Talk:Shelley Lynn Thornton

How is she notable?

Is her status as the biological daughter of the Roe v. Wade plaintiff enough for that? Nothing else in her entry seems to be. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree - and feel that this article has far too much personal detail. I wonder if summary details should go in to the Norma McCorvey article. -- Beardo (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Beardo, I've made it a redirect. If coverage changes, the situation can be reassessed later. TJMSmith (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

TJMSmith - thanks. -- Beardo (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Revival

I revived the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion at Talk:Roe v. Wade#Shelley Lynn Thornton. --N8_wilson 04:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please explain why you think she's notable. At a glance, the --general notability guidelines for people don't seem to make her so, and the non-notability guidelines would seem to make her not so. I think her connection to her birth mother is the only reason, and redirection was therefore the proper approach. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I intentionally refrained from commenting on notability earlier having not looked closely at this topic and related policy but a quick read seems to fit with PauAmmas comments above. I would also contend that the redirect solution only makes sense when the target article actually mentions Thornton by name - even a single sentence would satisfy that concern though. Otherwise, if no article can be found to do that, removal of the redirect seems preferable to avoid confusion. --N8_wilson 15:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's how all of this began. The article Shelley Lynn Thornton was redirected ... to either McCorvey or to Roe v. Wade, I forget which. Either way, the target page redirected to made no mention whatsoever of Shelley Lynn Thornton. I added such notes to the Talk Pages of both of those relevant articles. I saw that there was already an article about Shelley Lynn Thornton ... so I revived it. I think she's notable. And there are many RS's. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Please explain which of the notability guidelines make you think she is notable and why, and why you think none of the guidelines pointing at lack of notability are applicable. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is a textbook example of how a biography should not be written. It's purely based off the subject's relation to someone else (someone she's never even met, btw), in direct opposition to WP:INVALIDBIO. INVALIDBIO states, in part: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." (bolding mine). It's been nominated for deletion here. --Kbabej (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You state: unless significant coverage can be found on Person A. Indeed, there has been significant coverage on her. Plenty of RS's. On precisely this topic. Now, even more so, due to the recent Roe reversal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Husband

Douglas Thumma. Possible. Unsure. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hurtful language

The adoption community majority is offended by the term “give up [a baby] for adoption” and supports “place for adoption.” The former is biased and judgmental language; the latter is factual and neutral. “McCorvey told Shelley Thornton that she’d given her up for adoption because […]” 2600:6C5E:537F:9FB4:1C36:4D2:AF78:A15D (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

According to language of adoption, HAL prefers "surrender for adoption" as an alternative to "place for adoption" and PAL prefers "place for adoption" as an alternative to "surrender for adoption". This is far from a consensus of terms. --N8_wilson 15:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Back in 1969 or 1970, I am quite sure that the phrase "giving a baby up for adoption" was quite common and, in fact, quite the norm. Today, in 2022, I am sure that someone, somewhere is "offended" by that (supposedly) offensive language. And, thus, we (as a society) seek out "politically correct terms". Which, themselves, will be politically incorrect ... next week or next year or whenever someone is newly offended. Nonetheless, back in 1969 or 1970, Norma McCorvey would have said -- "I gave you up for adoption because of ... x, y, z" ... and everyone would have understood what she meant. We are not using direct quotes (from McCorvey or Thornton) in this article. So, using the "new" and "PC" terms is fine with me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed. We do, in fact, have a direct quote from Thornton (later on, in the article). Namely: Thornton's visceral reaction was "What! I'm supposed to thank you for getting knocked up ... and then giving me away?". This is a direct quote ... and she said this in 2021. So, whether the language is "hurtful" or not, she said it. Again, in 2021. Just a few months ago. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And in fact, there appear to be two sets of conflicting "PC" terms which each disapprove of the other. This makes finding an encyclopedic approach particularly tricky. --N8_wilson 18:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good point. So, to avoid all of these "PC minefields" ... I'd try to use direct quotes whenever possible. To avoid the whole PC thing ... which, in itself, is always a losing battle. I.e., someone, somewhere is always offended, no matter what terms you use. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)