was untrue. The offending statements were removed by JDDJS in this edit, which is why I marked it "already done". Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Eggishorn.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2018 (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.

The Ellen DeGeneres Show Appearance

See article in Billboard [1] which focuses on Cameron but other coverage of the appearance may be more about Emma. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter followers

I added that Emma passed the NRA in Twitter followers but was reverted. Should we mention that she had a huge social media following? --The lorax (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if we could find a reliable secondary source that mentions her social media following or impact on social media et cetera., even in passing. This is better from a Wikipedia point of view than just noticing and mentioning the numbers ourselves. MPS1992 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a Twitter source with screenshots showing she has blown past the NRA spokesperson at the Florida Town Hall. https://mobile.twitter.com/BeauWillimon/status/967859836884013056 Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

These young people--they have no respect. Gone are the days when old people like me could count on respect; now, here they are, thinking they can just change the world and all that... Drmies (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Emma González. Closed early because of near-unanimous support. Sandstein 14:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Emma Gonzalez → Emma González – The subject's name is spelled with an accent; I would move the page but the destination exists as a redirect to the current article Enwebb (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Subject was born in the United States, not in the Spanish-speaking world; also, a large majority of print reportage indicates her surname as "Gonzalez", not "González". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So... United States is not "Spanish-speaking world"? You know that there's no official language in the United States, right? More generally, on Wikipedia we accommodate diacritics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's correct, nothing Spanish in the United States: Spanish FloridaLouisiana (New Spain)Spanish EmpireSpanish Fort (Colorado), etc., etc., etc., ... C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Roman Spinner and Enwebb: I've converted the technical request to an RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support see discussions above. The print I've seen often uses the accent as does the subject. The comment about the United States and the spanish speaking world is offensive. The US does not have an official language and there are more Spanish speaking people in the US than in many spanish speaking countries. She lives in Florida were there are plenty of spanish speakers. Finally the sources say her father immigrated from Cuba so I think he and his daughter are entitled to their own last name. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no offense in stating the obvious. Subject is a US citizen, born in the United States, an English-speaking country. There are no accents or diacritics in English. Sports figures, actors and other celebrities who were born outside the US, but have established careers in the US, sometimes use diacritics and sometimes dispense with their use. See lengthy discussions regarding Malin Åkerman → Malin Akerman starting with Talk:Malin Åkerman#Requested move (2007). Monica Puig, who was born in Puerto Rico, a part of the US, has also been the subject of a lengthy discussion regarding Mónica Puig → Monica Puig at Talk:Monica Puig#Requested move September 12, 2016. Zbigniew Brzeziński was born in Poland, the son of Polish diplomat, yet he established a career in the US without indicating the diacritic in his surname. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but Mónica Puig is an Olympic gold from Puerto Rico not from US. Monica Puig was moved contrary to practice for all other Puerto Ricans by tennis editors who have been fighting Unicode for tennis players for a decade on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI - In Canada comments like this are considered, at the very least, quite insensitive to immigrants. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Born in the US — not an immigrant. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"the United States, an English-speaking country" - while the majority of people in the United States speak English it is NOT a "English-speaking country" in the sense that there is no official language here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Father born in Cuba, she is a minor presumably living in his house and astonishingly using her own family name. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If the singer Prince can go by a symbol for a name, then we can all go along with this young lady and spell her name the way she wants. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support using the typography that subject prefers, per her Twitter page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- the spelling is preferred by the subject. Since the alternate spelling would be maintained as a redirect, anyone is free to use it in other articles / links. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- sources use the accented version, so does she, it's easy for Wikipedia to handle it, and there should be a redirect on the non-accented English version pointing to the moved (accented (González)) article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support sources use the accented version, so does she. No evidence that she plays tennis. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. While both forms are used in print, there is absolutely no harm in using the form used by the subject herself. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Standard naming convention on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support This living person's preferences should be considered, and if possible, respected. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Is the preferred version used by subject. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is her preferred name, and should be respected, if possible, as has been said.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is how she spells her name. Anyone spelling it without the accent will be redirected to the right page. —Kmsiever (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:BLP

Just a reminder to all editors, the Biographies of living persons policy should be excruciatingly studied before adding material on this person or any other survivors, some of whom are already reporting death threats ([2],[3]). Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, primary sources should not be used, especially ones that include personal details. We should avoid victimization by only including the facts most pertinent and widely reported, or even omitting some reported details as appropriate. The dignity and safety of human beings should always be placed above the need to write a meticulously detailed article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

here here. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I've found text that either wasn't supported by or didn't summarize the source in the first section I've looked at (Early life). Please, it's really important that the sources support the given text, and that the text reflect the sources... Especially for BLPs. I also removed the Mirror as a source because it's tabloidy which shouldn't be used for BLPs. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Twitter in infobox?

I added the subject's twitter account into infobox, but it was removed with the comment "not appropriate" diff. "Official web site" is allowed in infoboxes. Since Twitter seems to be the main online outlet Gonzalez, why not add it to the infobox?

--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, good point. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion. See point above about her twitter surpassing the NRA twitter following. Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• User:CookieMonster755, wth? Your argument is weak both in terms of policy and practice (just look around on Wikipedia), and you were already editing against consensus as well. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Drmies No need to use wth :) now that I see this discussion, it is clear that there is consensus. It just seems unusually to list a social media profile in the "website" section of an infobox, as that usually seems to be a place for official websites, not social media profiles. Anyway, my apologizes Drmies. Cheers, CookieMonster755✉ 04:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It's all good. You must be as old as me, or older--apparently one's Twitter handle is one's website, the whole idea of "website" now going the way of MySpace. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just as supportive of using Twitter as a legit resource -- especially given the fact that 45 uses it as his personal mode of communication -- as others are but I strongly object to the inclusion of the Twitter link as an official website in the infobox. It should be in Wikidata, and it should be in the External links section, but it should not be in the infobox. When González sets up a website that is specific to herself, then it can go in the infobox (and External links section). But right now, this is overkill. Appreciate the passion displayed here and want to encourage people to edit Wikipedia and make this page super solid, but if you look at other Biography of living people (BLP) entries, this is not typically (or ever) done. So the treatment of her presence on Twitter should be consistent within Wikipedia. So I vote to delete it from the infobox, strongly delete. -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well you obviously don't have consensus and should not be edit warring over this. The subject did not have a twitter account on Feb 14 and has surpassed the NRA already. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I don't see consensus here. I also don't think that consensus is what this about. At all. What I see and know is that looking at other BLP entries and how they present website is a good indicator of what is helpful. I use that as a guideline, not the discussion here. Adding Twitter to the infobox is overkill, plain and simple. I don't see ANY other BLP entries with this type of stuff in the infobox. It's not helpful and weakens the neutrality of the page. That is my concern. I don't think I am wrong. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If the subject of the article has a website that can and should be listed in the infobox, then list that and do not list the twitter. If the twitter is the normal usage for now, then list the twitter in the infobox. This should be obvious. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is overkill to link to her Twitter in the infobox. It should be included just in the External link section, similar to the way it's formatted for Cameron Kasky and David Hogg. -JJMM (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

One more thought: I also can see the importance of linking to her Twitter, since she's surpassed the NRA's Twitter following. If you link to her Twitter in the infobox as her official website, then maybe the same should be done for Kasky and Hogg. -JJMM (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think her Twitter account should be listed in the infobox. It's far more notable, in terms of being identified with her, than most BLP subject's personal websites. It seems that the infobox person template doesn't allow for having a Twitter account parameter. That template should probably should be updated to reflect reality in 2018. That reality is that many, if not most, notable people are more identified with their Twitter accounts. First Light (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving to González

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.

---

This article was kept at its AfD, per the discussion earlier about her name. I would go ahead and move it to Emma González myself, but that page exists as a redirect to this one & I don't have page moving rights. Considering that she spells her last name as "González," that should be the article title and the current page should be the redirect. Requesting help to move the page to its accurate title (request also placed at the requested moves, but I figure there are probably watchers here who can address this quickly). Enwebb (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I used CSD G6 to request the move Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2018 (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.

González vs Gonzalez

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.

---

González is the preferred spelling of her name, as seen by her Twitter account and the New York Times article on her. If her family uses the accent mark then we should as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well. While some sources do not use the accent, many do. This plus the fact that it is her own preferred spelling. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's probably best to first wait for the outcome of the AfD debate; if she stays, then let's move page to González and put a redirect on the old Gonzalez (no accent) page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've requested the move over the redirect Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2018 (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.

Personal Attacks

User 115.64.239.111 created an unsigned new section with a personal attack, which I removed according to WP:BLPTALK. But I can still see the section heading name in the edit summaries created by the user and the SineBot. There are supposed to be no personal attacks in edit summaries either. Is there a way to remove those edit summaries? Thank you. -JJMM (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the places suggested WP:REVDELREQUEST is where you want to go for stuff like that. I went ahead and asked for it to be deleted. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Thank you very much!! -JJMM (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes RevDel. Pretty tame compared to the social media attacks though. Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, good to know for the future... -JJMM (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Was told it's not eligible. Not a grossly offensive violation, just standard blp violation. WikiVirusC^(talk) 05:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WaPo profile

here. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Twitter followers

The whole point the RS made about her twitter followers was that she blew passed the NRA and their spokesperson she confronted within days of creating her acct. This has been removed twice by the same editor. [4] amd should be restored. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Subheading "She has more Twitter followers than the NRA" on CNN Profile Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

References

more for Attacks section

• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/emma-gonzalez-flag-patch/
• NRA supporters attack with fake image https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/03/26/us/emma-gonzalez-photo-doctored-trnd/index.html Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve King material

Not really sure how notable it is, but the response to him seems like undue weight. --Malerooster (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

In the open section, it is stated "As a high school senior she survived the February 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting..."

Ms. Gonzalez was not exposed to or hit by gunfire and hence didn't "survive" anything. In my opinion, this wording is unnecessarily dramatic and not neutral in tone.

More acurrately, she was present during the shooting.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Many reliable sources call the students survivors. They call themselves survivors. Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to describe the semantics of the term "survive" - here do we mean the literal sense, or an alternate definition? I think we need to come to a consensus on this issue before we include that term. 47.20.71.190 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

'We' don't decide semantics or literalness of such terms. Reliable sources only do that. They are calling her a survivor of the shootings. Therefore she is, period, according to WP policy on how reliable sources are used in an article. First Light (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Second deletion nomination

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.

---

The previous discussion on this matter did not reach a consensus, and was only provisionally kept. I personally feel that multiple issues raised in that discussion remain unaddressed. Most importantly is the BLP1E concerns as many editors feel - myself included - that it is highly unlikely this individual would ever be involved in anything as noteworthy outside of the "never again" movement. Thus, I would like to reopen this discussion, and lodge my opinion as delete. 47.20.71.190 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

BLP1E does not apply. That would be a one time event as opposed to this individual who is a leader and frequent spokesperson for a sustaining movement that has been in the public face repeatedly for over a month. Trackinfo (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Trackinfo, BLP1E was left behind a long time ago. Any formal deletion discussion would only add to the record snowfall (WP:SNOW) in some areas. First Light (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2018 (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.

video of constitution

I saw a short video or what looked like Emma ripping up the constitution, was this a fake video, or a real one?75.171.88.247 (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite fake: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/mar/26/viral-image/doctored-image-shows-parkland-school-shooting-surv/ EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

She was ripping up a shoting target Legacypac (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting name issue

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.

---

We need to put the name correctly. I am all for including in the introduction that she spells it in the Spanish way but in the English langauge wikipedia we should stick, so far as possible for clarity in titles, to the English alphabet. In the English alphabet there are no accents.

I see below that when this issue came up there were ridiculous arguments about immigrants and whether the US is English speaking etc etc. All of that is irrelevant and I am concerned that a handful of people managed to force the change with no real debate and, crucially, no sources being used or research given - it just became an emotional argument. We must also remember that wikipedia is a global resource and not just for the US.

There are major news sources - in particular those that strive for neutrality and openness like the BBC and CNN - who almost without exception use the English spelling of the name.

The BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-43116856/florida-high-school-student-emma-gonzalez-demands-tougher-action-on-guns CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/25/us/emma-gonzalez-what-you-need-to-know-trnd/index.html

Now some research shows me that others such as the New York Times have adopted the Spanish alphabet when writing her name but there is no obvious reason why the NYT is a better source than the BBC or CNN; in fact we've often concluded here that it's the other way round. And when there is no straight argument in the media we have to use our own judgement. The English wikipedia should be using the English alphabet for titles. As it currently stands it's rather like the main title for Bruce Lee's English wiki entry being written as 李小龍 - clearly not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:A940:2AD8:2694:64E6 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:DIACRITICS which says "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged". So, you are wrong when you claim that we exclude diacritics from article titles. As a matter of fact, we have many article titles that include diacritics. Since this person became notable less than seven weeks ago, I think that it is entirely appropriate to spell her name the way that she prefers to spell it. Self-identification is very important.

The Bruce Lee counterexample is not at all relevant, because zero reliable English language sources refer to him primarily using Chinese characters. Accordingly, we can be comfortable in ignoring that part of your comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Some of what you write makes sense, other parts less so. I specifically referred to the title of the article -- and by any encylopaedic style it should stick to the English alphabet. I read the link you put up, and it also states, right there under it, "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources."

As regards how things are spelt I believe the policy on wikipedia is to go by reliable sources and CNN and the BBC almost always spell it with the English spelling - that was my point about Bruce Lee, he would have written it 李小龍 and indeed it is in his article but it isn't the title so clearly there are differnt standards for the titles. For example she may well start to call herself "Em Go" and *if* the BBC and CNN follow suit then there is good cause for following the change but for now CNN and BBC write her name with the English alphabet so I still believe wikipedia should try to follow the sources and not subjective ideas or even what the subject calls herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:A940:2AD8:2694:64E6 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We aren't going to be changing the name of the article nor are we going to be mispelling her name. --Jorm (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2018 (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.

section deleted

The archived section for the question of a fake video was deleted; was this automatic?75.171.88.247 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Birthday info

Emma said in a Twitter discussion what her birthday is. Usually tweets aren't reliable sources but according to Wikipedia guidelines, self-published material can be used if: a)the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; b)it does not involve claims about third parties; c)it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; d) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and e) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The article is nearly entirely reliable, published sources. We should be good in including what her birthday is.--The lorax (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch

Her jab at Dana’s motherhood and children was included in this article and I feel it is pretty unnecessary. It certainly wasn’t necessary at the CNN forum nor here. This is supposed to be a biography. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please make a specific proposal to improve the current version of the article. Your personal opinion of what is or is not "necessary" for the subject to say is completely irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see it necessary to include the personal attack against Dana Loesch at the CNN Forum where she said “Dana Loesch, I want you to know that we will support your two children in the way that you will not.” Not only is the comment inappropriate to the person she is talking to, it certainly doesn’t help her own image. I really am trying my best to be fair with both sides of this debate. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No you're not. No one believes you. Stop saying that.--Jorm (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And you say you’re an administrator? You don’t act like one. TheTBirdusThoracis (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not. I don't believe I said I was. I have no interest in being one. But you were threatening others who are. Anyways: I'm done with you.--Jorm (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi TheTBirdusThoracis, I feel that including Emma’s quote contextualizes the emotion of the gun debate. Whether you agree or disagree with Emma’s POV, isn’t it fair to include as much information about her participation in CNN’s forum, which was held just days after the shooting? When looking back at this period of time in the future, it would be helpful to those researching gun politics in the United States to see how the survivors of the Parkland shooting responded to the NRA. Some might argue over whether this confrontational style was effective in persuading viewers, but it seems important to reflect the mood of the proceedings in an encyclopedic record.--The lorax (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include the quote. The target is a long time NRA spokesperson who has said many things that offend many people. A very public figure. Legacypac (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Democrat?

The infobox and now categories indicate the subject is a member of the Democratic political party, however there is no source for this and a brief google didn't reveal anything. Could somebody either remove this or source it? TIA 86.6.59.8 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Trackinfo for removing this quickly. 86.6.59.8 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

it says that she is 19, but she is probably 20 now 107.5.128.148 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source to verify your suggested change. The most reliable source we have so far for this information is González herself. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed category

I removed Category:Child activists as this is a category only for people who became activist as children. In Florida, the legal threshold of adulthood is 18 years of age. She started her activism at 18 – as a young adult. Therefore the category in her article is not accurate, so please don't keep adding it. CookieMonster755✉ 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible ages

As a senior in high school born in 1999 or 2000, she is either 17 or 18. The article says age 18-19, which isn't a possible range unless she was held back a grade, which seems unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.bales064 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This recent source describes her as a 17 year old high school senior [5].--DynaGirl (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on pinpointing her age or birthday. She is still a minor after all. Better to just exclude the age and note she is a high school senior. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The infobox just changed to 2000/2001. This may be correct, but a senior in high school right now was more likely born in 1999/2000. Shall we remove it altogether since we don't have any information. 134.114.223.239 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source says she's 17 as of February 2018, so she was not born in 1999. Seems the infobox should just say 2000 (which is what the opening sentence of the lead says) but there's an automatic script adding it to the infobox which I'm not sure how to change.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It's simple math -- the template takes the age, as of a given date, and extrapolates a date range of two years when the person would have been born. Let a source tell us the age as of date, and let the template do its work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Parkland Talk, a media company in NW Broward County, Emma is 18 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.246.38 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a link for this? Perhaps she just turned 18, but as of February 2018 she was 17 years old per this source [6]. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We can't relay on newspapers for these kinds of small details. I recently saw two articles about someone I know that were published a year apart but the second added 5 years to her age. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Every BLP relies on reliable sources for age. If sources differ, we can of course indicate this, but so far there aren't debating sources because the IP did not provide a link to a reliable source. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Times article says she’s 18, that’s probably reliable . 134.114.223.243 (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No need to guess. She wrote she is 18 in Harpers Bazzar

References

She is a young adult, not a minor. CookieMonster755✉ 21:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Attacks and Conspiracy Theory section

The section labeled attacks should be called Criticism or something more in line with what one would find in an encyclopedia article. At present, the article seems to take a very protective tone of the subject, and by labeling every critical statement as an attack, the reader gets them impression that that anyone who disagrees with the subject's activism is committing a form a violence and that any criticism is inherently unfair. Likewise, by lumping valid arguments from notable figures in the same section as conspiracy theories that suggest the Gonzales is a crisis actor who eats fetuses for breakfast, the very structure of the article is being used to discredit anyone who disagrees with the stance of the article's subject. There really should be 2 sections; one for criticism and one for conspiracy theories. Mrathel (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That section does not list any good-faith criticism of her; instead it itemizes various personal attacks, such as false claims that she is a crisis actor or bigoted attacks on her sexuality or her ethnic background. It doesn't discredit good faith disagreements with her positions, it rightly categorizes unfounded personal attacks as such. If you have reliably sourced, good faith disagreements notable people have had with her, you should probably add them to a different section. --Jayron32 19:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Representative King's criticism was in good faith; even if you disagree with the context of it. Just because a source contradicts a part of an argument does not mean the whole thing has been made in bad faith,and such arguments should still be presented encyclopedic way rather than dismissed off hand as being a bad faith attack. Beyond that; there are myriad arguments that take issue with part of the activism that Gonzales that don't appear here. the families of deceased students as well as from National Review articles and other sources I am too lazy to look for myself. But I don't really care to write anything; I more or less just want to point out that the idea of having a section where editors list bad things said about the subject and then refute them and protecting the subject is more of the job of Snopes than an encyclopedia. Mrathel (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just wow. I haven't seen this article until now (I only watched her speeches at the time) but it's extremely biased. This section is a WP:CSECTION hit-piece. There is no such thing as "good-faith criticism" and "bad-faith criticism". "Criticism" and "attacks" mean the same thing. There are 300 words allocated to criticism by a fringely racist politician, and González is not even given half a sentence of air. I can't fix the article right now, but I will happen in the near future. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says that the BLP subject's perspective has to be presented in any contentious area, especially in a WP:CSECTION, and this CSECTION does not give her even a half a sentence of rebuttal. I'm not going to argue that all criticism is equally bad-faith; the most notorious provocateurs are best left out of context/air/details or out of the article; when the subject of the BLP receives death threats, WP:AVOIDVICTIM must be followed and it is irresponsible to quote insults about her appearance. TL;DR: keep only the public debate-level stuff that she has addressed and has lasting weight (WP:BLPBALANCE), remove direct quotes and trivial paraphrases from her opponents (WP:AVOIDVICTIM - she has received death threats), and provide her responses where possible (WP:PUBLICFIGURE). wumbolo ^^^ 23:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emma-gonzalez-protest-sign.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns

In Emma González's Instagram bio, their pronouns are they/them. The pronouns on this page should be edited to reflect that. https://instagram.com/emmawise18?igshid=mbvxe2ihs2jh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angstyteen420 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns

This link shows that Emma González uses they/them pronouns and self-identifies as non-binary, from their instagram. Please change this page to avoid misgendering them. https://www.instagram.com/p/CLkA9lyB2UM/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.238.182 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

emma gonzalez is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns. in this article, emma's pronouns are she/her. Vdanahy05 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Any sources for her usage/preference of they/them pronouns? – robertsky (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done After taking a closer look at this talk page, I realised that their Instagram profile is cited above. Since the profile is also marked as verified, I take it as a valid reference to change the pronoun used in this BLP. Additionally, this change is in line with MOS:GENDERID. – robertsky (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Continued Issue With Pronouns

Thank you for attempting to change the pronouns on this page in order to avoid misgendering Emma González. However, a lot of the article still uses she/her pronouns. It appears that "she" was replaced with "they," but "her" was not replaced with "them." In addition, there are some instances that say "they was" where it should be "they were." It is crucial to change this page to avoid misgendering them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.243.177.241 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

updated. – robertsky (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent reference to self as "X" vice "Emma"

In a recent interview with Jimmy Fallon, they referred to themselves as "X" instead of "Emma". I am not sure how this can be addressed with proper references, so I leave this to those better at this than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Name Change Request; Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Change title to from "Emma González" to "X González"

Change "Emma González (born November 11, 1999)" to X González (formerly Emma González; born November 11, 1999)"

In Personal Life, add "On May 10th, 2021, González appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, and revealed their new name, X.

Change all other references of "Emma" in text to "X" unless referring to transition between names in 'Personal Life' or in first line of wiki. Coelacanthea (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Changes to article names, including as a result of a person's name change, are outside the scope of simple edit requests. See Wikipedia:Requested moves for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with not changing the name. However, what we can do is add a redirect page with the title 'X González', and have that page automatically redirect to the Emma González page, and we can add in the lede sentence the additional name (if it hasn't been done already).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Requested move 17 May 2021

Emma González → X González – Changed their name for "gender and personal reasons". New name is being used by RS, including NPR (previous link) and the Guardian. Gaelan 💬✏️ 02:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom and MOS:DEADNAME—blindlynx (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nominator, and per MOS:DEADNAME. When someone changes their name for reasons of gender identity, we respect and honor that and update the page to match. Like, Elliot Page's page was moved to his current name almost immediately after his announcement, for example. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. Subject has announced their name change, reliable sources are using the new name, checks all of the criteria. --Jayron32 16:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per above -- I recommend (if the main article changes its name) that the Redirect page switch correspondingly, from 'X Gonzalez' to 'Emma Gonzalez'.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everyone.--Jorm (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:DEADNAME, suggest WP:SNOW close. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging Tomwsulcer and Eggishorn from the earlier thread, in case they have anything to add before we ask for a SNOW close here Gaelan 💬✏️ 03:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to add, I support the move, let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2021 (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.

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): Fififofum96. Peer reviewers: Sfischer2017, Dublinmay123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

gender identity

Unless I am mistaken, during the time of the speech at March for Our Lives, she had not been changed to they/them. The gender identity change occurred in May 2021, according to the article. Therefore, in the second paragraph, change they to she. Another option would be to find a way to rephrase the last sentence in the second paragraph. 161.77.57.235 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: To directly quote our Manual of Style on this matter: Using correct pronouns and other gendered words holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 23:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The gender identity topic is still confusing because she was the word that was in the article, and she was only changed to they when Emma was changed to X. How about phrasing the end of the second paragraph this way?

Speaking at the demonstration, González led a moment of silence for the victims of the massacre, standing on stage for six minutes, which was approximately the length of the shooting spree itself. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Attacks"

Article has a section called "Attacks and conspiracy theories" with another subsection called "Attacks by Steve King", and begins "Gonzalez was attacked..." but unless I'm missing something, the "attacks" listed are all just criticism. Why such charged language? For context, common primary defintions for the word 'attack' are "take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war" (OED), "an act of using violence to try to hurt or kill somebody" (Oxford Learners), "to try to hurt or defeat using violence" (Cambridge). While it's not strictly incorrect to call verbal criticism an attack, it's a hyperbole, and it's needlessly ambiguous in this context (perhaps intentionally so?), unencyclopedic, and value-laden. Please correct to more neutral and accurate language to describe criticism. 2600:8800:239F:A900:3DB1:F84A:F492:F793 (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)