→Statements by news agencies on their policy to address Manning as Chelsea: CBC Editor's statement |
|||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
*[[The Australian]]: [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wikileaks-soldier-chelsea-manning-adjusting-to-new-life-behind-bars/story-e6frg6so-1226707409401?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+(The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C) (30 August 2013)] (254,891 weekend readers, 116,655 weekday readers, biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia) |
*[[The Australian]]: [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wikileaks-soldier-chelsea-manning-adjusting-to-new-life-behind-bars/story-e6frg6so-1226707409401?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+(The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C) (30 August 2013)] (254,891 weekend readers, 116,655 weekday readers, biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia) |
||
*[[Boston Globe]] [http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/09/04/chelsea-manning-seeks-presidential-pardon/gPcjfGSe1tFN3Ft5x13hiO/story.html] |
*[[Boston Globe]] [http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/09/04/chelsea-manning-seeks-presidential-pardon/gPcjfGSe1tFN3Ft5x13hiO/story.html] |
||
*[[CBC News]] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/09/04/us-bradley-chelsea-manning-pardon.html] |
|||
*[[CTV News]] [http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/manning-seeks-u-s-presidential-pardon-over-wikileaks-case-1.1439568] (4 September 2013) |
*[[CTV News]] [http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/manning-seeks-u-s-presidential-pardon-over-wikileaks-case-1.1439568] (4 September 2013) |
||
*[[The Denver Post]]: [http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24011992/chelsea-manning-seeks-presidential-pardon] |
*[[The Denver Post]]: [http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24011992/chelsea-manning-seeks-presidential-pardon] |
Revision as of 05:28, 12 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.
Please do not comment within the list of sources, but in the comments sub-section within each section.
Evidence
Relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines
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.
|
Comments (about citing the above policies and guidelines)
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)
|
Evidence from reliable news 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.
Statements by news agencies on their policy to address Manning as Chelsea
- New York Times: (27 August 2013)
- Associated Press: (27 August 2013)
- NPR: (23 August 2013)
- TIME (magazine): (27 August 2013): "As for TIME, a story on Manning’s announcement made its intentions clear within the first sentence: 'Chelsea Manning first announced to the world...'"
- CBC.ca: (editor's note added on September 6th): "Our initial coverage of the sentencing and reaction has acknowledged that Bradley Manning chose to live publicly as a man when charged and prosecuted, but now wants to be referred to as a woman. The next phase of coverage will refer to Chelsea Manning, with all appropriate feminine pronouns, while acknowledging the past identity of Bradley Manning when relevant.", 11 September 2013
Statements by news agencies on their policy to address Manning as Bradley
News agencies using Chelsea Manning
News agencies using Bradley Manning
News agencies which haven't clearly chosen one name over the other
- AFP: [45] 6 Sep. (uses Bradley Manning, though AFP has also made statement that they will use Chelsea)
Evidence from reliable non-news sources on what names they use
Chelsea
- Encyclopædia Britannica: [46] lede: "Chelsea Manning, original name Bradley Edward Manning", article title: "Chelsea Manning" (switched from Bradley on Sep 5). Uses "Bradley" in second paragraph.
- 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.
- 'Initial report of gender expression, TODAY show', 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...".
- Lawyers for Manning: "PVT Manning wants supporters to acknowledge and respect her gender identity as she proceeds into the post-trial state of her life" Statements by Manning's Lawyer, David Coombs
Bradley
- "While PVT Manning wants supporters to acknowledge and respect her gender identity as she proceeds into the post-trial state of her life, she also expects that the name Bradley Manning and the male pronoun will continue to be used in certain instances. These instances include any reference to the trial, in legal documents, in communication with the government, in the current petition to the White House calling for clemency, and on the envelope of letters written to her by supporters. She also expects that many old photos and graphics will remain in use for the time being." Statements by Manning's Lawyer, David Coombs
- Lawyers for Manning using name "Bradley" in 9/3/2013 cover letter to the President. Pardon request cover letter for Pvt. Manning.
Sources specifically discussing media usage
- Why is it so hard to call Chelsea Manning 'She'?, New York (magazine), 22 August 2013
- Who is still calling Chelsea Manning 'he'?, MSNBC, 27 August 2013
- To She or Not to She? Media Outlets Struggle to Pick a Pronoun for Chelsea Manning: The New York Times announced its decision to refer Manning in the feminine, so who are the holdouts?, TIME (magazine), 27 August 2013
- “Chelsea” is winning, TIME (magazine), 28 August 2013
- AP calls Bradley Manning a ‘she’ and liberal media fall in line with PC agenda, Washington Times, 29 August 2013
- Op-ed: What Is Fox News's Problem With Chelsea Manning?, Advocate, 4 September 2013
- What Does Chelsea Manning’s Gender Have to Do With You?, Reason, 4 September 2013
- Mainstream Media Fails on Coverage of Chelsea Manning's Transition, Truthout, 8 September 2013
Sources specifically discussing the title of the Wikipedia article
Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people
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.
Some editors have expressed a concern that the following source is not reliable, while other editors consider it to be reliable:
|
Comments (on the above sources only)
Comments (on the above sources only) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources which haven't reported on Manning since the announcement
Comments on entries
Source deleted by Elaqueate
Collapsing long sections
A couple of notes on news headlines and name usage
|
Washington Times as a source
In the "Statements by news agencies about how Manning will be addressed" section, an article in the Unification Church's publication The Washington Times[50] 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)
- The New York Times also has extreme views; just to the far left. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's not a mainstream opinion. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Per our own article on The New York Times, "According to a 2007 survey by conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% saw the paper as having a liberal slant, 20% no political slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant." CaseyPenk (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1982 by the founder of the Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church - I too would question whether it meets RS in this case. Artw (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- How does being founded by a member of a church disqualify a source? If we didn't allow sources that were founded by church members, we'd have to cross a great many of our sources off the list. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- From our article on The Washington Times: "With its conservative editorial bent, the paper also became a crucial training ground for many rising conservative journalists and a must-read for those in the movement. A veritable who’s who of conservatives — Tony Blankley, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Larry Kudlow, John Podhoretz and Tony Snow — has churned out copy for its pages." - You may disagree with the conservative bent, but that does not change the fact that it's reliable. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a good idea to start disqualifying news sources for either a liberal or conservative slant. Whatever the political color of a news outlet, we're looking for how commonly it is used, whether by more conservative, progressive, liberal, neutral or any other sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- All sources are mentioning that both names exist. Some show a preference. It is reasonable to say that a Washington Times reader has been exposed to the idea that the words "Chelsea Manning" have some reference to the person that people also describe as "Bradley Manning". __Elaqueate (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Lawyer's statement
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)
- I agree. I've removed it. It is clearly not "Evidence from reliable non-news sources on what name to use". The lawyer did use "Bradley" due to legal obligation or pressure that does not apply to Wikipedia, but the lawyer and Manning are clear that "Chelsea" is the name to use. -sche (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The name of the section was misleading. It was never about which name to use (as in advice), but rather which name they do use (as in objective reporting of fact). As in the name of the previous section, "Evidence from reliable news sources on what names they use." I renamed the section on non-news sources to be consistent with the previous section, and re-added the statements. The lawyer's statements reflect how certain sources refer to Manning. Whether they want Manning to be referred to that way is another question. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- This interpretation leads to a ridiculous outcome. ALL sources use the names Chelsea and ALL sources use the name Bradley. If it has no sense of which one is used most significantly, than any source can be placed in both sections. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bare usage is a distinction of no distinction. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, please recall that this evidence is not going to be accepted without comment by those !voting. They will do their own searches, and they will look at the sources themselves. In this case, the fact that we have clear statements from the lawyer on when the term Bradley is expected to be used is a useful piece to add to the discussion and the best header is under "Bradley" for now. The presence of something under a given header doesn't mean that source never uses the other term.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- "If it has no sense of which one is used most significantly" I believe this is referring to the Britannica issue, which is separate from the lawyer issue.
- With regards to the lawyer issue, the lawyer has used both (saying she prefers Chelsea/she but admitting that Bradley/he will be used in some cases, and using Bradley/he in correspondence such as the pardon letter). So the jury's very much out on which term the lawyer prefers, since the lawyer uses both. In that sense it's a huge editorial judgment on our part to say which the lawyer prefers. So saying which terms the lawyer does use is the most neutral and objective way to approach this. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- The lawyer, uses and prefers Chelsea and has made it explicit that a few areas such as legal paperwork are special cases. You have to ignore all appearances on television, all other direct public communications to judge the legal paperwork as the only evidence of what was said and done. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, we go by what reliable sources on the whole and do not pay attention only to one usage or the other. It seems clear that the lawyer uses both, so we can indicate as such. Please do not remove statements from the Bradley section when they are directly from the lawyer. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- The lawyer, uses and prefers Chelsea and has made it explicit that a few areas such as legal paperwork are special cases. You have to ignore all appearances on television, all other direct public communications to judge the legal paperwork as the only evidence of what was said and done. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bare usage is a distinction of no distinction. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- This interpretation leads to a ridiculous outcome. ALL sources use the names Chelsea and ALL sources use the name Bradley. If it has no sense of which one is used most significantly, than any source can be placed in both sections. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- The name of the section was misleading. It was never about which name to use (as in advice), but rather which name they do use (as in objective reporting of fact). As in the name of the previous section, "Evidence from reliable news sources on what names they use." I renamed the section on non-news sources to be consistent with the previous section, and re-added the statements. The lawyer's statements reflect how certain sources refer to Manning. Whether they want Manning to be referred to that way is another question. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
For reference, this was the bit I (-sche) (re)moved: |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Reuters slideshow
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.
- It does look as though the slideshow is an old one - you can see this past version from July 30. I support removing the slideshow. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I misread it, sorry. However, I do think we should still discuss Reuters - their phrasing is very cautious, and they've studiously avoided the name in the title - and in fact that one story that came out was revised multiple times to change the language, so they're clearly still trying to figure out their "house" style. I think it's a bit early to put them into the Chelsea camp, especially since they're a major news agency - we should wait for something more definitive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I previously avoided moving it even though I think your earlier reasoning was weak (no clear pronoun usage either way, which you should recognize as immaterial to name usage, and lack of a personal name in references after first mention, which is, of course, industry standard). To respond to this comment,
- All of these articles have "cautious" phrasing. No one is pretending they aren't attempting to strike the right tone and balance against familiarity and the need to inform. (You should be sensitive to this.)
- News headlines are not "titles", they have different editorial concerns, including concise use of words. Many of the most enthusiastic Chelsea adopters have headlines that say "Manning" alone. I would invite you to survey Reuters headlines specifically. It is uncommon for them to use a personal name in any of their hard news headlines. You are using the fact that they made their most common usage choice as evidence they are acting strangely.
- As you say, they can revise wire stories at the source, often multiple times. In this case that extra editorial oversight kept "Chelsea" as the first mention throughout. (If it switched back and forth over the course of the day Chelsea/Bradley/Chelsea style, I would agree that there was confusion, but in this case editors looked at it and kept it, and kept it) Are you suggesting they missed it or that they didn't know what they decided to settle on?
- You point out that they are a major news agency. You are correct, but that simply means they are far more likely to have been intensely sensitive about every word that was placed. Thirty words at Reuters are given more attention than many other papers give their second and third pages. When they make an error on an attribution issue it is a magnitude level difference in bother and grief and potential liability. It is simply more likely they are committed to their attribution usage than that they were fuzzily trying something out. Sample Reuters guidelines.
- I am happy at this point to leave it off the board, as their usage is their usage whether it is recognized by Wikipedia or not, but it's really out of deference to discourse. I do not speculate on their future use, but I'm also not the one treating Reuters as being sloppy with their words. I think the words they use are a definitive source for the words they currently use. Let's leave it off for now, since it obviously doesn't go into Bradley and I don't think it's unclear. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, if you'd rather keep it off that's ok with me. I do think it's telling that they didn't bother to update page titles, section titles, etc so I get the feeling they are skirting the issue, but another news cycle this week or next will force them to make a clear decision. I think that one article in insufficient for me, esp given Reuter's reach. They certainly had enough characters in the title to write Chelsea, and the fact that they didnt (while many others did!) - is indicative. Remember, we're discussing the title here, not the first use, so titles of news articles should also have have bearing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- You make a claim that they aren't updating page titles and section titles. What are you talking about? I can't find any examples of what you're speaking of. (You can't mean that you find it "telling" that they haven't modified a story from July 30th. I am assuming you must know that Reuters wouldn't back edit old posted stories from weeks ago.) If you find this practice telling please show me where you saw them doing it. Please show me that you haven't developed a pattern of making unsubstantiated claims about this source.
- Headlines are not titles. This is a false parallel. Regardless of what other sources do, Reuters rarely place more than the surname in headlines. You can think of this as important, but it makes me wonder about your overall reasoning of what is or is not "indicative". They "have enough characters" to put personal names in all of their headlines. It's their overwhelming preference not to.
- I think you're acting in good faith, but you keep making claims I can't prove as true here. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- And it's not what I'd "rather". You have indicated you want to treat this source as a special case, with different criteria than any other source of size, based on your feelings. And you say it is worth discussing. I am willing to explore that, as I don't think it changes their usage or preference. I don't think any one source is decisive,and that these categories only show which name is even slightly preferred, either way, (and I thought you did too, when you made the logical point that "The presence of something under a given header doesn't mean that source never uses the other term.")__Elaqueate (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, if you'd rather keep it off that's ok with me. I do think it's telling that they didn't bother to update page titles, section titles, etc so I get the feeling they are skirting the issue, but another news cycle this week or next will force them to make a clear decision. I think that one article in insufficient for me, esp given Reuter's reach. They certainly had enough characters in the title to write Chelsea, and the fact that they didnt (while many others did!) - is indicative. Remember, we're discussing the title here, not the first use, so titles of news articles should also have have bearing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I previously avoided moving it even though I think your earlier reasoning was weak (no clear pronoun usage either way, which you should recognize as immaterial to name usage, and lack of a personal name in references after first mention, which is, of course, industry standard). To respond to this comment,
- I misread it, sorry. However, I do think we should still discuss Reuters - their phrasing is very cautious, and they've studiously avoided the name in the title - and in fact that one story that came out was revised multiple times to change the language, so they're clearly still trying to figure out their "house" style. I think it's a bit early to put them into the Chelsea camp, especially since they're a major news agency - we should wait for something more definitive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Other comments
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
Guidance for discussion
Please be civil, and respect the viewpoints of others. This is a contentious topic so others may hold very different views from your own. Please do not engage in battlegrounding. Please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.
Contributors to the previous discussion expressed concern that some of the content was transphobic. Likewise, some editors expressed concern with accusations of transphobia. Please be careful about making comments that could be perceived as transphobic, and with making accusations of transphobia. Serious violations of WP:BLP or WP:NPA should be noted at WP:ANI.
Please cite relevant Wikipedia policies when you make your argument. You may wish to consider the arguments that others put forward in the previous move request.
This discussion centers around the title of the article currently located at Bradley Manning. Please comment only on the title of the article; please refrain from making other types of comments. For example, comments about your personal feelings or views, without policy evidence, may not contribute to the discussion. Similarly, comments on what pronouns you think should be used are outside the scope of this discussion. Such off-topic comments may be closed or ignored.