![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 is an area for comments that are not directly related to the evidence. For example, comments that you might want to use during the actual move request. Please keep your comments hatnoted / collapsed, both to keep the page small and because this is not the area to engage in debate or discussion about what to call the article. Please do not respond to anyone's comment. This is not a discussion area.
Comment regarding the treatment of Manning as transgender |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(On General LGBT sources as references for identification in this specific case) I hatted my long winded explanation which may be read by un-hatting. Example, the Leveson Inquiry recounts how trans people can feel intense emotional pain by being referred to by previous name. It is equally important though, not to associate criminality and instability to GID for people other than Manning. Sources that simply reflect the perspective of the subject w/o the perspective of the group risk being stereotypical. As an example, Osama bin Laden identified as Islamic and Arabic. It would be extremely offensive to portray his notable acts stemming from Islam or Arabian identification. Manning used GID as justification in court for assaulting a senior female enlisted person, releasing classified information and for emotional instability. Just like there are guides for generally describing followers of Islam, it may be disparaging to the group go overboard when describing a follower that committed crimes they attributed to that religion. Whence, making GID the central topic for Manning overlooks the crimes that made her notable. Any source should be tailored directly at Manning and not a general source for GID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward ( talk • contribs) --03:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's also worth considering that GID in this case was used as a mitigating factor to explain emotional instability, assaulting a senior female enlisted person, and disclosing classified information. Manning has expressed a desire to live as a woman and be referred to as Chelsea. However, I find the evidence lacking that she lived as a woman for any length of time (and possibly this explains emotional distress/instability as she wasn't allowed to in the Army). It is an odd choice to join the military where DADT was accepted but certainly not transgender lifestyles. My concern is recognizing Manning as a woman may do a great injustice and disservice to transwoman that have actually had therapy, surgery, etc and have lived as a woman. Manning's GID was used to explain away criminal behavior. GID is perhaps one of the few LGBT expressions of sexuality that are treated medically. Because of that (GID treatment by medical professionals, use as a mitigating factor fro criminal behavior), I think the bar for making the gender claim is higher than other self-identifying sexualities where it is no longer considered disorder. Imagine in the past where homosexuality was considered a disorder and a pedophile used that to mitigate a molestation charge yet there was no evidence or slight evidence that the pedophile had any adult same-sex relationships. That person would be using the old DSM medical diagnoses to mitigate his crime but inexorably he is tying pedophilia to homosexuality and stigmatizing being gay. I think every gay male person has to overcome the pedophile stereotype because of that. Certainly if someone today claimed to be gay and that's the reason for pedophilia, the LGBT community would want more evidence than just a self-declaration of being gay to be recognized as such and certainly make sure that pedophilia and homosexuality are not related. I don't think anyone would be clamoring to identify a pedophile as gay as they were leaving the courthouse after being convicted. Imagine the press release "I am not a pedophile, I'm a gay pedophile. Please refer to me that way from now on." Manning's crimes aren't sexual in nature but he is blaming gender dysphoria for criminal behavior and to mitigate any punishment he may receive because of it. He is not doing the LGBT community any favors. As an example of the difference, we have a local High School teacher that was born with male genitalia. At some point, she recognized she was female, she sought out the appropriate medical help, started hormone therapy, legally changed her name for social security and drivers license and over a school summer she returned to the classroom as a woman. I have no idea what hormone therapy she did or whether she had surgery but it is immaterial. She is a woman. That person went through a personal transformation that was difficult on friends, family, co-workers, etc, but she is the person that has leapt more hurdles than Manning and her self-identity carries much more weight, IMO, than Manning and she is entitled to be called a woman simply based on how she lives and wishes to be called. She managed to teach high school as a man without fighting superiors, emotional instability and criminal behavior. I understand the desire to be accepting since this is exactly the story of the teacher above. Her decision shows how transgender people are conflicted and acceptance of their personal decisions and medical decisions made with medical professionals should be accepted without question or derision. The teacher had no other motive than to live as she wished to live. Manning, however, has not shown this. Manning used it as a tool in a criminal trial. It may turn out that Manning is female and just as conflicted as the teacher and would go through all the same processes to live how she wants to live. But it demeans the teacher and others with GID to simply accept Manning's account of how his GID led him to commit crimes and be emotionally unstable. Manning is not a GID poster child with virtually no history of living as a woman and I still haven't seen an actual account of a diagnosis for GID (the Army classified it as a working adjustment disorder but mentioned gender identity as a possible contributing factor). Because of the disservice that it does to transgender persons to associate GID with the emotional instability, untrustworthy behavior and violence exhibited by Manning, I think the bar is higher than just self-identity. I would much prefer to wait until he is a) treated and diagnosed, b) lives as a woman and c) shows that those actions have overcome the items she attributed to being "Bradley." I am neither qualified nor inclined to rush to a judgement on Manning's psychological gender. But I think there needs to be time and space before Manning's criminal actions stigmatize persons with GID. Accepting that Manning's behavior is explained by GID is to deny opportunity for others with GID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward ( talk • contribs)
|
Discussion of start date
|
---|
I feel that October is too tense for everyone, especially those who was displeased with the results of prior requests. First administrative backlashes, then move to Bradley per discussion, and failed attempt to move to "Private Manning" (a porno would use this name someday)? The article is undergoing changes, and it's treating the subject as a transgendered female. But I bet editors are troubled at what to do with this article, and things won't calm down at the end of the month. -- George Ho ( talk) 15:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we'll be an unnecessary week late if we wait to start discussion until 30 September. We if start 23 September, the discussion can be closed 30-days after last month's discussion was closed. I think this is a more reasonable step, if we wait to start the discussion until 30 September, then the actual close with be 37 days. Opinions?--v/r - T P 16:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Propose move for October 3, 2013 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute I feel the move discussion should begin when the arbitration case closes, while I know a bunch of editors are eager to start the move discussion sooner, I feel that this way we will have a more accurate result. It is better to wait and get a firmer result (maybe that will even establish something if something like this happens again) than it is to rush and have people go on just what is based above. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion should be centralised to the VP or somewhere. There's no point in having it somewhere pagewatched by a handful of editors with strongly-held views about it. Formerip ( talk) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (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.
|
Keep closed until such time as the move request is filed; current proposed start date is 03:50 (UTC) Sep 30, 2013 per consensus of admins who closed the first move request. Some have stated disagreement with the 30-day waiting period, which has no official status.
The problem with these lines is that it has no purpose it shows that some editors think the consensus by the admin has no status but unless there is talk that the move request will be started before the 30th I see no reason why it needs to be included. So now that it is September 15th (UTC) where do we stand? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
discussion came to an end | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Given the various accusations and counter accusations of transphobia that flew around last time, I think it would be useful if we put together a short, consensus-based "commenting" guide, that outlined the sort of comments one should avoid that have a tendency to offend trans* people. I've taken a stab above but please edit away at will. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "please [...] accept that different people may have different views from you on this subject" is confusing and needs rewording to clarify that we are only interested in arguments on which title to use that are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not editors' personal views on the article subject or transgender issues (as the last debate was rife with). Josh Gorand ( talk) 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with the current wording of the section on how to respond to offensive commentary, for reasons pointed out by myself and others, including the prominence given to the opinion that one should post "civil note(s) on their talk page(s)" (which is insensitively worded and also not really appropriate or the best response in many of the cases we were talking about in the last discussion), because there's nothing wrong with pointing out that someone's comment is factually wrong (in fact it's entirely normal on Wikipedia), and because of the "you are transphobic" strawman (nobody ever said "you are transphobic" in the last discussion). If the current wording of that section is to appear in the next discussion, it will have to be as a signed, personal comment, not as an unsigned guideline, or otherwise it needs rewording to avoid promoting a disputed account of the last debate and suggestions other editors don't really find to be the most helpful responses to unacceptable commentary for a number of reasons. Also, the matter is not what I or other editors feel personally about comments that degrade Manning or transgendered people by comparing them to dogs and such, but about Wikipedia policy, specifically BLP as applied to talk pages, and which arguments that are based on Wikipedia policy in an RM and which arguments that are invalid. Josh Gorand ( talk) 22:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
(I moved this comment from below, this is a more appropriate section) -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
|
There seems to be a little edit war brewing on the inclusion, exclusion, or wording of the "How to respond to offensive language" section (the one that includes the words "If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page"). My impression was that the longer wording, that has stood here for several days, is now acceptable to most editors who have read, thought, or commented about it, and that it does represent a decent, consensus viewpoint. — Steve Summit ( talk) 22:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There
|
this discussion has run it's course and there is no consensus to use the shorter version.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is a draft of an impartial guideline for the next discussion, open for everyone to discuss and make changes in order to achive a result that is fair to everyone and neutral. Given that one user told editors they couldn't make make changes to or even discuss his above draft, it's fair to assume that it will never evolve into a text everyone can agree on. Josh Gorand ( talk) 22:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Specific problems with the former proposal by one editor that various users objected to included
The problematic sentences that several editors objected to have been removed or reworded in this draft, but I'm very much open to improvements. Josh Gorand ( talk) 22:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Since week-old comments by myself are being interpreted in new and interesting ways that have nothing to do with what I meant to say, let me state this clearly: I don't believe it's a very serious offense when editors refer to the subject as he or Bradley on a talk page; in many cases that only shows a lack of familiarity with transgender issues, although in some cases it may be a deliberate expression of a lack of respect. I think it's perfectly sensible to drop polite notes in these cases reminding editors of the relevant guideline (personally, I wouldn't bother to confront editors over this at all). The last discussion however was rife with comparisons of the subject to insane people claiming to dogs, pigs or whatnot, statements the subject is psychotic and more, which is something different entirely that is explicitly forbidden on talk pages as a matter of non-negotiable policy. This is when I believe the polite notes solution no longer works and would rather be counterproductive. The comments cited above did not address editor behaviour but content decisions. It's a fundamentally different matter whether Wikipedia uses the wrong name and pronouns in Wikipedia's voice and in the title. Borderline comments in regard to BLP are made all the time, and only using "he" or "Bradley" on a talk page are very mild borderline comments that I don't think should be sanctioned. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
Seems to have been resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Comments such as "if I wake up one morning and decide I'm a dog, that doesn't make me one" are obviously unhelpful in this context. However, they are clearly not comparing the subject to a dog: they are comparing the subject to an insane person who believes themself to be a dog. Please clarify that entry, or even remove it, as its point is already adequately covered by the following one ("not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex"). – Smyth\ talk 11:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
|
MOS:IDENTITY is under dispute. There are proposals to reword WP:COMMONNAMES. Shall we use cite them during discussions? -- George Ho ( talk) 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Language regarding 30-day waiting period - now seems resolved. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Language proposal(originally titled "Proposal to remove useless language regarding 'stated disagreement with the 30-day waiting period'"; shortened to avoid extending the TOC) I would propose at this time to remove from the page the sentence, "Some have stated disagreement with the 30-day waiting period, which has no official status". Firstly, this is inaccurate. It has the "status" of being a determination of the three-admin panel which closed the previous discussion. Secondly, it is moot. Anyone wishing to reverse that element of the close is free to do so, but, like any other move review, the discussion would need to be kept open for a long enough time to allow a full and open discourse, which probably translates to a seven day discussion. The only previous discussion proposing to advance this date had more participants expressing support for the the 30-day waiting period than opposition to it (as did a counterproposal to extend this date to October 3 or beyond). I would therefore consider the 30-day period to be the established status quo with respect to this article, and a unilateral move to circumvent it to be a violation of the Arbcom injunction in place on this article. bd2412 T 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
|
At the moment, Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request is over 130k, and is still under construction. I would suggest that before the proposal goes live, all resolved discussions be archived off the page, and the page itself be streamlined to the greatest extent possible. Although the few dozen users who have worked on this page have done a commendable job, once the discussion opens the page is likely to be read by hundreds of people. The paramount goal of the sections above the !vote itself should be to clearly and concisely present the evidence and arguments that should form the basis of this decision. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Resolved issues |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is anyone still making the argument that using either "Bradley" or "Chelsea" doesn't show "regard for the subject's privacy", given that the person in question is famous under both names and both names will be listed in the first sentence of the lead? If not, can we remove mention of that aspect of WP:BLP as irrelevant to this move request? -sche ( talk) 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
An editor insists on added an unsubstantiated claim that WP:N applies to the move discussion. If that editor feels the person is not notable, he is free to nominate the article for deletion; this venue is not for discussing the notability of the person, but which article title to use. I've read WP:N carefully, and I don't see the alleged quote or any portion of it that pertains to the naming issue. The above section is not for debate or personal views or interpretations, only for citing policy and guidelines. Comments belong in the comments section. Josh Gorand ( talk) 22:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Relevant material from the five pillars:
Having quoted from the pillars, suitable material can also be cited from CIV and IAR. EdChem ( talk) 12:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Limited coverage of trans people in media |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's worth pointing out that what here constitutes a 'reliable source' will necessarily limit the examples that are able to be given here. Representation of trans folk by trans people in newspapers is pretty thin on the ground, as are stories that factually recount e.g. suicide rates together with contributing factors. This section is worthwhile and I shall contribute if I have time (moving house again + jobhunt), but people need to be aware that asking for reliable sourcing of the effects on a group with little to no media access is going to be difficult. 7daysahead ( talk) 23:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) |
On Leveson Inquiry |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(On Leveson Inquiry) This states clearly that the use of previous names is intensely painful to trans people (and is illegal in the UK in certain circumstances). 7daysahead ( talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
|
re the Urban Archives article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't see this passing muster as a 'reliable source'. 7daysahead ( talk) 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Only use post-announcement sources? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Maybe we could agree that we should source evidence of media preferences from after the announcement. Is this unreasonable? Elaqueate ( talk) 14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Link to specific articles |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I see Elaqueate has removed AJ from the list of sources using "Bradley", I was about to do the same thing and for the same reasons: the articles use "Chelsea". (If a specific article uses "Bradley", link to it.) In general, I think we should link to specific articles, not "topic sections". -sche ( talk) 20:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
The Telegraph |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It appears that The Telegraph has actively changed one of its stories from Chelsea to Bradley, but left the other story alone - I've put it in both sections for now, with the appropriate reference for each, but I think the changed story is more recent, so that may put it more firmly in the Bradley camp.-- Jeude54cartes ( talk) 14:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
AP sourced articles |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sources are being deleted where an article is AP-sourced and where the news agency has made editorial decisions to maintain the use of the name Chelsea and female pronouns. Agencies such as the Miami Herald, which ran multiple stories vetted by their news editors with female pronouns and one opinion piece that uses both, is placed in the "News agencies using Bradley Manning" column. Where a syndicated source (such as Xinhua) uses Bradley, secondary agencies using their reporting in this way have been included. Elaqueate ( talk) 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Decision to list news agencies that syndicate AP articles and retain "Chelsea" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Do we really need to list all the news agencies that syndicate Associated Press articles? I found it redundant and pointless to list all the sources that syndicate Xinhua and Reuters, so I chose not to. There are likewise plenty of Xinhua and Reuters-based articles from various news agencies that use Bradley, but in my opinion it would be pointless to list every single one. -- benlisquare T• C• E 17:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|
WP:PAYWALL |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
On Reuters |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(On Reuters)
|
regarding Agence France-Presse (AFP) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the world's three largest press agencies (along with Reuters and Associated Press), is using "Chelsea Manning" as of today [5] in its German articles. (It also publishes in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabic, but it hasn't released any articles on Manning in those languages since 22 August.) I checked several German and Swiss newspapers which use AFP stories, and they're all leaving the name as-is. I updated the subsection heading in the list to reflect the fact that both AP and AFP are now using the "Chelsea" name, and added entries for a couple of the larger German-language newspapers using the AFP stories. — Psychonaut ( talk) 20:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Sources which haven't reported on Manning since the announcement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't think we can make a call on what the position of a news source is if the last story it carried on Manning was the announcement of her change of public identity. Although it is not the call I would have made if I were a news editor, I think there's a legitimate POV that the "transition" story represents an exception to the rule. There's a logical argument that if the story is a about someone who has been considered male up to now then the subject of the article is male (or, to put it another way, "woman decides she wants to be referred to as a woman" is a confusing headline). For example, I don't think the BBC has bathed itself in glory over this. But its own style guide would seem to suggest that it will be using "Chelsea" and "she/her" from now on ( "Pre-operative transsexual people should be described as they wish"). We can only wait and see, but in the meantime I don't think we can say we know what its position is. Formerip ( talk) 22:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(On the book "The Passion of Bradley Manning: The Story Behind the Wikileaks Whistleblower")
|
Comments on entries |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding the comments beside "Official Statements" and "Undecided": Isn't this just editorializing by proxy? These blurbs cannot be responded to easily.__ Elaqueate ( talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Source deleted by Elaqueate |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Collapsing long sections |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How do people feel about collapsing (using the collapse top/bottom templates) some of the very long sections (eg. the ones containing lists of news media using either term) to improve readability? Josh Gorand ( talk) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC) It would also be nice if resolved issues in the comments sections could be collapsed. Josh Gorand ( talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
A couple of notes on news headlines and name usage |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Newspapers and newswires frequently compress information in their headlines. This is not uncommon. Using the surname alone does not indicate preferred personal name usage one way or the other. It would be a mistake to read too much into a "Manning Does Something" headline, any more than a "Smith Does Something" headline. In the body of an article, general journalistic practice is to mention a subject's full primary name first, then subsidiary names, then to use surname only for subsequent mentions. A news article that only mentions a personal name once isn't making an exception to shun a name, it's the most common industry practice for news items.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) |
Q: Why is the Washington Post listed as using Bradley Manning? A: Now in undecided. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure why the Washington Post is listed as using Bradley Manning. The link goes to a slideshow from 16 April 2011. Meanwhile, there are WP stories from 22 August 2013, 22 August 2013 (different story), plus the reuse of AP stories from 4 September 2013 and 9 September 2013, all using Chelsea Manning. I'm not going to move the Post myself because maybe I am missing something here -- but if not, could someone please move it? Thanks Sue Gardner ( talk) 04:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
|
we must not go down this route of excluding widely-read and discussed sources based on political bent. Save your critiques of particular sources for the debate itself, but we shouldnt try to eliminate them in advance.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 02:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the "Statements by news agencies about how Manning will be addressed" section, an article in the Unification Church's publication The Washington Times [6] is cited favouring Bradley. Interestingly, that source, which contains rather extreme and abusive language (referring to Manning's gender transition as an "absurd request", and further slurs about "illegals"), nevertheless notes that the AP Stylebook recommends using Chelsea and feminine pronouns and that most media "fall in line with PC agenda"(!). While we can note the opinions of the Unification Church, I doubt whether the Washington Times qualifies as a reliable source in this context on par with the other news sources cited (like AP), due to its lack of neutrality and its extreme views. Josh Gorand ( talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Discussion of whether or not to list the Lawyer's statement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the above section on "reliable non-news sources on what name to use", a statement by Manning's lawyer is cited as if it supports the name Bradley as the "name to use." This is misleading, even incorrect, as the lawyer is only commenting that Manning expects the old name "will continue to be used in certain instances", which is something different entirely. She expects what any reasonable person would expect given her fame, but has made a clear request on "what name to use." Josh Gorand ( talk) 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Reuters now in undecided category |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am putting a comment here because I feel people are adding things with undue consideration. This slideshow contains 18 pre-announcement pictures. It is most likely from July. I know that, in good faith, no user would add it if they noticed that. The Reuters articles use Chelsea as the first and primary reference. That is how we have been dividing all of the other sources. If they change usage we can place them in Camp Bradley, but it is not useful to treat this like the deciding Florida election. "slideshow titled with Bradley even though female pronouns sometimes used" - - - At no point are female pronouns used for Manning, nor is the name Chelsea, nor is any picture post July. This appears to be a sloppy and inaccurate misreading, and I would not like to think that Obi_Wan is deliberately putting in false sources. I'm sure he will confirm his honest error.
|
sketchy source, "News Channel Daily", removed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can someone please vouch that this source added by someone is an actual reputable news source and not a spam and dodgy cookie deliverance system? It has articles that sound like hastily re-written yahoo articles at best, Nigerian spam at worst (best?) It only has 40 of 50 mini articles in its entire (six-month?) history as a "news agency" and a dodgy "privacy policy" and no specific business name or association name. Sample news stories:
|
Yes, sources are sorted by which name they most recently used, unless they waffle |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
So that people understand why sources that used 'Bradley' on the 24th and 'Chelsea' on the 29th are listed in the 'Chelsea' column and not in the 'Bradley' column (and so that they don't think the list contains errors just because they can find those uses of 'Bradley' on the 24th), I'd like to add something to the intro (after "...that is not of interest here.") along the lines of:
...but I feel like there's a better way of phrasing that. Thoughts/help? -sche ( talk) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's good to explain how the sources were evaluated. It gives a rough idea. It doesn't include every interesting nuance, such as some newer articles shifting the "formerly known as Bradley" to the third or fourth paragraph, but it gives a sense that media, and presumably readers, are not unaware that the name change is taken seriously and generally, if not universally. __ Elaqueate ( talk) 07:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Some of the sources listed above are openly anti-trans, and one has used anti-trans slurs in their editorials. If editors can discuss the controversial sources and sometimes hate sources, in advance, then editors can more fairly weigh them during the next discussion. It gives an opportunity both for those challenging some of these sources, and for those defending some of these sources, to make their cases. If everyone has to do everything at once, I think that could create a mess. Ananiujitha ( talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The master source for information on an individual's name is the individual themself. Any source which contradicts what they say on the subject is automatically unreliable. 94.14.190.115 ( talk) 22:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
eliminate opinion pieces? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've mostly avoided opinion pieces as they're written in the voice of the individual and not from the perspective of the journal - as such I don't think they are a good indication of a paper's editorial direction. The one exception would be opinion pieces by the editor/editorial board, which obviously carry more weight. Would you agree to eliminate other sorts of opinion pieces, and try to replace (if possible) with news stories? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 11:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
For my opinion vote I am going to go by reliable sources past and present and ignore the opinion pieces. Opinion pieces in this request should be given little to no weight - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
BBC? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I find the BBC's use rather awkward in their latest piece supporting "Chelsea." They use "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning" every time they say "Chelsea." It's not like they introduced her with an opening sentence and then used "Chelsea" throughout the piece. They actually use "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning" all three times they use "Chelsea." It's almost like they believe her name is now "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning". I don't think it comports to the spirit of published MOS where one introductory use of "Bradley" is acceptable but repeated use "Chelsea, formerly Bradley" is rather a stretch to be definitively one way or the other. I can't imagine it would considered respectful to do this. -- DHeyward ( talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Deleted 2 book references |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have gone ahead and deleted two book references for Chelsea on the grounds that they are opinion pieces and that there are books for both names involved. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
|
How would you classify this Mother Jones piece? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Not totally disrespectful http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/warrant-immigration-detain-david-house but doesn't use Chelsea. -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Ebony reference |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The revert war about Ebony is over one article. I agree with Obiwankenobi that it an opinion by someone quoted. Editors chose the quote though. I haven't seen Obiwankenobi's rebuttal article. A search of ebony for manning yields only that one article (through google anyway) but a search for trangender yields a few: Actress Laverne Cox dazzles in Netflix's breakout hit Orange Is the New Black (04 September 2013) clearly seems to be in the spirit of Chelsea if not mentioned. The character interviewed is a "trans lesbian". I am not familiar with the show but generally if someone is going to recognize "trans lesbian" as female (one of the least recognized groups of women - the out er of the outer circle if she is pre-SRS). They use female name and gender pronouns, it's pretty safe that Chelsea, who is attracted to men like the large majority of non-trans women, then they would most likely use "Chelsea" and her. I haven't found anything there to contradict "Chelsea" usage. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Los Angeles Times |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Editorial board (presumably sets MOS for paper?) has an editorial about Journalist shield laws that uses only Bradley Manning. Where does this fit? -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Washington Post |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Article/blog by paid WP reporter (24 September 2013 in an article on Diversity at the Washington Post website. Only lists Bradley Manning. These are high profile news organizations that apparently paid lip-service to using Chelsea. Only reference to Manning: Then there are Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, who leaked secret information for ideological reasons. |
Editors !voting will decide what should determine the issue; reliable sources will certainly be one criteria, but editors are free to bring in any other arguments, and we have sections of this page devoted to those. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Much of this page seems to tacitly accept that the outcome of this decision will be a numbers game of how many news articles can be found that refer to "Chelsea Manning" as opposed to "Bradley Manning". I do not. I cannot, because the fact of the matter -- something that is blindingly obvious to trans people but somehow invisible to many cis commentators -- is that the media is one of the worst offenders in upholding cissexist assumptions, when it is not being outright transphobic (and that doesn't just apply to right-wing media). If we allow the media to become gatekeepers of trans identity, we've already lost. Their veering between snide insults and objectification of trans people is fucking up people's lives. Wikipedia should be better than that; its biographical articles should have a responsibility of basic respect toward their subjects. That is the issue here. -- Daira Hopwood ⚥ ( talk) 22:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This page is only intended for collecting sources, including applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which also include other policies than WP:AT), sources on how naming decisions affect trans people and sources on what constitute accepted practices. I invite you to contribute in this effort. There is no premise that we will only be counting news articles, that's just one of several factors. Josh Gorand ( talk) 02:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
Now might be a good time to seek a panel of administrators to oversee the conduct of this discussion, once it goes live. Ideally, you want to find admins who are dispassionate and neutral on the ultimate issue, and of course who have not previously been involved in the discussion (or closure) of this matter. You could just post a request on the adminstrator's noticeboard, and see who pops up (which is how I got involved). However, in legal arbitration (which I have had some experience in), a common practice is to have each side in a dispute pick one arbitrator to serve on the panel, with those two arbitrators agreeing on the third member. That might work well here also, although we have not really identified "sides". bd2412 T 17:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)