→Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people: This is only for reliable sources, per WP:RS |
→Holding areas for comments unrelated to evidence: delay to November? |
||
Line 317: | Line 317: | ||
:''Note: I have expanded the hatnote to cover this entire section, because it does not constitute discussion of the specific sources listed above, which is what this section is for. Instead, it constitutes an argument against a move or for making a move only after careful consideration of the impact treating Manning as transgender would have on other transgender people; it thus belongs not here but in the relevant "Discussion" section below once the move request opens. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)'' |
:''Note: I have expanded the hatnote to cover this entire section, because it does not constitute discussion of the specific sources listed above, which is what this section is for. Instead, it constitutes an argument against a move or for making a move only after careful consideration of the impact treating Manning as transgender would have on other transgender people; it thus belongs not here but in the relevant "Discussion" section below once the move request opens. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)'' |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
=== Delay to November? === |
|||
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. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 15:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Move request == |
== Move request == |
Revision as of 15:59, 5 September 2013
For now, this page is intended for those debating a move from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning." Editors are welcome to contribute relevant sources and participating in discussion of them. Please do not yet use this page to debate the move per se.
Please use this page only for evidence on the name change, not on pronoun usage.
Evidence
Relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Below is a listing of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that may be relevant to this discussion. They are sorted in alphabetic order by page title, then by section title, so as to remain neutral. Please include the direct quote(s) in the policy or guideline pertaining to the naming issue.
- WP:Article titles (WP:AT)
- states that titles should have the following characteristics: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency
- Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (WP:COMMONNAME)
- Including, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural...Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
- Also, "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", "neutrality is also considered" and "when there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)
- "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"
- states that content about living persons requires "a high degree of sensitivity"
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
- "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording"
- "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception"
- Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)
- "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity (MOS:IDENTITY)
- "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life."
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight (WP:DUE)
- "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY)
- "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus."
Comments (about citing the above policies and guidelines)
Resolved issues
|
---|
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:
- Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks (from the civility policy section). The last discussion was full of comments showing a lacking of respect for transgendered and other minority editors, in blatant violation of this pillar. Further, some of the attitudes expressed about Chelsea contributed to a hostile environment for all Wikipedians. Disagreements over editing are fine, but disdain for Chelsea in particular and transgendered individuals in general is uncivil (amongst other things).
- Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording ... (from the IAR policy section). Wikilawyering over wording was a problem in the last debate. It was argued that MOS:IDENTITY was not relevant to article titles based on literal wordings; this position failed to recognise that BLP article titling reflects the identity of the individual in both spirit and principle. Sadly, the closing admins also neglected the spirit and principles of policies. BLP is included within the NPOV pillar and its spirit is clealry relevant to deciding on titling Chelsea's article.
- ... and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception (also from the IAR policy section). Even if BLP does not support titling an article by the post-transition name of a transgendered individual, it is a clear improvement given the offesiveness of using the birth name for transgendered individuals is recognised by the academic and educated communities (amongst others) and so an invocation of IAR is both justified and appropriate, if necessary.
Having quoted from the pillars, suitable material can also be cited from CIV and IAR. EdChem (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I added some of it to the above section. The material about etiquette among Wikipedians themselves does not pertain to the issue itself, i.e. on which name to use. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it does, because using her birth name and male pronouns is disrespectful and hostile towards all transgendered editors and uncivil. Titling the article with her birth name is a pointed rejection of the identities of anyone who has transitioned. It is tragic that so many editors insist on behaving uncivilly and arguing that WP should pointedly reject the reality of transgenderism. It is not the civility policy that mandates we use the name Chelsea for the article, I know - BLP is the definitive policy - but I believe it is worth noting the civility policy is relevant to this debate. EdChem (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- We are currently only collecting evidence pertaining to which title to use (the section is titled "Evidence", that is evidence relating to the material question). It would be better to point out policies relating to how Wikipedians debate amongst ourselves when that debate starts, maybe in a separate section below. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it does, because using her birth name and male pronouns is disrespectful and hostile towards all transgendered editors and uncivil. Titling the article with her birth name is a pointed rejection of the identities of anyone who has transitioned. It is tragic that so many editors insist on behaving uncivilly and arguing that WP should pointedly reject the reality of transgenderism. It is not the civility policy that mandates we use the name Chelsea for the article, I know - BLP is the definitive policy - but I believe it is worth noting the civility policy is relevant to this debate. EdChem (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
Note: Links should show use after August 22, when the announcement was made. It is trivially obvious that sources before the announcement will use Bradley; that is not of interest here.
Do not comment within the list of sources, but in the comments section below
Official statements by news agencies about how Manning will be addressed
As Chelsea
- NY Times: [1]
- AP: [2]
- NPR: [3]
- Time: [4] "As for TIME, a story on Manning’s announcement made its intentions clear within the first sentence: “Chelsea Manning first announced to the world..."
As Bradley
- CNN: [5] "CNN's policy is to reference Manning with masculine pronouns since he has not yet taken any steps toward gender transition through surgery or hormone replacement therapy."
- Washington Times: [6]
News agencies using Chelsea Manning
- Al Jazeera: (22 August 2013), (27 August 2013), Topic section devoted to Chelsea Manning
- Agence France-Presse (AFP): (4 September 2013)
- Arirang (TV network)[7]
- Associated Press (AP): Politico covers NYT and AP; examples: (26 August 2013)
- The Atlantic Wire: (26 August 2013)
- Business Insider:[8]
- Daily Mail: (30 August 2013)
- Deutsche Welle: [9]
- Courthouse News Service [10]
- Forbes: (23 August 2013)
- Global Post: [11]
- The Globe and Mail: [12]
- The Guardian: (22 august 2013)[13] (nearly 9 million print and online readers)
- Hindustan Times: (4 September 2013)
- The Huffington Post: according to USA Today
- The Independent: (28 August 2013), (2 September 2013), Edited to Chelsea
- International Business Times: (22 August 2013)
- Jewish Daily Forward: (4 September 2013)
- Los Angeles Times: (4 September 2013)
- MSNBC: (22 August 2013)
- The New Republic: (22 August 2013)
- New Statesman: (22 August 2013)
- The New Yorker (30 August 2013)
- New York Magazine: [14]
- New York Times: Politico covers NYT and AP [15]; (1,865,318 daily readers, 2,322,429 Sunday readers; online edition receives 30 million unique visitors per month and is America's most popular news site)
- New Zealand Herald: [16]
- NPR: [17]
- PBS NewsHour: [18]
- Press Association: [19]
- Reuters: [20]
- Rolling Stone: [21]
- RT: [22]
- Seattle Times: [23]
- The Telegraph: [24]
- TIME: [25][26].
- UPI: [27].
- The Washington Post: (22 August 2013), (3 September 2013)
News agencies using post-announcement AP or AFP articles while retaining Chelsea + female pronouns
- ABC News: (4 September 2013)
- Air Force Times: [28]
- The Australian: (30 August 2013) (254,891 weekend readers, 116,655 weekday readers, biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia)
- Boston Globe [29]
- The Denver Post: [30]
- The Hindu: [31]
- Fox News: [32] (has used Bradley in its so far only own post-announcement a day after the announcement, see section below)
- Kansas City Star: [33]
- Marine Corp Times: [34]
- Miami Herald: [35], [36]
- San Jose Mercury News: [37]
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer: [38]
- Star-Telegram: [39]
- Star Tribune: [40]
- Talking Points Memo: [41]
- Times of India: [42] (7 million daily readers, largest circulation English newspaper in the world)]
- U-T San Diego: [43]
- USA Today: [44]
News agencies using Bradley Manning
- ABC News (Australia): (23 August 2013)
- BBC: (22 August 2013)
- CBC.ca: (23 August 2013)
- China Central Television: (23 August 2013)
- The Christian Science Monitor: (24 August 2013), topic section
- Christian Post, [45]
- CNN: [46], [47]
- Fox News: [48] (all published articles since have been AP articles, using "Chelsea" and "she", see section above)
- Miami Herald: [49]
- Military.com: Deutsche Presse-Agentur, but seems like AFP story?
- National Review: (23 August 2013)
- People's Daily (China): [50] / Xinhua News Agency: [51]
- South China Morning Post: [52] (Note: SCMP has a paywall, see below.)
- Sky News: [53]
- Star Press: Aug 29
- The Telegraph:[54] (Note: AFP sourced article)
- The Wall Street Journal: [55]
- The Washington Post: [56]
- Washington Times: [57], [58] [59]
- USA Today: Topic section header is Bradley Manning, article post-announcement uses Bradley
- Voice of America: [60]
News agencies which modified AP or AFP stories to use "Bradley"
- CBC.ca: (4 September 2013) (AP)
- CBS News: [61] (AP)
- Zee News: (4 September 2013) (AFP)
News agencies that seem undecided
- Reuters: sep 4 Note the headline: "US Soldier Manning"; in body: "The request for Chelsea, formerly known as Bradley, Manning, was filed by attorney David Coombs on Tuesday, according to a statement on the Pardon Private Manning website."; they also avoid pronouns. Fair to keep them in undecided for now.
- Star Ledger: Sep 1 Alternates between both
- AFP Unclear at this point, we have both.
Other non-news sources
Chelsea
- The Passion of Bradley Manning: The Story Behind the Wikileaks Whistleblower was written before Manning came out, but the author states on page 135 "When and if Bradley Manning clearly and publicly articulates a wish to be known otherwise, this author, who is listening attentively, will address him or her however he or she wishes.", so I think we can chalk that one up for Chelsea.
Bradley
- Encyclopædia Britannica: [62] Uses both Bradley and Chelsey as valid names, but article is titled "Bradley Manning"
Sources specifically discussing media usage
- Why is it so hard to call Chelsea Manning 'She'?, New York (magazine), August 22
- Who is still calling Chelsea Manning 'he'?, MSNBC, August 27
- “Chelsea” is winning, TIME (magazine), August 28
- AP calls Bradley Manning a ‘she’ and liberal media fall in line with PC agenda, Washington Times, August 29
- Op-ed: What Is Fox News's Problem With Chelsea Manning?, Advocate, Sep 4
- What Does Chelsea Manning’s Gender Have to Do With You?, Reason, 4 September 2013
Sources specifically discussing the title of the Wikipedia article
Reliable sources discussing 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, [64]). 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)
- 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".
Sources not generally considered reliable
- 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)
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)
- My understanding is that the pain and potential danger they are talking about here is more in the context of press revelation of a former gender which is generally unknown, which is obviously not the case here. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 13:26, 4 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)
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)
- Result: Multiple articles in the "News agencies using Bradley Manning" are the AP article with the pronouns switched back. There are no instances here where an agency actively chose to run the AP story with Chelsea and female pronouns. Taking this approach, for whatever good reasons, will bias the categories. Elaqueate (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's inherently of note that some sources tweak the AP source. I think we can assume most will run the AP articles w/o changes, except for a few, and finding those few is interesting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it is interesting when they tweak the source report. It is also of note when some run an article that uses Chelsea Manning without changing it. It can show the degree of later editorial opposition, if any. It is impossible to infer that no editorial judgement took place in all sources that ran it with feminine pronouns. We can't ignore all of the stories that were actually promoted by these widely-read sources, wholesale. Elaqueate (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Elaqueate is obviously right here. It would bias things greatly to count only papers that change AP stories to say "Bradley", and not papers that keep "Chelsea". It would mean assuming that the latter papers are run by robots that never make editorial decisions. It would also miss the point that any paper that uses "Chelsea" exposes its reader to that name and thus contributes to that name being commonly known, which is relevant under some oft-encountered interpretations of COMMONNAME. -sche (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it is interesting when they tweak the source report. It is also of note when some run an article that uses Chelsea Manning without changing it. It can show the degree of later editorial opposition, if any. It is impossible to infer that no editorial judgement took place in all sources that ran it with feminine pronouns. We can't ignore all of the stories that were actually promoted by these widely-read sources, wholesale. Elaqueate (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's inherently of note that some sources tweak the AP source. I think we can assume most will run the AP articles w/o changes, except for a few, and finding those few is interesting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
- Yes, post announcement are really the only sources that matter in the determination here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- It should be current or "last known" usage. Anything else implies complicity with the opposite. JOJ Hutton 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi I agree as long as you amend to be current or last-known "post announcement". Otherwise, they will all trivially be Bradley - I don't think you'll find any Chelsea Manning sources anywhere before Aug 22.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Its "what name they use". The last useage Bradley Manning. They still use Bradley Manning until evidence suggests otherwise. JOJ Hutton 16:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is trivially true. For example, if there is a magazine which last published an article on Manning in February 2011, we can say "Well, magazine X calls her Bradley". But we don't learn anything from that fact, as EVERY single source pre-Aug 22 likely uses Bradley. Thus, the only sources we should list above are those sources which teach use something, like "Source X refuses to use Chelsea" or "Source Y decided to use Chelsea". Pre Aug-22 sources simply don't mean much, since we can grant that ~100% of them use Bradley, that's not under dispute.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Its "what name they use". The last useage Bradley Manning. They still use Bradley Manning until evidence suggests otherwise. JOJ Hutton 16:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi I agree as long as you amend to be current or last-known "post announcement". Otherwise, they will all trivially be Bradley - I don't think you'll find any Chelsea Manning sources anywhere before Aug 22.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- It should be current or "last known" usage. Anything else implies complicity with the opposite. JOJ Hutton 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Arbitrary section break
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)
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. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Reuters just switched to Chelsea Manning.--Elaqueate (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That source for Reuters isn't entirely convincing that they've made the switch, the bit where they mention Private Chelsea Manning just seems to be reporting what the statement on the pardon website says. Plus the article contains 2 mentions of Chelsea and 2 of Bradley and studiously avoids any pronouns, so they're hardly embracing the change. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's an interesting interpretation, but the website and pardon don't use the wording "Private Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley". I can't judge the quality of their long-term enthusiasm or unwritten intent, only that they describe the subject of this article as "Chelsea Manning".--Elaqueate (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct, the website uses "Private Chelsea [legally Bradley] Manning" so it's more paraphrasing than quoting, but really it was more to do with its context within the article - it wasn't used in the lead and was described as "according to a statement on the Pardon Private Manning website". I concede that it's reading between the lines rather than taking the words at face value, but I agree with Obi-Wan Kenobi that this should go in undecided for now, which should remind us keep an eye on future stories which may be more commital. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's an interesting interpretation, but the website and pardon don't use the wording "Private Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley". I can't judge the quality of their long-term enthusiasm or unwritten intent, only that they describe the subject of this article as "Chelsea Manning".--Elaqueate (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're not really addressing my concern at all. Let me ask again: Do we really need to list all the news agencies that syndicate Associated Press articles? --benlisquareT•C•E 18:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- See the thread above that begins "Sources are being deleted where an article is AP". -sche (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Let's keep them separate for now; Benlinsquare, feel free to add other syndications of Reuters or Xinhua, provided they have a relatively large circulation - we don't want a catalog of all news sources. We should perhaps limit the news sources here to any news sources with > 500,000 daily readers or have some other filter - otherwise we will just pollute the list with lots of minor and mostly insignificant local papers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- And I should say, the dozen listed there are not "all the news agencies that syndicate Associated Press articles" and maintain the name Chelsea as the primary reference. There are hundreds of verifiable sources repeating the name, over multiple news items.--Elaqueate (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- See the thread above that begins "Sources are being deleted where an article is AP". -sche (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- That source for Reuters isn't entirely convincing that they've made the switch, the bit where they mention Private Chelsea Manning just seems to be reporting what the statement on the pardon website says. Plus the article contains 2 mentions of Chelsea and 2 of Bradley and studiously avoids any pronouns, so they're hardly embracing the change. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The SCMP article has a WP:PAYWALL. On Mozilla Firefox, install the User Agent Switcher add-on and set the user agent to "Googlebot 2.1", so that the website thinks that you are a Google robot. You might need to block all scripts as well. User:Josh Gorand, there is no Wikipedia policy which prohibits me sharing this information, nor is there any United States law which prohibits the sharing of common web developer information which may or may not be used to circumvent artificial paywalls, and the Wikimedia servers are located in Florida. There are no US laws which say that it is illegal to spoof the UA of your internet browser. Please do not remove my posts with really vague reasoning that isn't well backed up. You also shouldn't remove the link to the raw URL either, since it isn't circumvented in itself. Even with the paywall, some Wikipedia users may have a paid subscription, and are able to access the article. There is already a note explaining the accessibility status of the source, removing the URL using an "accessibility" excuse can be interpreted in bad faith. Per WP:PAYWALL: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, some online sources may require payment... Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able do so on your behalf". --benlisquareT•C•E 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(On Reuters)
- "The request for Chelsea, formerly known as Bradley, Manning"
- True, but that article is tortured in its avoidance of pronouns and first names. Notice how they say "the soldier", and they cleverly kept "Bradley Manning" close together while separating Chelsea. They're trying to weasel out of making a decision. Let's keep them as neutral for now, and see if new sources come to light, they're a major agency so I'm sure they'll have to go back to the well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are interpreting unwritten intent. A person could do that for every source here, and it would still be spurious. I say let them decide what to write, and we can report what they have written. Elaqueate (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I respectfully put the idea that if someone said "Here's my friend Chelsea, formerly Obi-Wan, Kenobi.", without foreshadowing, most people would understand that your name was being stated as Chelsea. --Elaqueate (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can provide multiple sources from Aug 24 where they go by Bradley. It's ok, it's no rush, they will write another article and will step off the fence - but for now they're still very firmly on it, if perhaps tentatively moving towards Chelsea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- The "undecided" category does not seem like a good idea. One could make arguments to place most sources in there. It seems like needless editorializing of intent we cannot know. We are doing a straw poll to get a sense of how prevalent Chelsea is, to determine if it can be considered common. I don't think it's useful to introduce "kinda".--Elaqueate (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- For example, which category should we put the Bradley-using sources that say things like "Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning"? Should we move them around now? --Elaqueate (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not clear... I do think undecided is useful for now, since some of these orgs are clearly waffling, or operating under different rules in different departments (AFP being a good example - english language usage seems to be for Bradley, but German is apparently for Chelsea). Just think of it as a working space, where we put sources until we are clear on where they stand.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's a box where we can put everything we don't know and are only speculating on. Delightful. We wouldn't want to misplace all of the things that might become verifiable sources. I don't find possible, future verifiability to be a good working standard.__Elaqueate (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- These are not random, run of the mill little newspapers - two of those listed are major press agencies, and noting that we can't yet make a call on them is fair... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's a box where we can put everything we don't know and are only speculating on. Delightful. We wouldn't want to misplace all of the things that might become verifiable sources. I don't find possible, future verifiability to be a good working standard.__Elaqueate (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not clear... I do think undecided is useful for now, since some of these orgs are clearly waffling, or operating under different rules in different departments (AFP being a good example - english language usage seems to be for Bradley, but German is apparently for Chelsea). Just think of it as a working space, where we put sources until we are clear on where they stand.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can provide multiple sources from Aug 24 where they go by Bradley. It's ok, it's no rush, they will write another article and will step off the fence - but for now they're still very firmly on it, if perhaps tentatively moving towards Chelsea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
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 [65] 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)
- I removed the german language ones - for titling we use english language sources. Do you really want to bring in Chinese and Hindi sources next?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Point taken—I saw only the part about the list being a record of names used in "reliable sources" but hadn't noticed that this page is about the move request only. However, now that AFP has made the switch in one of its languages we should keep an eye on its English releases to see if they follow suit. If it does this means that all three of the world's major news agencies have fallen in line. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Correct - we need to wait though - I put AFP in neutral for now, as I've seen several sources that claim to be AFP that use Bradley. So it's a bit confused for now. We'll have to see what they do in English. I've also seen some from the German news agency that use Bradley - do they work with AFP? I don't understand how syndication of news really works...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Point taken—I saw only the part about the list being a record of names used in "reliable sources" but hadn't noticed that this page is about the move request only. However, now that AFP has made the switch in one of its languages we should keep an eye on its English releases to see if they follow suit. If it does this means that all three of the world's major news agencies have fallen in line. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the german language ones - for titling we use english language sources. Do you really want to bring in Chinese and Hindi sources next?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Sources which haven't reported on Manning since the announcement
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)
- I agree, I think the "announcement story" itself is not a good indicator, as the name usage in such a story will always be tortured.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(On the book "The Passion of Bradley Manning: The Story Behind the Wikileaks Whistleblower")
- The participants in the discussion will make their own judgement of the relevance of the evidence we collected. In this case, it's certainly an edge case and has a bit of crystal ball to it, but the fact that an author of a book about Manning explicitly writes, in his voice, that he'd be happy to change post-announcement, is germane I think. These sources are not black/white, they are just pieces of evidence to be weighed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Comments on entries.
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)
- The comments besides "official statements" are quotes, intended to help the reader since the sources themselves are not exclusively about that. The other comments are there to help explain why something is in "undecided", or why I listed a particular book. Feel free to edit those comments, or respond to them here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Statements by subject and subject's lawyer
Statement by subject
- 'I am Chelsea', statement by Chelsea E. Manning, August 22, 2013
- "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female."
- "I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name"
Statement by lawyer
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)
|
Delay to November?
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)
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.
Request move from Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning