Talk:Maya Keyes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Shymmer's death

I'm not certain of the specifics behind her friends death, but the medical terminology is incorrect. Anorexia nervosa is a behavioral disorder--what you've seen on Lifetime-type movies. Anorexia in general is a pathologic loss of appetite that can result from a variety of causes. Second, IV 'drips' are not a substitute for food, and the failure to administer one in the case of a patient would not cause death from starvation. If the failure to provide IV fluids resulted in his death, it would be as a result of dehydration. First time suggestion, so bear with me if my form is a litte off.

[edit] External links need trimming

The external links are definitely a bit much. Some of them are direct links to articles about Maya, which is good, but many are just random links to various advocacy organizations. And Maya hasn't been involved in all of those. --Cyde Weys 19:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Maya Marcel-Keyes → Maya Keyes – This is Maya's most known name. A normal page move is blocked by a redirect. Crumbsucker 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

What do you mean it's blocked by a redirect? Do you mean that the current page will redirect, or that there is something blocking us from redirecting it? The Ungovernable Force 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maya Keyes redirects to Maya Marcel-Keyes. It won't allow a standard page move, so I had to request it. Crumbsucker 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The article exists as a redirect. We can't copy the information there without losing the article history, so a move is required, but only an administrator can clobber a page (the redirect) during a move. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just take all the info that is here, copy it onto that page and then redirect this page there? I don't understand. If we copy all this as it is now to there, wouldn't the older versions still be in the history? We would actually lose all the history if we move it. The Ungovernable Force 22:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, when you click the page move button, it says not to do manual moves like that. Crumbsucker 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. I had trouble articulating it, so let me try again. We can copy all the code that's on this page right now, then go paste it into Maya Keyes. Then just change this page to a redirect. Heck, since everyone agrees so far, I'm just going to try it so you can see what I mean. The Ungovernable Force 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, nevermind. For some reason, when I typed Maya Marcel-Keyes it still took me to a page titled Maya Marcel-Keyes, instead of redirecting to Maya Keyes like I put on the page. When I tried to edit to make sure I did it right, it showed that Maya Marcel-Keyes was supposed to redirect, but it still was on a page titled Maya Marcel-Keyes. I don't know why it didn't work. Oh well, no harm done. At least I'm not curious anymore. The Ungovernable Force 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, copy-pasting over the code is a manual move, and it shouldn't be done because real moves also bring along all of the edit history which ensures GFDL compliance. --Cyde↔Weys 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the term "queer"

While it is evident that Keyes has used this term to describe herself, I don't necessarily believe that warrants the use of it on this page. It is a term that is still offensive to some, reguardless of whom is saying it, and I think a more general term should be used. - Crazyd782 21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Personally, I consider the term "homosexual" far more offensive, but I consider overriding someone's choice of self-identification to be the point of offensiveness we ought consider most. People use terms for self-identification that others find offensive frequently, especially in this context wherein many offensive terms (dyke, queer, etc) have been reclaimed. I don't think it's up to us to decide that her choice of teriminology should be overridden, it's censorship, it's inappropriately changing the identity associated with her, it's stifling her ability and right to use her self-identity to reclaim language, and it's also innacuarte: "homosexual" is not a more general term. It is far more specific and is not only inappropriate but quite conceivably an inaccuracy. Read queer and compare. Since I believe I have addressed your concern entirely, I'm going to change it back, but if you have other concerns please bring them up here, I'd be happy to discuss them with you. 149.43.x.x 03:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen the source that she has identified herself as such, but a few people have said she has and for now I will assume this is the case. If it is, I agree with 149.43.x.x. here. First off, it's what she calls herself, second, some queers (such as myself) are not homosexuals. I would never label myself as a homosexual because that simply isn't true. Queer is not very offensive anymore in many contexts, such as this one, so I don't see what is wrong with it. Homosexual can be used in just as derogatory a name anyways--it all depends on how it is used and by whom. The Ungovernable Force 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how the term "homosexual" is offensive. In fact, it is perfectly descriptive in this situation, referring to "a person who is attracted to those of the same (homo meaning same) sex." You are correct in saying that homosexual is not general. However, reading the definition of queer (upon your recommendation), I see it can refer to bisexuals, hermaphrodites, and those who are transgender. Since it is such a broad category, why use it here? It is so general, that it comes across as a stereotype. I would also like to point out that "it is what she called herself" is not a valid reason. Richard Hatch, the first winner of Survivor, would constantly refer to himself as "the fat, naked fag." These are his words, and after all, "it's not up to us to decide." If that is your belief, then do you also feel that we should add "Richard Hatch is a fag" to his page? Finally, homosexual is not a hate word, where as some may believe that "queer" is. Matthew Shepard was called a "queer" several times right before he was brutally murderered. I am completely against any censorship on Wikipedia, however, I am also against misusing terms and promoting hate speech. Keyes is a homosexual, and she should be identified as such. Crazyd782 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you provide a source that she is homosexual as opposed to bisexual, pansexual, heteroflexible or some other distinction? And beating someone up while calling them queer isn't any worse than beating them up and calling them homosexual. And I think that if she has described herself as queer, but has never labelled herself homosexual, we should use queer. Again, I'm not saying she has never called herself homosexual, but until I see a source, I think we should use what she has used. The Ungovernable Force 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' and 'queer'. We can't use 'queer' as a blanket term for alternative sexuality elsewhere on wikipedia because some LBGT people do object to it. Others consciously use it to describe themselves, which seems to be the case here. I had an AIM conversation a while ago with the persion who originally inserted the word 'queer' into this article, who claimed to know Maya, and claimed that Maya identified herself as 'queer' and was bisexual. An AIM log certainly isn't a reliable source (especially since I can't find it), although the screenname was listed on a blog that Maya was subscribed to, meaning it's probable that the term 'queer' is acceptable in this article. We don't need to replace every instance of the word 'homosexual' with 'queer' as the person I talked to did, but saying that she identifies herself as queer is definitely warranted. --TexasDex 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's how I feel about this, you articulated it well. And although this is speculation and doesn't prove anything, seeing as Maya is an anarchist I think it is very likely she would prefer queer over homo/bisexual. I prefer the use of queer in real life due to it's more radical and subversive nature. I think a lot of LGBTQ anarchists would probably feel similarly. The Ungovernable Force 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. When I pointed to queer as the reason to use this term, I meant it specifically because it is the term she uses to self-identify, and because its definition was more accurate in this case (or rather, beacuse "homosexual" is not accurate much at all). We can't possibly settle the argument of whether or not it's appropriate to use as a blanket term or as a term when the precise (if there is such a thing) term cannot be discerned. I still think that her use of the word to describe herself trumps everything else. It's not that she flippantly used it to describe herself like the survivor contestant, but that she used it specifically to self-identify as such. Keyes is not a homosexual, and this is not hate-speech (which depends as much on the context as it does on the word). I see absolutely no reason why "homosexual" is more accurate, more appropriate, or less offensive. Indeed, I think we've made a strong case that queer is more accurate and more appropriate, and that offensiveness to any particular person, except perhaps Keyes herself, is (or at least should be) entirely inconsequental in this debate. 149.43.x.x 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I might need to explain one point a bit further. The term homosexual can in fact be offensive. In one sense, it is particularly offensive to people of political persuasion similar to Maya. Many anarchists reject the social institutions of gender and sex: to step in like this, imposing and enforcing a notion that we must label them based on standards constructed by a gendered/sexist society, could easily be (and is, for some) considered highly offensive. That's not necessarily her opinion, but I thought I'd explain a bit more why the "queer is more offensive" angle doesn't hold water. 149.43.x.x 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed and the consensus is that the most appropriate term to use is "queer" (unless I am very much misinterpreting the conclusion reached in this discussion). I have also recently been made aware of the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) which states that we should "[u]se the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use." Given the discussion thusfar, and the fact that this policy also supports use of the term "queer," I would say it is highly inappropriate to continue to change this back to "lesbian" without any reason given, discussed, and agreed upon. 149.43.x.x 20:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a misreading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). Be that as it may, some explanation for the use of a slang term in the text is required, and I've added it.217.43.168.194 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Scare quotes violate the Manual of Style, and it is completely nonNPOV to over-qualify such things. It says right in naming conventions that we should use "the name(s) and terminology" that Keyes prefers. That means the term queer, without scare quotes or unnecessary qualifications. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What, exactly, did I vandalize?

Alan Keyes said all gays were selfish hedonists. Therefore, he called his daughter a selfish hedonist. What, exactly, did I vandalize? You freaking PC police need to fuck off, to put it lightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvardgraduate1987 (talk • contribs)

Well, you vandalized a simpsons article, my userpage and my talk page for one. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I never said you vandalized this page btw. I was trying to assume good faith, although I'm not quite so sure after your last few edits. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 07:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not sound reasoning at all. To say "he called his daughter a selfish hedonist" is very different than "he called gays and lesbians selfish hedonists, before his daughter's sexuality was known." It was also entirely out-of-place in the introductory paragraph. If you want to put it back in there, make what you add accurate and put it where it ought to be in the article. Also, you need to seriously reconsider your conduct and language. 149.43.x.x 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maya Keyes: A Republican?

This article is in the Gay Republicans category. Given her long history of supporting all sorts of left-wing causes, it seems somewhat improbable to me that she's actually a Republican. --Descendall 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

She's supported or at least been associated with her father's campaigns and other Republican things in the past. For example, the article reads "After the 2004 campaign, Marcel-Keyes became a consultant for Keyes' [her father's] Illinois office." She may not be a Republican now, but I'm not entirely sure how to establish if/when she jumped ship. Left vs right isn't as dichotomous as it might seem, her association with "left-wing" things doesn't necessarily exclude her from being a Republican (the party wasn't always a giant neoconservative machine, after all). Although, to be fair, she's not gay, she's queer. But that's something to take to the category though. Cheeser1 04:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "left-wing" wasn't the right word to use, but she's called herself a "liberal queer" and an anarchist who voted for Ralph Nader. I guess it's theoretically possible to be a liberal Nader-voting vegan anti-death penalty anarchist homosexual republican, but it certainly seems pretty improbable to me. --Descendall 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're getting at, but she's been affiliated with the party in the past, and I'm not entirely sure, but I'd say the tag would be just as applicable even if she renounced all ties with the party and/or its ideology (although, to be fair, it need not have a particular ideology) - it'd be like if Bill Clinton renounced his ties with the Democrats, he'd still be tagged under the category Democrat Presidents (if there is such a category, I'm not going to bother to look). Cheeser1 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you're going to tag HRC as a Republican and RWR as a Democrat, the tag has gots to go. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 19:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why Maya can't call herself or register as a Republican or Green or what have you. There is such a thing as left-libertarian Republicans, in spite of what one may think is "improbable". Twalls 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
But she's not a Republican. Nobody says she's not allowed to be, but she isn't. That's the point. Just because her father is, or because she was loosely affiliated with the party as a child (ie under her father's supervision/care), that doesn't make her one. --Cheeser1 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maya and her parents

I was looking to add something about her rocky relationship with her parents to the Alan Keyes page, so I came over here. After reading the sources, I found that someone took some editorial freedoms with them. For example, no where in her blog does she discuss not being allowed back into the Maryland home. I cut this down to reflect what the source actually says. --Jdcaust 16:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

She characterizes her parents actions as leaving her "homeless." I think there is no undue leap of logic to presume that she was not allowed to return to the familial home. I've reverted your changes, and I'm happy to consider working towards compromise, but keep in mind that you shouldn't just add them back (I'm not saying you will, but I like to get that out of the way before these discussions get going). --Cheeser1 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No, actually I think your revision was good. Don't worry, I wouldn't change it back without discussion. We've had the same problem at the Alan Keyes page. As it is, I'm happy with this contribution the way it is now. --Jdcaust 00:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have always been told that she was kicked out of her home, it needs to be included. Some research will back it up. I actually came to this page to specifically read about her rocky relationship with ehr father. --User:kcflood 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've done some pretty extensive research on it in order to add it to the Alan Keyes page. She was given two weeks to leave her apartment and she was cut off financially. The problem with properly sourcing this is that its a more private event in the lives a family and not really a matter of public record. All we have right now is a few interviews and her blog. Maybe one day, one of them will write a biography or something and we'll get the whole story. The way things are written now, I believe, properly reflects the source and the source is a reliable one. --Jdcaust 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If she was given two weeks to leave her apartment and was cut off financially after reaching the age of majority, does it really count as being left "homeless"? Maya is a young lady in her twenties - not a teenager who is incapable of caring for herself. I'm not a big fan of her father, but the way the situation is presented just seems sort of biased, and there's really not much to go on except for her word. 68.111.138.254 07:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
A person without a permanent residence is homeless. That's the word for it. And in case you didn't notice, that's a quotation. --Cheeser1 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maya and DID?

I'm curious as to why there is no mention in the article of Maya having Dissociative Identity Disorder, or of her being deaf. If one blog-hops around enough, one will find that she has claimed to be both DID and deaf. There is also no mention of her having been a part of a "naked maid service", which is also referenced in one of her earlier blogs. --Rynoah 06:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As it's straight from the mouth of Maya herself, I agree that it should be added or at least made mention of. 68.111.138.254 07:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And if the 'nekkid maid service' wasn't obviously a total joke of the type you sometimes throw into a blog, that would mean something. As to the deafness, she doesn't claim deafness, just that her ears aren't working. Sorry, but there are a zillion reasons for that, and a good 9/10 of 'em are temporary things (swimmer's ear, bad cold, blown out, etc). I can't address DID, but I likewise can't find anything else to back it up, and at the time of the writing, she was a 19-year-old blogger with a Xanga page. Needs a lot more. bah. can't wait until I get published and people discuss my 'prolific porn writing' period by citing two things I posted to alt.sex.stories 17 years ago.--Thespian 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those sound like unconfirmed rumors. We need reliable sources. I realize her blog is used in this article, but since it's an article about her we're allowed some leeway with WP:SPS. However, to report "in her blog she says blah blah" relating to her well-documented expulsion from her home/family is one thing. To report on completely unverifiable rumors about deafness or mental illness would be far more dubious. --Cheeser1 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think she'd fake a mental illness? We're taking Maya's word that she was kicked out of her home by her father, based on her blog and interviews, so why should this be any different? 144.37.247.143 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Maya Keyes has DID" is an analytical claim that requires a secondary source. "Maya Keyes was kicked out of her house" requires only a primary source, because it is a claim of what happened, not a psychological diagnosis. Also, as I said, her expulsion from her home/family is also well documented outside her blog. We aren't relying on her blog alone, but on published news articles. --Cheeser1 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What about blogs created for use by her purported alternate personalities? Would those be considered a secondary source? Or would it be best to simply put such claims into the article as rumors/controversy? I'd like to direct you to this, in which so-called Internet investigators dug up evidence to link Marcel-Keyes with several "alter" blogs (these alters were also linked to a scam, which you can learn more about here, here, and here). Coincidentally, one of those "alters" happens to be a deaf Indian boy by the name of "Haze". His LiveJournal account is here. It's friend-locked, but he seems to share a few traits with Marcel-Keyes (birthdate, ethnicity, and alma mater). There is also a "mass blog" for all the alter-egos, with a listing for "Mol" whose AIM screenname is "AbsolutVerve" (it also lists Haze). The Xmisled0youthX blog was owned by "Mol". If there are any doubts about "Mol" and Maya being the same, Maya is referenced in Haze's blog, and her name is linked to the Xmisled0youthX blog. I think the claims are valid, even as uncomfirmed rumors. --Rynoah 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If Maya is even claiming to have DID, it should be noted in the article - whether or not it's true. 144.37.183.175 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That is not true. What Maya allegedly claims about herself does not necessarily merit inclusion unless the claim of her DID is documented in reliable sources. --Cheeser1 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Is the blog that the page links Maya's or not? How can she "allegedly" claim something if you guys have already established that the blog belongs to her? If someone says, "I have a multiple personality disorder" on their personal site, is it not the same as saying "I have cancer"? Either we can believe what she's saying in her blogs or not, but it doesn't make sense to use her blog selectively. Yes, the DID isn't going to make her look so great, but let's not let bias get in the way of accurately reporting things that we know she has written. 144.37.183.175 00:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we can use her blog to confirm her expulsion from her house because: (1) it is relatively well-documented elsewhere, (2) it is not an analytical claim (like a medical diagnosis would be, and which would require a secondary source), and (3) it is a claim/occurrence that Maya her self can actually document. The fact is, if Britney Spears goes on her website and says "I have cancer" then we can presumably find reliable secondary sources to verify this medical claim. Until you find such a source for your diagnosis of Maya Keyes, it's not reliably sourced. And for the record, the official website of a major celebrity is not the same as the unofficial blog of a minor celebrity or person of note. --Cheeser1 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
She has never been diagnosed with DID. You need to take the MMPI II to get that diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.21.135 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate further note that the policy on biographies of living persons makes it clear that reliable sources are strictly required for claims that could be contentious or disputed in any way. And I'd also add that Wikipedia is not a blog. Repeating every claim Maya Keyes ever made about herself on her blog, without context or verification, is absurd on its face, but also could even constitute using this space to recreate a blog, instead of writing an encyclopedia, which is what we're here to do. We are not supposed to be picking through her blog to find absurd things (eg naked maid service) to take out of context and reprint here. --Cheeser1 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've found the actual thread (not the archive version) from the hockeyzombie.com forum. It contains screenshots, which better illustrate the points made in the post. --Rynoah 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a web-forum, and the blogs by people who might be her "alter-egos" would not qualify as any sort of diagnosis and do not constitute reliable sources. Seriously, try WP:BLP. We need very reliable sources for claims like "This person has a serious mental illness." As of yet, it just doesn't meet verifiability policy. --Cheeser1 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the mention in the article doesn't have to be a definitive "this person has DID, it's been proven". The very fact that she claims to have DID, and that there is a large pile of evidence to suggest that -- whether or not she has been officially diagnosed with the disorder -- she has been known to act as though she suffers from DID, going so far as to create blogs for her different alter-egos. The fact that this is considered irrelevant seems a bit silly to me. --Rynoah 01:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
She is known for this? Really? Is there a single mention of this in a reliable third-party source? Because if not, then she is not know for this, not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Rumors that you think are widely circulating do not qualify as reliable, and likewise do not merit inclusion either. Wikipedia is not a rumor-mill or gossip column. --Cheeser1 02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at a different claim: "Maya Keyes has started a naked maid service." This is based on what, a tiny comment in her blog? This is totally unreliable and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, especially a biography of a living person. I would presume that it's far more likely that this was an inside joke that you're taking literally. This is exactly why blogs are not reliable sources, and should only be used to supplement reliable sources, or to demonstrate what a particular person says/claims, at most. --Cheeser1 23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A tiny comment on her blog and also collaboration from the roommate she claims to have started the business with. Comments to the roommate's blog (and Maya's own blog) would suggest that they weren't taking it as a joke. And I know, I know: it's a blog and therefore not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, but I think there are far too many coincidences here to have these claims brushed aside. --Rynoah 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
And what about the picture of her dead friend on the current page? Where was that taken from? Her blog as well? Either it's a reliable source, or it's not. Pick. A large part of the article focuses on the fact that she came out first on her blog. It's been proven to be a reliable source in the past, and I think Rynoah has done some legitimate detective work. Would you accept a written statement from the owner of www.ctrlaltdel-online.com including documentation of the fundraiser they ran for her when she claimed to be a 16-year-old deaf boy from India? Or does legal documentation surrounding the money she swindled from an online forum not count? 68.111.138.254 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS does not apply to images, and "legitimate detective work" sounds an awful lot like "original research." Digging through blogs collecting evidence, hoping that a pile of unreliable sources will, by their sheer number (although I only see two), create a reliable one is not how we write articles here. And like I'ev said several times already, there are some claims we can make using primary sources, and some we can't. --Cheeser1 02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


If anyone wants to talk policy here, I'd be happy to hear an argument for including this material based on policy. But there are more policies than I can count on one hand telling us we can definitively, absolutely not include such a claim. It's not a reliable source. It's not capable of making analytical claims (ie medical diagnoses) because it is a primary source. It's no exception to the policy excluding self-published sources as reliable, in fact, blogs are explicitly mentioned as unreliable. It's a highly suspicious, unverifiable claim about a living person. The only reason I see based on any policy or precedent is based on a misunderstanding of how primary sources can be used - to verify, corroborate, or demonstrate something that is well-documented in other sources (ie her expulsion from her home). The fact that we say "Keyes was expelled from her home (see also her blog where she recounts the events)" is not an open invitation to crawl through her blog and add claims that have no reliable sourcing like "Keyes has a severe mental illness (see also her blog, where she mentions it in passing, with exactly zero authority or context)." --Cheeser1 02:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Would documentation regarding the fundraiser be a valid source, or not? Would Paypal receipts be a valid source, or not? Would a written statement from the site's administrator be a valid source, or not? After all, the site in question (Ctrl+Alt+Del) has its own entry on Wikipedia, and I'm sure its maintainers would be more than happy to shed some light on the issue. It's really difficult to come up with primary sources when you're discounting everything that's been offered to you on the grounds that it's just a "rumour" when legal charges were almost filed in at least one case. This could all be cleared up by e-mailing Maya herself, but I'm beginning to think that you wouldn't accept that, either. All the information about Maya being kicked out of her home comes from other sources, yes, but those other sources got it from Maya's blog or from interviews with Maya. It seems silly, at least to me, to say her blog is not a legitimate source when that's where your legitimate sources got it from. 68.111.138.254 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Additionally! Regarding the usage of her blog as a source... Wikipedia's policy on self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves states:

1) It is relevant to their notability. Maya seems to think so, or she would not have mentioned it multiple times. It's at least as important as the death of her friend. Why you have a picture of him up on the page still bewilders me, though. The article isn't in any way about him, and we still don't even know where it came from. 2) It is not contentious. You could have a point here, but I could just as easily question whether or not she's really gay. Unless you have photographic evidence of Maya having sex with another woman, you're out of luck - and unless we have a doctor's note, we're in the same position. There are some things we just have to take a subject's word for when it comes to writing biographies on them. This is one of them. 3) It is not unduly self-serving. I can't see how it would be. 4) It does not involve claims about third parties. This is just about Maya, talking about Maya and how her illness has affected her. 5) It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. Again, this is just Maya talking about Maya, in her public blog which she knows that the media has been known to look at. She's not going to make an offhand remark, on several different occasions, about a condition that she does not have. That's just not who she is, based on everything else that the article says about her. 6) There is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. Wikipedia states that the blog is Maya's, so unless someone else has posting access... 7) The article is not based primarily on such sources. It is not. 68.111.138.254 03:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And the obvious responses:
1) Not relevant. If it were relevant to her notability, why has it never been mentioned anywhere? Why is this information only found mentioned, without enough context or authority, in her journal? Why are there no secondary sources to support this medical claim?
2) Exactly. It's contentious. And your example is nonsense. Queer identity is not based on photographic proof of same-sex activity. Read up on queer.
Keep in mind that failing any of these criteria means that these sources are questionable, and like the policy states, sources that are in any way questionable are not suitable for biographies. If you have an issue with the picture, feel free to talk about that elsewhere (ie in a new discussion on this page). Image policy is vastly different than sourcing policy. --Cheeser1 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And in case there's any confusion, emailing Maya yourself, or putting together claims based on what you find in her journal, or anything of the sort qualifies as original research. --Cheeser1 04:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am queer, thanks; I shouldn't have to read up on it. The point I'm trying to make is that you're questioning a statement that Maya made on her blog about her personal life, but you're ignoring others and treating them as fact because a media outlet reported them. The only reason the media got their hands on the story in the first place is because of... you guessed it! Her blog. It is ridiculous to ask for photographic evidence as a primary source for a statement like "I'm queer", just like it's ridiculous to ask for a published doctor's diagnosis for a statement like "I have DID" when media outlets, including all of your primary sources, have used the blog as a primary source. I honestly think you're dodging the issue because you're afraid it's going to make Maya look bad, not because it's illegitimate. Maya uses her blog to say she's queer, her father kicks her out, the media reports it, citing Maya herself as their reference - and you add it to the page. Maya uses her blog to say she has DID, the media skims over it - and you claim her blog is no longer a valid source? Get real. If you honestly don't believe that her blog is a trustworthy source of information about Maya Keyes, remove it from the article. 68.111.138.254 06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't get it. If the newspaper gets it from her blog and then PUBLISHES it, then it becomes reliable. The key to reliability is publication. The only parts of her journal that merit mention are those that are mentioned in published sources. The only things presented in her journal that we should take as facts are the ones confirmed by published news reports. Her blog is not a reliable source but that does not mean we can't link to it or cite it to supplement reliable sources. Your argument doesn't make sense. The only use of her blog as a source of any particular use of the blog to determine particular content is her sexual identity. Her self-identification (again, confirmed in the media) is a far more reliable way then to say "she has sex with women, she's a lesbian, because I say so" which is what people have tried to do repeatedly. --Cheeser1 07:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say, as a point of interest, that these two IPs and the user Rynoah have made no edits on any other article. This does not, of course, discredit their comments in an way, but as a point of interest, I believe we should make note of this fact (as we often do when multiple editors come to an article simultaneously, with no prior contributions). --Cheeser1 07:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my first time on Wikipedia; I've yet to make an account here, as I'm still getting a general feel for the formatting and commands. I wouldn't even be aware of the whole DID issue if Rynoah hadn't brought it up in the first place, and I certainly would have posted on the Talk pages of the other articles I've read if I had felt compelled to. This is the first time I've communicated through a Talk page because it's the first Talk page I've been interested in. I don't think it's fair for you to single out and ostracize someone who hasn't made any edits to the article itself. I am not an editor here on Wikipedia. I am simply weighing in based on what I've read. You say that my lack of a history doesn't discredit my comments, but then why did you bring it up? We can nitpick all day over whether or not certain pieces of information should be included in the Maya Keyes article, but I'm honestly beginning to wonder why there's even an article for Maya Keyes at all. I'm familiar with her because I attended one of her speeches, but she's really a celebrity of minor note. Would it perhaps be wiser to merge this article with the article on Alan Keyes? Beyond being the homosexual daughter of a well-known politician, she hasn't done much except win a few awards and participate in charity work - and that can be said for many, many people who don't have articles here. 68.111.138.254 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't note the strong qualifications I left on my previous comments. This is common practice when groups of editors all show up and start arguing for the same thing, despite having never contributed to Wikipedia before. (See WP:SPA.) Keyes has a biography because she meets WP:N, specifically WP:BIO. --Cheeser1 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Shymmer.jpg

I am the person that originally put up the picture of Shymmer. I was recently contacted by the *true* copyright holder, who asked that the picture be removed. Please remove the picture.Sethxy 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The use of the term "queer" instead of homosexual or lesbian

An earlier post holds that the question of the usage of the term "queer" has now been settled and another post contends that it is Wikipedia's policy to use whatever term is used by the person discussed. I would point out however that Wikipedia's definition of the term "queer" concludes that the term is objectionable. I also note that some African-Americans will routinely use the term "nigger" in self-reference, a term also considered objectionable, would we countenance the usage of this word to describe a subject? I think not. I think the term "queer" should be removed and "gay", "homosexual" or "lesbian" substituted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAWinans (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make sense. It's a strawman analogy at best, and a red-herring at worst. The term "gay" or "homosexual" could be just as offensive. The use of the n-word by blacks, in slang or in passing, is not the same as a sexual identity label. And if someone, say a political activist, intentionally deliberately or meaningfully used the n-word to self-identify, we would use it on their page. On the other hand, Lebron James is not identified by such a word, even if he uses it as slang. It's a terrible, irrelevant analogy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this counts for anything, but the state of New York disallows the word queer to be used when it comes to Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, which bans language deemed to be obscene. That said, a lot of members in the LGBT community use it in order to reclaim it. Even Wikipedia says that the term is "still considered by some to be offensive and derisive." Perhaps we could reach a compromise by putting the word, when it appears in this article, in quotation marks--if that is indeed the word Maya has used to describe herself. 172.195.103.36 (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
New York tax law has no bearing on this issue. Wikipedia is not censored. I'd also point out that the Manual of Style tells us to avoid what you are suggesting (know as scare quotes). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)