Josh Gorand (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=== Evidence from reliable sources on what names they use === |
=== Evidence from reliable sources on what names they use === |
||
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning and Bradley Manning. |
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning, Breanna Manning and Bradley Manning. |
||
====News agencies using Chelsea Manning:==== |
====News agencies using Chelsea Manning:==== |
Revision as of 00:54, 2 September 2013
Evidence
Relevant Wikipedia policies
Below is a listing of Wikipedia policies that may be relevant to this discussion. They are sorted in alphabetic order so as to remain neutral.
Evidence from reliable sources on what names they use
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning, Breanna Manning and Bradley Manning.
News agencies using Chelsea Manning:
- The Guardian: [1]
- Associated Press: Politico covers NYT and AP. Examples: [2]
- New York Times: Politico covers NYT and AP. Examples:
- Washington Post: [3]
- Daily Mail (UK): [4]
- TIME: [5][6]. Also “Chelsea” is winning
- NPR: [7]
- The Huffington Post (per [8]
- RT: [9]
- Rolling Stone: [10]
- New York Magazine: [11]
- The New Republic: [12]
- The Telegraph: [13]
- The Independent [14]
Evidence from reliable sources on how naming decisions affect trans people
This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question.
- Subsection of Trans media watch submission to the Leveson Inquiry (press controls in the UK, [15]). On page 11 they discuss methods by which the press aggress against trans people; the first bulletpoint in that section:
- "Routine use of previous names - even when the use of these names is intensely painful or places them in actual danger. Typically a transitioning transsexual person will wish to move on from their previous identity, having perhaps lived in deep distress within that ’identity’ in the past. They may be working with colleagues who know nothing of their past, or they may not have revealed their life story to neighbours. Gratuitous revelation can lead to abuse. Further, for transgender people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate, it is illegal for an individual working in an "official capacity" to disclose a person’s previous name. They are, for all legal purposes, recognised in the gender in which they live. This seldom makes any difference to the press."
- "The use of ‘before’ names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk" (Leveson Inquiry, section 3.20 on p65, summary)
- Wikipedia’s Deadnaming Violence ("our old name are frequently weaponised against us, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected.") (Urban Achives)
- Juliet Jacques article discussing choosing a new name. She states that someone using her old name can be "a mistake [or] a malicious attempt to undermine my identity".
- Comments (on the above sources only)
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) 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)
(On Urban Achives article) I don't see this passing muster as a 'reliable source'. 7daysahead (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is a blog written by a scholar whose research interests include digital media ethics, and specifically discusses this particular case (the Wikipedia Manning case). Josh Gorand (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Does that not fall foul of WP:OR? Perhaps we need clarification of what reliable sources means here. (Thanks for fixing my poor formatting) 7daysahead (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Self-published sources are OK as sources when they are written by experts. In any case, that blog post is just cited here on this talk page, not in an article, and is helpful to explain how this is perceived by transgendered people because it addresses the specific topic. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Does that not fall foul of WP:OR? Perhaps we need clarification of what reliable sources means here. (Thanks for fixing my poor formatting) 7daysahead (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Move request
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 where we can place the move request