Daira Emma Hopwood (talk | contribs) →Relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines: formatting |
Ananiujitha (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:::Wikipedia '''is part of the media''', and part of what needs to be fixed. --[[User:Daira Hopwood|Daira Hopwood ⚥]] ([[User talk:Daira Hopwood|talk]]) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
:::Wikipedia '''is part of the media''', and part of what needs to be fixed. --[[User:Daira Hopwood|Daira Hopwood ⚥]] ([[User talk:Daira Hopwood|talk]]) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::Also, I've been met with only dismissiveness and obsfuscation when I've tried to comment on ''any'' of the related pages about this. I don't agree with the decision to wait until the end of September in order to present substantive arguments; who decided that anyway? --[[User:Daira Hopwood|Daira Hopwood ⚥]] ([[User talk:Daira Hopwood|talk]]) 00:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
:::Also, I've been met with only dismissiveness and obsfuscation when I've tried to comment on ''any'' of the related pages about this. I don't agree with the decision to wait until the end of September in order to present substantive arguments; who decided that anyway? --[[User:Daira Hopwood|Daira Hopwood ⚥]] ([[User talk:Daira Hopwood|talk]]) 00:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::In practical terms, Chelsea Manning is the ultimate reliable source on her own identity. I understand why Wikipedia privileges secondary sources, but taking that here is taking that too far; in the first place, because given names can be insulting/degendering to many trans people, or can bring up trauma, and no one should have to have an insult as the title of their article, and in the second place, because we ''should'' be able to use the articles which post-date her announcement and which show some understanding of the issue, over those which pre-date her announcement, or show no understanding of it. [[User:Ananiujitha|Ananiujitha]] ([[User talk:Ananiujitha|talk]]) 00:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Evidence == |
== Evidence == |
Revision as of 00:54, 15 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.
Disagreement with the premise that "reliable source" usage is what should determine this issue
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)
- Agree. It is wrong to deny her name and gender, once she has asserted it. She may be unable to get it legally recognised, but legal recognition should not affect gender; and the name used should reflect her female gender. Any assertion that she "is" in some way Bradley rather than Chelsea is cissexist.Abigailgem (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- i'd suggest you save those arguments for the move. Article titles are base on WP:AT, if that policy needs updating to have exceptions I'd encourage you to join the ongoing discussions there. If you'd like to expand the sections below with evidence that wikipedia article titles could harm their subject please do so. But we arent now debating the name here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that WP:Naming_conventions_(people) has an irreconcilable collision with MOS:IDENTITY; it is simply inconsistent to have one requiring the use of people's preferred names and the other requiring common usage. They do not always match (Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens is another article with the same problem). So, since weakening the (limited) protection that MOS:IDENTITY gives against outright transphobia would be a guaranteed way to drive trans people away from Wikipedia in droves, how do we go about fixing WP:Naming_conventions_(people)? Is Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(people) the right forum for that? --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- also, you may be right that the media perpetuates cisgender and misunderstands trans - but since we report based on reliable sources, how media refers to a person is an important determinant of the title, in the interest of the reader. I'm sure you would agree that if no media ever referred to her as Chelsea (assuming a 100% not-accepting-of-her-new-name), we could not rename the article to Chelsea. Thus, media usage matters because that is where our readers get their info. If media are the problem the solution is not to fix Wikipedia but rather to fix the media.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is part of the media, and part of what needs to be fixed. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I've been met with only dismissiveness and obsfuscation when I've tried to comment on any of the related pages about this. I don't agree with the decision to wait until the end of September in order to present substantive arguments; who decided that anyway? --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- In practical terms, Chelsea Manning is the ultimate reliable source on her own identity. I understand why Wikipedia privileges secondary sources, but taking that here is taking that too far; in the first place, because given names can be insulting/degendering to many trans people, or can bring up trauma, and no one should have to have an insult as the title of their article, and in the second place, because we should be able to use the articles which post-date her announcement and which show some understanding of the issue, over those which pre-date her announcement, or show no understanding of it. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- i'd suggest you save those arguments for the move. Article titles are base on WP:AT, if that policy needs updating to have exceptions I'd encourage you to join the ongoing discussions there. If you'd like to expand the sections below with evidence that wikipedia article titles could harm their subject please do so. But we arent now debating the name here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
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 on first mention
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning vs Bradley Manning as the primary name of the subject.
Sources are sorted based on their latest use of one name or the other in an article or editorial statement from after August 22, when the announcement was made. It is trivially obvious that sources from before the announcement use Bradley; that is not of interest and such sources are not listed here.
Note that regardless of which name they use on first mention, almost all of the sources listed in both sections mention and contribute to readers' awareness of the existence of both names.
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: [34] 6 September 2013 (uses Bradley Manning, though AFP has also made statement that they will use Chelsea)
- Reuters: 4 September 2013, uses Chelsea as follows: "The request for Chelsea, formerly known as Bradley, Manning"; 13 September 2013, uses Bradley
- UPI: 4 Sep 2013, Uses quote of a tweet:"Chelsea #Manning", on first use of full name, and then explains the name change using Bradley and Chelsea; 3 Sep. 2013, Bradley; 4 Sep 2013, Chelsea
Evidence from reliable non-news sources on what names they use
Chelsea
- Encyclopædia Britannica: [35] 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[39] 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)
Sources are sorted based on latest use
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:
- Sources are sorted based on whether their latest articles, post August 22, consistently use Bradley or Chelsea on first use to refer to the subject, unless editorial statements or a history of waffling back and forth between the two names suggest they haven't clearly chosen one name over another.
...but I feel like there's a better way of phrasing that. Thoughts/help? -sche (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I tweaked slightly looks good to me now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. The biggest thing I was wondering about was if there was a better way of saying "waffling back and forth between the two names" (from article to article), lol. Perhaps now that it reads "consistently use Bradley or Chelsea", the entire second half of the sentence (starting with "unless") can be dropped? -sche (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Consistently used" can a bit of a loaded term. Does Rolling Stone need three articles before it's reasonably assumed they meant it the first time? Consistent within a single article won't necessarily always be useful either, because news agencies typically only use a personal name once per article, excluding direct quotations, for either name. I've been trying to check whether a particular agency is favoring one name over the other, or whether they switch back, to give a sense of whether those agencies are treating it like the more common name, or as a not-her-name-yet. If we were to start disqualifying mentions from "They have actively used Chelsea" based on the fact that they also mention Bradley in a less significant way then the list will become functionally and thematically useless and it won't reflect what the sources are more commonly doing. An almost complete majority of the listed sources tell their readers that the name "Chelsea Manning" exists, even the ones that disdain it. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen the challenges go from "Reputable sources use Bradley" to "Reputable sources use Bradley more" to "The really important sources use Bradley" to "Reputable sources used to use Bradley a lot in the past, whatever they do now". Now we're at "The important sources haven't used Chelsea like they really really mean it or (x) number of times. That's all fine, of course, they're all wonderful arguments, but they shift all the way to the horizon. This list of sources gives a useful approximation for evaluating the first three questions. But if a significant event happened in the life of any other type of biography, such as death or religious conversion, we wouldn't wait until the numerical instances of coverage of the event matched the number of articles for the previous section of their lives. Right now, non-dubious and serious-minded sources are quietly using Chelsea Manning as their main reference for this subject. Currently. Maybe someone will find this significant. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- On a functional note, my quick estimate is that a test of whether a source "consistently" (more than one article, or more than one personal name usage in an article) used Bradley or Chelsea more preferentially since the announcement would lower the number of considerable Bradley sources to a less helpful number. I think "current while preferential" use is a better way to evaluate a wider range of actual expression. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen the challenges go from "Reputable sources use Bradley" to "Reputable sources use Bradley more" to "The really important sources use Bradley" to "Reputable sources used to use Bradley a lot in the past, whatever they do now". Now we're at "The important sources haven't used Chelsea like they really really mean it or (x) number of times. That's all fine, of course, they're all wonderful arguments, but they shift all the way to the horizon. This list of sources gives a useful approximation for evaluating the first three questions. But if a significant event happened in the life of any other type of biography, such as death or religious conversion, we wouldn't wait until the numerical instances of coverage of the event matched the number of articles for the previous section of their lives. Right now, non-dubious and serious-minded sources are quietly using Chelsea Manning as their main reference for this subject. Currently. Maybe someone will find this significant. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Consistently used" can a bit of a loaded term. Does Rolling Stone need three articles before it's reasonably assumed they meant it the first time? Consistent within a single article won't necessarily always be useful either, because news agencies typically only use a personal name once per article, excluding direct quotations, for either name. I've been trying to check whether a particular agency is favoring one name over the other, or whether they switch back, to give a sense of whether those agencies are treating it like the more common name, or as a not-her-name-yet. If we were to start disqualifying mentions from "They have actively used Chelsea" based on the fact that they also mention Bradley in a less significant way then the list will become functionally and thematically useless and it won't reflect what the sources are more commonly doing. An almost complete majority of the listed sources tell their readers that the name "Chelsea Manning" exists, even the ones that disdain it. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. The biggest thing I was wondering about was if there was a better way of saying "waffling back and forth between the two names" (from article to article), lol. Perhaps now that it reads "consistently use Bradley or Chelsea", the entire second half of the sentence (starting with "unless") can be dropped? -sche (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I tweaked slightly looks good to me now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Re your point about "consistently": good point; I don't want to imply that a source has to use a certain name several times in a row, I just want to be clear that AFAICT we are in practice not counting sources as "using Chelsea" if they used Bradley, then used Chelsea, then Bradley, then Chelsea, and kept waffling like that. Perhaps we could just say "Sources are sorted based on their latest use of one name or the other in an article or editorial statement."? Re your point that even the sources which disdain "Chelsea" are still informing their readers of it: I agree completely, and it's why I see this whole exercise of listing 'Chelsea' sources vs 'Bradley' sources as flawed... but I haven't felt like rocking / torpedoing the boat. Perhaps it would be helpful to point out in the intro that very fact: "Note that regardless of which name they prefer / use on first mention, almost all of the sources listed in both sections mention and contribute to readers' awareness of the existence of both names." -sche (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've updated the intro to incorporate both proposed lines, and to expand the header to account for the nature of the lists (they are indeed lists of which name the sources prefer/use as the subjectʼs primary name, not of which names the sources use, otherwise almost all of them would—as noted—belong in both categories). -sche (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Re your point about "consistently": good point; I don't want to imply that a source has to use a certain name several times in a row, I just want to be clear that AFAICT we are in practice not counting sources as "using Chelsea" if they used Bradley, then used Chelsea, then Bradley, then Chelsea, and kept waffling like that. Perhaps we could just say "Sources are sorted based on their latest use of one name or the other in an article or editorial statement."? Re your point that even the sources which disdain "Chelsea" are still informing their readers of it: I agree completely, and it's why I see this whole exercise of listing 'Chelsea' sources vs 'Bradley' sources as flawed... but I haven't felt like rocking / torpedoing the boat. Perhaps it would be helpful to point out in the intro that very fact: "Note that regardless of which name they prefer / use on first mention, almost all of the sources listed in both sections mention and contribute to readers' awareness of the existence of both names." -sche (talk) 07:34, 13 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)
- I don't think "consistently" is a problem. If there is one article post Aug 22, and it uses X on first notion, then that qualifies as consistent. What doesn't qualify as consistent is when radio, TV, blog, editorial, headline, and first usage across a media property differs and flip flops. In those cases, we should keep it in the "undecided" category, and not just go by the latest unless we're quite sure (e.g. b/c they've made a statement).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Or if they fail to meet unmeetable criteria? In the case of Reuters I am still noting that you "do think it's telling that they didn't bother to update page titles, section titles, etc". I still fail to see that Reuters has any page titles and section titles to update. Maybe I'm not seeing them they way you did? __Elaqueate (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dude, ease up. This for example: [41] which has this tag: [42]; they also could have renamed their video coverage links, to say "Chelsea Manning, previously Bradley" but they didn't - even though they go back and update stories and others have done so. Finally, a new article by Reuters uses Bradley. I just don't see a strong editorial decision yet on this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to people to agree with your judgement based on a source's usage, I hope you don't think it's unreasonable to ask you (twice) about where you see the evidence for your judgement. Now I see that you're concerned they didn't re-tag stories from the 22nd of August on their corporate website, and not on their actual news wire. The promotional blog on ThomsonReuters.com is not Reuters.com; one is a corporate cheerleader website for the other, one of the three biggest English-language news-wire services in the world. The tags you are interested in have nothing to do with the wire service. They're tags on the corporate site. This is what I was worried about, that you weren't being careful or rigorous with the sources. I think you acted in good faith, but you really were judging one source by the actions of another and setting unmeetable criteria. As for the video links, it's not reasonable to think that Reuters would re-headline all the videos they published pre-announcement.
- And so this is what you found telling. I find it telling that the reporter being interviewed here, the reporter who covered the Manning trial for Reuters for three months, was the same reporter who wrote the story where he switched his usage to Chelsea Manning. That is an interesting story. It doesn't matter to me if they use Chelsea or Bradley past the story where they used Chelsea or the new entertainment story; I've added sources to both usage lists. It is just a little troubling that you are repeatedly making basic errors and unsupportable claims about the sources. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Constructively, what would be helpful is if you checked and didn't offer up old stories as if they were new, and if you don't ask people to go back in time and republish stuff with new headlines to prove they are committed to new developments. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dude. Enough. Reuters is in an undefined zone for now. It should stay there until they come back with something more consistent. They RE-published a story from Aug 22 on Aug 27 on their corporate website, using the old name, and using the old tag. That blog is used to highlight Reuters stories - and you have no idea on the readership of it, its syndication, where it gets replicated, etc. And yes, it does matter - Thompson Reuters is the OWNER of Reuters news wire service. The question is, what is the corporate policy towards referring to Manning? If they can't get that right on their corporate blog, then it's not surprising they are inconsistent. I also don't think it's inconsistent at all to relabel photos/videos that are intended to be referenced and timelines that are meant to be added to. We renamed our photos - heck we renamed our article. Why didn't Reuters do so? Anyway, further discussion on this point is fruitless as you make baseless accusations. Let's just get back to sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't "dude" me. It's not civil and not appreciated. I'm not making a case for Reuters to go anywhere here. As I said before, I'd leave it off based on your general feeling to be courteous to further discussion. Here I'm pointing out that you are confusing sources in your arguments and it distracts from what the source is actually doing. You've done it more than once and if you didn't keep making extended claims about the source I wouldn't clarify them here.
- You are still pointing to a reprint of an August 22 article not on the originating news site as evidence of editorial commitment. Please don't double down on this. I'm sorry if you possibly feel cornered, I just want to make sure you see there is a problem in not understanding that the blog on the site of the corporate division, aggregating showpiece items, is a different animal than the syndicated newswire serving thousands of sources. This isn't opinion. The Reuters wire develops the news, and Thompson Reuters (formerly Thompson) sells the wire as product to other news organizations. It wouldn't help to quote an Amazon press release as if it was a Washington Post article. I hope you can agree that the "corporate policy" of the company that owns the wire service is probably not as germane here as the "editorial policy" of the actual wire service that produced the news we're sourcing.
- "Why didn't Reuters do so?": Their videos are all pre-announcement. I don't think it's wise, now or in the future, to judge a journalistic enterprise for not changing their old captions and headlines to match the news of a week later. The NY Times would run a correction, but they wouldn't change the headline even a day after. A news wire is not an encyclopedia. We should update and rename photos, our articles should be current. And we update the current face of the article, we don't go back through the archive and make it look like we didn't change anything. I see a problem where you are using an encyclopedia's standards against a news wire's more journalistic practice.
- And finally what baseless accusations have I made? I am offering this to you because I hope you would rather be accurate about these sources than off-the-cuff. This source would have sat at "Bradley for a week, then it would have sat at "Chelsea" for a week, then it would have gone back to Bradley, if you hadn't started reverting and editorializing and drawing conclusions based on pronoun usage, outdated stories, and a standard for journalism that you wouldn't explain or show where you got your evidence for. Claims that can be challenged if you start explaining what a source "means" instead of just recording what a source does. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't "dude" me. It's not civil and not appreciated. I'm not making a case for Reuters to go anywhere here. As I said before, I'd leave it off based on your general feeling to be courteous to further discussion. Here I'm pointing out that you are confusing sources in your arguments and it distracts from what the source is actually doing. You've done it more than once and if you didn't keep making extended claims about the source I wouldn't clarify them here.
- Dude. Enough. Reuters is in an undefined zone for now. It should stay there until they come back with something more consistent. They RE-published a story from Aug 22 on Aug 27 on their corporate website, using the old name, and using the old tag. That blog is used to highlight Reuters stories - and you have no idea on the readership of it, its syndication, where it gets replicated, etc. And yes, it does matter - Thompson Reuters is the OWNER of Reuters news wire service. The question is, what is the corporate policy towards referring to Manning? If they can't get that right on their corporate blog, then it's not surprising they are inconsistent. I also don't think it's inconsistent at all to relabel photos/videos that are intended to be referenced and timelines that are meant to be added to. We renamed our photos - heck we renamed our article. Why didn't Reuters do so? Anyway, further discussion on this point is fruitless as you make baseless accusations. Let's just get back to sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dude, ease up. This for example: [41] which has this tag: [42]; they also could have renamed their video coverage links, to say "Chelsea Manning, previously Bradley" but they didn't - even though they go back and update stories and others have done so. Finally, a new article by Reuters uses Bradley. I just don't see a strong editorial decision yet on this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Or if they fail to meet unmeetable criteria? In the case of Reuters I am still noting that you "do think it's telling that they didn't bother to update page titles, section titles, etc". I still fail to see that Reuters has any page titles and section titles to update. Maybe I'm not seeing them they way you did? __Elaqueate (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
"News Channel Daily"
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:
- New real estate market trends present opportunities for home shoppers to weigh the options and make informed decisions Shopping for homes continues to challenge each anticipating home buyer and seller as real estate trends continue to fluctuate every day.
- North Korea fear to connect to outside world questioned by Google Executive Chairman as he urges them to make use of internet and withdraw from its Isolation Practices Eric Schmidt, the Google executive chairman in a press briefing in North Korea early this year pointed out the need for Koreans to make use of internet and connect to the world. Schmidt added North Korea should allow its people to use this technology lest remain behind other nations.
- "A vote to determine the outcome of the historical Olympic game wrestling, together with the modern squash and baseball/softball, to be included in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games program saw wrestling leap past its competitors to secure a spot in the roster.
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.