Talk:Chyler Leigh

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chyler Leigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120522151442/http://www.theinsider.com:80/tv/52435_Lexi_Dies_on_Greys_Anatomy_Shonda_Rhimes_Defends_Finale/index.html to http://www.theinsider.com/tv/52435_Lexi_Dies_on_Greys_Anatomy_Shonda_Rhimes_Defends_Finale/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208161204/http://www.usmagazine.com:80/news/greys-anatomy-star-naming-baby-aniston to http://www.usmagazine.com/news/greys-anatomy-star-naming-baby-aniston

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chyler Leigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080530014944/http://www.tvguide.com:80/news/070927-02 to http://www.tvguide.com/news/070927-02

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• GBOh871a.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The claim that Leigh came out as a member of the LGBTQ community is based on an extremely ambiguous statement by Leigh where she never actually says that she identifies as gay, transgender, etc., only that the dialogue resonated with her, without saying exactly how, and could be construed in any number of ways about a personal journey. Any mention of this statement in the article should say that the statement has been interpreted by certain media outlets as a coming out statement, to more accurately reflect it.

"When I was told that my character was to come out in season 2, a flurry of thoughts and emotions flew through and around me because of the responsibility I personally felt to authentically represent Alex’s journey. What I didn’t realize was how the scene where she finally confessed her truth would leap off the pages of the script and genuinely become a variation of my own. IRL. My heart felt like it was going to beat out of my chest each take we filmed, every time presenting another opportunity to get those honest words out of my mouth. Though they don’t exactly match my personal dialogue, the heart behind it surely did. From the director, the press, the media, the cast, and the fans, I’m still told that it was the most realistic coming out scene they’d ever witnessed. And to steal from Alex’s words, that’s because there’s some truth to what she said about me.

"Here’s the kicker though. Since that episode aired, I was told from dear friends (and even avid watchers of Supergirl) that they would no longer watch the show because of the fact that Alex’s journey took a turn from their less than acceptable beliefs. Soon after, they began to distance themselves and eventually my family and I were outcast, marking the loss of many folks we loved. However, after the initial sting, I don’t hold a grudge towards the negative response, because as I said, we all have had a hard time in one way or another with acceptance (whatever the subject may be) whether towards ourselves or others.

"It’s been a long and lonely road for both my husband and myself but I can whole-heartedly say that after all these years, he and I are still discovering the depths of ourselves and each other, but throughout our journey we’ve learned to be proud of who we are, no matter the cost." 2600:1700:12C8:10:416E:9B16:8288:4164 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Redeleted after good faith reversion of my deletion by IJBall. Biographies of Living Persons policy, which applies here, says "unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," so it seems policy actually dictates the comment be removed until we get consensus, so I am going to go ahead and remove it again. Will try to get compromise text up soon. 2600:1700:12C8:10:A9CD:2601:E29B:9D18 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Moved from User talk:IJBall § Your revert on Chyler Leigh

 – --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit on Chyler Leigh, saying to let the Talk Page discussion play out, citing WP:STATUSQUO, which is only an essay, not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and therefore would not carry the same weight as an actual guideline like WP:BOLD, correct? I've been Bold, and I've Discussed, so I've already started the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, so I think since you were aware of the discussion being initiated at the time of your revert, reverting without contributing to the discussion was not exactly conducive to keeping the BRD cycle going. So, I can wait 24 hours past your undiscussed revert to avoid appearance of an edit war, but then if no one else contributes to the discussion, I'm going to redelete - or you could talk with me about it on the talk page now. 2600:1700:12C8:10:A9CD:2601:E29B:9D18 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for other comments on your changes, to see if they have consensus. If no one comments in the next few days, then you can likely re-remove that section, on the assumption that no one objects. I would wait more than 24 hours though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll think about more neutral wording that reports that certain outlets are interpreting Leigh's statement as a "coming out", which I think is a pretty reasonable compromise, but I just refreshed my memory on Biographies of Living Persons policy, which applies here, and which says "unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," it seems policy actually dictates the comment be removed until we get consensus, so I am going to go ahead and remove it again. Will try to get compromise text up soon. 2600:1700:12C8:10:A9CD:2601:E29B:9D18 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly – The Advocate (LGBT magazine) would certainly be considered a WP:RS by most of the community. Thus, the only justification for removing that is either a WP:UNDUE argument, or a WP:SYNTH argument. I gather you are making the latter argument. I have no opinion on that, but I want to make sure other editors don't object first. Rewording the section would likely be the best call. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I added revised text that states sources like the Advocate interpreted her statement as a coming-out, which I believe is more compliant with the spirit of WP:NPOV than stating their interpretation as fact like the previous text did. I think this is a pretty fair compromise, and added citations of multiple sources, including the Advocate to avoid appearance of WP:WEASEL or anything like that. Will try to get around to cleaning up the citation formatting when I have the time.2600:1700:12C8:10:A9CD:2601:E29B:9D18 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply