Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request/Comments unrelated to evidence

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.

---

Holding areas for comments unrelated to evidence

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) So you (unsigned contributrix) require only reliable sources that tell us how Manning feels about her name, rather than the name of trans women. That would limit the available sources to zero (a nonexistent essay by Manning) and is not a helpful suggestion. The thing about the GID defense is that it is valid: transition or preparing to transition is incredibly destablising, with 84% considering suicide[1] (40% making at least one attempt), and being trapped in a hyper-masculine environment could lead a person to do something foolish, be it suicide or lashing out. Finally in your hatted section below you say that "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.". This is completely counter to Wikipedia's dedication to fact: I don't recognise Chelsea Manning as a woman based on my personal opinion of her - I recognize her as a woman because it's true. 7daysahead (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC) previously, only the following section was hatted: 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) 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. -sche (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of start date

Discussion of start date

I feel that October is too tense for everyone, especially those who was displeased with the results of prior requests. First administrative backlashes, then move to Bradley per discussion, and failed attempt to move to "Private Manning" (a porno would use this name someday)? The article is undergoing changes, and it's treating the subject as a transgendered female. But I bet editors are troubled at what to do with this article, and things won't calm down at the end of the month. --George Ho (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC) There was considerable displeasure (outrage?) at waiting 30 days, and several editors wanted to start a move request, say, now. So I doubt a proposal to wait until November would go over well. CaseyPenk (talk)! MOS:IDENTITY is under dispute, Arbitrary request was made, and... what else? And I bet that starting in October won't proceed smoothly as needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC) We're also discussing revisions to WP:COMMONNAME. And I think you meant arbitration request? Some see it as arbitrary too. (: CaseyPenk (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I think we'll be an unnecessary week late if we wait to start discussion until 30 September. We if start 23 September, the discussion can be closed 30-days after last month's discussion was closed. I think this is a more reasonable step, if we wait to start the discussion until 30 September, then the actual close with be 37 days. Opinions?--v/r - TP 16:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Well, the close said a new request could be "initiated no less than thirty days* from the date of this determination" (emphasis mine). We can ignore that advice, but would need to do so consciously. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I have seen arguments on all sides - start earlier, start later. The wisest course is to start exactly on the dot prescribed by the closing admins. Then no-one on either side can argue it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Who will be the closing admins at this time? --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the same panel to close the next discussion. I would propose recruiting a new panel of uninvolved admins from WP:AN, but would not suggest doing so until a few days before the next discussion formally begins. With respect to the start date, the panel was split (with one member preferring ninety days, and another preferring a range from one to six months), but I am strongly of the conviction that thirty days is the right amount of time; it allows for the passage of several news cycles, including reporting on the subject's situation that is not focused on the gender issue. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Per WP:POLICY, policies must be normally followed. Guidelines should be, as well, unless exceptions may apply, like contradictories to policies. I am afraid that people will cite currently-disputed rules as part of argument, and that would either prejudice the consensus or leave the consensus on the limbo even more, unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) It looks to me like you meant to write 30 September (as proposed by the closing admins) rather than 30 October, and that you are proposing 23 September as start date (which would seem reasonable in my opinion)? Josh Gorand (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Yes.--v/r - TP 17:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is undergoing revision proposals in light to prior moves on the Manning subject. Are you certain that consensus on amending rules will be reached on either September 23 or 30? --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I don't know, I havent been following them. If there is reason not to move this along earlier, I'm not attached to the idea. I just wondering if anyone had thought about it.--v/r - TP 17:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Today is September 5, so the start date contemplated by the close (which would be September 30), is three weeks away. If we can not accomplish a fairly simple clarifying amendment to WP:TITLE in that time, then I see no reason to presume that we can accomplish such an amendment in the following few weeks, or the few weeks after that, in which case the proposal will rest on the change in sources and refinement of arguments as to existing policy. However, I see no reason why a change can not be effected with several weeks to carry it out. bd2412 T 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Propose move for October 3, 2013

Propose move for October 3, 2013
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute I feel the move discussion should begin when the arbitration case closes, while I know a bunch of editors are eager to start the move discussion sooner, I feel that this way we will have a more accurate result. It is better to wait and get a firmer result (maybe that will even establish something if something like this happens again) than it is to rush and have people go on just what is based above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC) There does not seem to be much chance of anything significant happening there, this request seems like a delsaying tactic to something that is already being unnecessarily delayed. Artw (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC) The arbitration committee doesn't make content decisions and they are unlikely to solve this question; also, that process could take ages. We'll have a move request on 30 September, or 23 September if enough people feel that is a good idea, unless something extraordinary happens in the meantime (if the Wikimedia Foundation chooses to take office action or something like that). Josh Gorand (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Hmm. I think that's actually a good idea. IF Arbcom does issue sanctions, they will likely rule on behavior during a discussion of this nature. If we start the discussion early, we don't have those findings to point people to, nor the sanctions some received. A few days won't make a difference, and ArbCom's ruling may have an important bearing on behavior during the discussion, which I hope will be better next time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC) There's no reason to create an artificial delay. The lists above of what source is doing what seems to be being actively maintained and it's likely that before long most or all of the most highly-regarded sources will be using "Chelsea". Once that happens, there's no justification for waiting. Formerip (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Agreed, the sources are rather clear already at this point and there is no reason to wait when the source situation becomes evident, which it will no doubt be as of 30 September. Many editors feel 30 September as proposed by the closing admins is too long already, given that many editors feel the title grossly violates BLP, and only grudgingly may accept to wait until 30 September; proposing further delays at this point is not realistic. The committee will not involve itself in the actual question discussed in the RM, which title to use, or other content issues, and looking at old disputes over BLP and wheel warring will be of little relevance when almost all reliable sources have adopted Chelsea anyway. Had the initial request for arbitration been worded in a less onesided manner that related more directly to the issue at hand (interpretation of policy and the material question) and less like an attempt to get back at old opponents, editors would possibly have been more inclined to wait. I also expect the next discussion to be calmer because the article will likely not be on the main page or as much in the news. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) The stridency of some people's arguments and their consistent opposition to anyone who disagrees with them may be a major contributing factor to why some people oppose holding this debate again any time in the near future. I for one will oppose any move request before the 30 day period has elapsed on the grounds that some people in the debate have not toned down their rhetoric, their fierce insistence on policy interpretations that many others have discredited, or their hostile attitude toward opponents. I simply do not believe that all people involved have calmed down enough to hold a civil discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I agree, as I have said it is better to wait than to rush into things. I still see editors accusing others of attacking Manning in what they say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Correct. I have seen disreputable behavior on both sides. People need to remember that, whether they intend to or not, their tone and civility (or lack thereof) will influence how other people view their opinions. I respect the opinion of a combative zealot so incredibly much less than that of a reasoned, calm thinker. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Opposition to other editors is not a policy-based rationale to oppose a requested move. Only sources and policy on whether the subject should be named Chelsea or Bradley will be taken into account in an RM. Attacking other editors for mentioning BLP is indeed a hostile attitude and certainly not constructive, nor has BLP been "discredited" by anyone, that's absurd (the last debate had no consensus on that, but a great number of experienced editors maintain that the policy is relevant). Josh Gorand (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Most of you are just wanting this done soon just because you are displeased with "Bradley" thing. And no policy or guideline or argument can convince me to agree with September 23 or 30. October 3? Why not Halloween? Anyway, I agree that we must delay further because of ArbCom, but rule amendment proposals (WP:COMMONNAMES, WP:) are also reasons to delay this. Also, we're waiting for the right time to review Good Article status of the article. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC) It might not be useful to base holding off action until all policies are finalized. How will we know when every challenged policy linked to this subject is "finished" and immune from change? __Elaqueate (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC) The proposal is not to wait for policy changes - it's simply to wait 3 days for the Arbcom findings. I've also asked Arbcom if they would consider ruling early instead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC) This discussion should be centralised to the VP or somewhere. There's no point in having it somewhere pagewatched by a handful of editors with strongly-held views about it. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Agreed; we'll stop discussing this here, and we'll start discussing this there. --George Ho (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Starting in the village pump (proposals). --George Ho (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Note that on the main talk page all talk regarding the timing is being pushed to this page. Artw (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of contested consensus line?

Keep closed until such time as the move request is filed; current proposed start date is 03:50 (UTC) Sep 30, 2013 per consensus of admins who closed the first move request. Some have stated disagreement with the 30-day waiting period, which has no official status.

The problem with these lines is that it has no purpose it shows that some editors think the consensus by the admin has no status but unless there is talk that the move request will be started before the 30th I see no reason why it needs to be included. So now that it is September 15th (UTC) where do we stand? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

if someone started an RFC now to get consensus to hold the move request earlier you'd need to let it run at least a week, meaning if you win you'd only start 1 week early. What's the point, as no-one will contest the RM the next week?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Those were my thoughts as well so after trying to remove the line my edit got reverted twice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the discussion guidelines

discussion came to an end
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the various accusations and counter accusations of transphobia that flew around last time, I think it would be useful if we put together a short, consensus-based "commenting" guide, that outlined the sort of comments one should avoid that have a tendency to offend trans* people. I've taken a stab above but please edit away at will. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC) The "Avoiding accusing people of transphobia" seems basically to be expressing the opinion of some editors in regard to the last debate and there is no agreement on that. If something is indeed transphobic (eg. comparisons of trans people to dogs), there is no rule against using that term to describe it (just like there's no rule against saying that eg. a talk page containing dozens of comparisons of Jews to rats contains anti-semitic commentary), and many editors have agreed that term was appropriate in relation to some of commentary in the last discussion, that even some on the opposing side recognised as hate speech. Also, the former comments pointing this out were not directed at or an attempt to engage with specific users, but mostly meta discussion of the overall contents of the page, the overall problem of such hate speech and how such comments shouldn't be given any weight in the final decision. The suggestion to instead engage directly with each user comparing trans people to dogs by dropping them "civil note(s) on their talk page(s)" misses the point and could be seen as offensive to many people reading some of the comments in question. If the page doesn't get filled with hate speech or we are sure such commentary is removed/discounted, there will be no need to point out any such commentary and why it's unacceptable and shouldn't be given any weight. It's not reasonable to demand that we engage directly with each user making such comments, which would have required a lot of work in the last debate. Josh Gorand (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Josh Gorand, I view the accusations of transphobia as being just as unproductive as the transphobic comments. Both are flatly unacceptable and neither is a civil way to approach the discussion. Just as I will absolutely not tolerate seemingly transphobic comments, I will absolutely not tolerate further uncivil accusations of transphobia. That's why we're specifying it in the discussion etiquette guide. The etiquette guide was made primarily out of concern for transgender editors (not the other way around) and I'm shocked to see it misinterpreted as an attack on editors who are sensitive about this topic. I remind you once again that accusations of transphobia, when phrased bluntly and without good faith, are unproductive and actually steer people away from your camp. I feel much less inclined to support a given group when that group engages in battlegrounding behavior over the good faith efforts of other contributors. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not aware of any "accusations" of transphobia. I'm aware of many editors, many of whom very experienced and a number of whom administrators, who have pointed out the unquestionable fact that the last debate contained such commentary. Examples of unacceptable commentary that many users have called out include "he is clearly mentally unstable", "he is definitely male", "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog", (Manning's gender announcement is a) "one-day circus freak show", "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog", "This guy is "Bradley Manning", a man and a male, both sex and gender. Period. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know", "Bradley was clearly in a state of psychosis when he decided he was Chelsea" and "There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning"". If you think these comments are "good faith efforts", I don't believe any further comments from me are necessary. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Josh Gorand, the point is that transphobia is an inherently subjective label; what some view as transphobic others will view differently. I strongly suggest not using the word "transphobia," because that is a loaded term with many implications and can be taken as a personal attack. Again, you may view certain comments as objectively transphobic, but no one likes to be told they are transphobic. There are so many more delicate ways of phrasing one's concerns than to call another editor transphobic. Hopefully you agree. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Please stop trying to tell trans people that they shouldn't call out transphobia when it happens. I don't care if people "don't like to be told" that they are transphobic, any more than I care that someone doesn't like being called racist or sexist when I call them out on that. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC) The problem is, must of what has been said here isn't any sort of "phobic", it is just "stuff you disagree with". You don't get to label other editors with terms of prejudice just because they disagree on transgender issues. Just because a person who gender-changes wants to be automatically called or though of by the new name doesn't mean that that is a right. That is the crux of the matter here. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Tarc, you used at least one outright slur in the last discussion. I don't know if people should necessarily take advice from you about what is or is not "offensive. __Elaqueate (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Would you care to offer proof of this assertion? Tarc (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Here's guidance from GLAAD: Defamatory: "she-male," "he-she," "it," "trannie," "tranny," "shim," "gender-bender" These words only serve to dehumanize transgender people and should not be used. And here's you. (Hey, that's interesting, our defamatory list looks almost the same one as GLAAD's, except ours doesn't have "Gender Bender". Maybe I was wrong and it's okay here.) But in any case, you do make yourself and your positions clear. What's wrong with offending people? __Elaqueate (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC) "Gender-bending" is not in any way, shape, or form defamatory. I'm sorry but GLAAD can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Isn't it okay to say some words aren't allowed? There are some words people shouldn't use, aren't there? __Elaqueate (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Of course there are, but that one in particular is just silly. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC) many editors disagreed Josh, so much so that they voted as a strong majority to have you topic banned from the move discussion (though the move discussion ended before the discussion was closed, so the topic ban was never realized). In any case, no one is demanding or obliging anyone to do anything - these are guidelines and suggestions, people should feel free to do whatever they want, but if a neutral admin or arb judges that they've crossed a line they must suffer the consequences. The purpose of the section below is to give a pathway that is likely to led to better results than shouting "transphobia" - because when you do that, those on your side cheer and those on the other side shut down. I'd suggest another option is to do nothing. You dont have to correct every wrong, and the closing admins certainly know what !votes should be discounted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC) No, I have never been topic banned, and continuing to bring up a failed attempt (by editors who had themselves written things like this: [2]; see especially the last sentences about the BLP subject) in unrelated discussions is not really an acceptable or civil technique to use in a debate. I don't object to you writing a signed comment in the next RM where you can say whatever you want, but an unsigned "guide" needs to be worded neutrally, not seemingly passing judgement on editors for having (rightly) called out unacceptable commentary in a former debate. We need some more general and more neutral wording along the lines of what Guettarda suggested below. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I agree the guide needs to be worded neutrally, so let's work on it. But we there were strong critiques by dozens of editors of the overuse of the word transphobia, hate speech, sexual harassment, and many other extremely strong terms which were applied broadly. Even on your own talk page, editors who supported you asked you to stop the ad hominem attacks. So stop being so righteous and consider that it's possible, maybe, that you went to far. We need to draft language that makes it clear that such behavior by you or anyone else is not welcome - the discussion at RM should focus on the policy issues around the move, and leave the policing to the admins and arbitrators, who will be watching closely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC) The arbcomm sanctions probably cover this. Kirill was very clear:[[3]] While there are no plans to restrict use of Manning's birth name on the case pages—if only because it will be impractical to discuss the location of the article otherwise—we will have a very low tolerance for any inappropriate conduct. Any specific concerns should be communicated to the clerks or directly to myself or AGK. That said, I think the phrasing of that section is less than artful, since in essence it says "if you're the victim of harassment you need to drop them a civil note". Something like: "Labelling people, rather than their actions, is rarely productive. Simply inform people that their choice of language is inappropriate and, if they persist, report their actions to Kirill, AGK or one of the clerks active in the arbitration case". Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC) "if you're the victim of harassment you need to drop them a civil note" - I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous way to describe this. What it says is, if you feel personally offended because somebody called her Bradley instead of Chelsea, or said "he" instead of "she", instead of labelling them a bigoted transphobe, engage them in civil discussion. Your re-wording above is basically equivalent, since you are (a) telling them to inform that this language you find inappropriate - which I think is best handled on their talk and not cluttering the move and (b) note that extreme cases should be reported to ANI or the clerks. I think we're closer than you think - mine just gives more explanation for why engagement vs name-calling is more productive. We could make that a general principle of course, which applies to both sides.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC) The fact that you think my phrasing "ridiculous" is rather telling. It suggests that you've either not read the experiences of trans people, or that you've dismiss them as quantitatively different from "normal" people. If you are a trans person, seeing Manning's identity denied, seeing her compared to dogs, seeing the hateful way people response to the idea of difference is victimisation. Trans people have lived that hate, that threat of violence, that denial of their existence, all that and more. It isn't necessarily less traumatic just because it's aimed at another person. I'm not trans, but this is obvious to me. If you're going to take a leading role structuring this debate, you have a moral responsibility to take a moment to educate yourself about the life experience of trans people. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I have read the experiences of trans people, and I do not dismiss them as different - we're all human, and we can all be hurt. However, stating that my phrase: "If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider dropping them a civil note on their talk page." is equivalent to "if you're the victim of harassment you need to drop them a civil note" is indeed ridiculous - you're taking a much more general statement about "X is offended by Z" and pushing to the extreme end of the spectrum and saying "X is a victim of sexual harassment", and then turning "consider" into "NEED TO" - so your rephrasing was quite poor indeed and totally misrepresented what I was trying to say. Anything below I'd like to represent consensus, so let's just try to move forward and come up with some language we can all agree with. I just added a new section on respect, and tweaked the language below further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC) An anti-harassment policy that consists of "ask the person disrupting the conversation and triggering you to stop" is actively counterproductive. That requires trans editors to open themselves up to abuse and will lead those who are politely told to stop being transphobic to cry loudly harassment. It will lead to exactly the same style of conversation as before: a wildfire of anger. Report to admins is the only realistic route. 7daysahead (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC) 7daysahead, this is NOT an anti-harassment policy - these are a set of suggested guidelines for how to behave during the conversation - you'll notice the guidelines for editors on how to discuss in a non-transphobic way are 3X the size of the guidelines for the other side. Listen, why don't you do this - take a look at the last conversation, and see how well blanket accusations of "transphobia" and "hate speech" went for the trans* advocates. Was discussion tempered? Did people apologize? In short, ask yourself, DID IT WORK? Was it successful in putting an end to the comments? The answer is, no. If you want to report everyone using the word "he" to the admins, go for it, I can't stop you, and then you will learn for yourself how well that works.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC) The only thing an admin can do in this context that an editor cannot do is blocking. Threats of blocking somebody who in good faith makes a remark that can be considered transphobic are a non-starter, as it isn't likely that a block will follow. In that case rather than de-escalating you would be aggravating the situation. Assuming for a moment that our editors are not deliberately being an asshat, this should work. If it escalates from there, and editors are actively and deliberately being asshats, escalation to AN/I can then still always be sought. It is also worth noting that with a subject as contentious as this, as sorry as I am about the contentiousness, and as much as I think this shouldn't be, people will have opinions that others are offended by on both sides. I for one would be seriously offended to be called a transphobe, and I also find many of the examples at the arbcom case extremely offensive, even if I know that many of them have been made in good faith. It is almost impossible to assume that in the upcoming discussion, I will not feel offended in any way by people who aren't out to offend me. That's my problem though, and I'm going to have to live with that. My way forward will be dialog, not block buttons. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Victimization The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Up above someone wrote, "If you are a trans person, seeing Manning's identity denied, seeing her compared to dogs, seeing the hateful way people response to the idea of difference is victimisation." And that's true. But I think it's also true that if you are going around viewing every misunderstanding about transgenderism, or every legitimate question about gender or sexuality or identity, as a denial or a hateful comparison or an attack, then you are playing the victim, and you are not helping the discussion, either. There have been people in this debate who, to me, have seemed to act in the manner of a five year old child In fact, if you're not careful, a too-vigorous pattern of defining new transgressions and then accusing your oppressors of having committed them can make it sound like you're playing a version of the popular childhood game of taunting a rival sibling by drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and declaring that it must not be crossed, and then throwing a tantrum when it (inevitably) is crossed. Now, someone is probably going to complain about what I've just written, afraid that I've called them a five year old child or otherwise failed to assume good faith, but let me reiterate (and explain that the reason I am pointing this out this way is) that this is how your behavior at least superficially seems to me. If I do remember to assume good faith, or otherwise decline to call you out on your behavior, that doesn't change the fact that this is the impression you've given me, and not just me but a whole lot of other editors, who are quite reasonably caring and sensitive and open-minded, but do not happen to have as large a percentage of our psyche devoted to your do not -- yet -- understand this particular issue as deeply as you do, and do not appreciate having an epithet like "transphobic" hurled at us when we're really pretty sure we're not. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [edited 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)] Yes, someone might complain that calling people's actions the actions of tantrum-throwing five-year-olds is an example of the incivility you complain of. You could have made your points without this. You recognize this, but try to excuse it by saying you're only trying to communicate what impression you had. This is ultimately an argument for incivility. The sentiment seems to be, "I have to be uncivil to all people who call people uncivil in an uncivil way. I have to." __Elaqueate (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Elaqueate, right now you're putting words in Steves mouth. I think this might be stemming from a misunderstanding of what is actually meant, and your words could now be understood as an accusation of incivilty which if understood that way will not be likely to further civil discussion. Let's not go too meta-discussion here, and return to the actual discussion on how we feel about the points above. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I repeat that someone could see that likening editors to tantrum-throwing five-year-olds is an example of the uncivil language he complains of. If my remark goes too far, then so does Steve's. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Elaqueate, I don't think your remark goes too far, nor do I think Steve's does. Still, I have asked him too to revise the comment (actually, before I replied to you above). If we can avoid any perception of uncivilty, even if only for this page, that would be a huge win. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Martijn. I used that language because I had a pretty strong point I wanted to make. If you make a certain kind of argument, then people are going to have a certain reaction. If you don't like my point, you can deny it or criticise it, but if you want to keep making the original argument, people (not necessarily me) are going to keep having the same reactions. Case in point: someone brings up the (decently applicable) old anecdote about Abraham Lincoln, and what you call things, and what the things actually are -- but which happens to involve a dog. Good response: "I see the point you're trying to make, but I think you should keep in mind that in this particular discussion, where the oppressed party is used to being treated as less than human, you might be seen as having compared him to a dog." Not-so-good response: "Oh, great. Now you're not just denying his identity, you're calling him a dog." Now, yes, in the same vein as that pair of good/not-so-good statements, if I had a good way of making my original point as forcefully, without risking the (not-so-good) perception of having compared someone to a five-year-old child, I'd use it. (And if someone has one to suggest, I'll gladly learn from it. [I've now tried to tone it down a little.]) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Are you reserving the right to be a little bit offensive because you sometimes find it's the only way to express your feelings? Are you offering that principle of charitable interpretation to the people you were finding problematic? I ask this in good faith. I find it undermines the spirit of your complaint. (And you should stop attributing that quote to Abraham Lincoln, whether you use it or not. Cliche can be offensive whether it's obviously problematic for other reasons or not. Historically incorrect cliche is even more distracting from any argument you may have.) And I wouldn't comment except that you keep simultaneously asserting you shouldn't have to hear intemperate speech and that you sometimes see intemperate speech as something you reasonably have to do to explain yourself. I hope that I am making my point without drawing on any metaphors that could be misinterpreted. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Can y'all stop being so damn offended at every little thing, and focus on the subject at hand?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not offended. I believe civil language can be useful. I wasn't asserting, re-asserting, and re-re-asserting the principle that strong points require strong language. I thought that was a particularly unhelpful idea regarding this discussion. We wouldn't make a guideline using this approach, I would respectfully say. If this point is understood, I'm satisfied for my part. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC) For the record, I was not trying to assert that strong points require strong language. That was not my point at all. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Of course, I was only responding to your statement, "I used that language because I had a pretty strong point I wanted to make." in defense of the language you struck out. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC) What I think Steve is trying to say (and do feel free to confirm or correct me Steve), is that if comments are made that can be seen as offensive by some, the best way forward is not to go polarise but to de-escalate. Since this discussion is getting rather drawn out, if this is indeed the case, and you both agree, could we hat off and collapse this angle as solved extended debate? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I completely agree that this should have been hatted. At the start. I think this conversation also illustrates the problems that arise when asking people why they are insisting that uncivil language is necessary. If you look at the initial comment it still asserts the problem is with people who claim victimhood in the face of every reasonable question. How are debate-derailing generalizations, such as this, going to be handled? __Elaqueate (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Well, there is a problem with people who too readily claim victimhood, and that is more or less the point I am trying to make. And I don't think it's a tangential or irrelevant point. I believe it's one of the factors (not the only one, but one of many) that has helped to keep this debate so polarized, that has worked against consensus. And I belabor the point not because I'm offended by the people who are too readily claiming victimhood, but rather, because I'm afraid their behavior is ultimately detrimental to their side of the debate (the same side that, as it happens, I'm on myself). —Steve Summit (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I think you bring up a lot of good points. I was only suggesting that all of your good points also apply to those who take every mention that some commentary might be considered transphobic as a general indictment against everyone who disagrees with a move to Chelsea as transphobes in their heart of hearts. I would hope that I am as against undue and unsupportable generalizations as you. __Elaqueate (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC) The sentence "please [...] accept that different people may have different views from you on this subject" is confusing and needs rewording to clarify that we are only interested in arguments on which title to use that are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not editors' personal views on the article subject or transgender issues (as the last debate was rife with). Josh Gorand (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Seems like reasonable basic principles, and I support having them heading the next move debate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Let me get this straight. If someone says something offensive and uncivil and I point it out, I'm "playing the victim"? I'm not a victim. I haven't been hurt. The conversation has been damaged, not me. That's like saying if I identify someone as a troll, then I'm playing the victim. That's not what is happening. If I (or you or anyone) is saying another person is being insensitive, it's just identifying the remarks as unproductive and uncivil. No one is identifying themselves as a "victim". What deteriorates is the conversation and other people are pointing that out. It is often the people using uncivil language who take remarks so personally when they are challenged. But let's stop painting other people as "victims". Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I don't agree with the current wording of the section on how to respond to offensive commentary, for reasons pointed out by myself and others, including the prominence given to the opinion that one should post "civil note(s) on their talk page(s)" (which is insensitively worded and also not really appropriate or the best response in many of the cases we were talking about in the last discussion), because there's nothing wrong with pointing out that someone's comment is factually wrong (in fact it's entirely normal on Wikipedia), and because of the "you are transphobic" strawman (nobody ever said "you are transphobic" in the last discussion). If the current wording of that section is to appear in the next discussion, it will have to be as a signed, personal comment, not as an unsigned guideline, or otherwise it needs rewording to avoid promoting a disputed account of the last debate and suggestions other editors don't really find to be the most helpful responses to unacceptable commentary for a number of reasons. Also, the matter is not what I or other editors feel personally about comments that degrade Manning or transgendered people by comparing them to dogs and such, but about Wikipedia policy, specifically BLP as applied to talk pages, and which arguments that are based on Wikipedia policy in an RM and which arguments that are invalid. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC) josh, you may want to read WP:NPA which is also a policy, especially the section under how to react. You'll notice that the policy based suggestions are quite similar to what we have above - eg do nothing, or drop a note on the talk page, or if egregious accelerate to ANI. Your continued righteousness about your behavior during the last discussion frankly makes you a poor judge of this particular section IMHO and you should probably let others come to consensus about the wording. If you had it your way, the guideline would be worded to sanction the behavior you exhibited last time, as I have yet to see any recognition by you anywhere that you may have done anything wrong. I agree there's nothing wrong with pointing out factual disagreement - eg if someone says Manning's legal name is Bradley you can feel free to cite your common law case law - but if you are offended by something pointing it out in the middle of the talk page is NOT recommended by policy, practice, and general consensus forming behavior and I think a number if us want to ensure that it doesn't happen again - we also want to ensure that remarks that are hurtful to trans* supporters Are not welcome which is the purpose of the other section.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC) For the second time, whether I or others are offended is not the matter at all, and there is nothing wrong with having a general discussion that points out that a talk page contains unacceptable and non-policy based commentary that needs to be discounted in an RM. I don't recall any editors saying "you are transphobic" or anything like that, but I recall a number of editors pointing out that there was a general problem with commentary degrading trans people and Manning. You are as involved as anyone else, and I don't really find it productive to use this section that should contain some general guidance on the next debate to promote your own view of the last debate and what other editors did back then. The current wording, just like your comment above, appear to blame those pointing out abuse on the talk page in the last debate as much (or more?) than those making the actual abusive comments comparing the living subject of a biography to a dog, among other things. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Listen, Josh, I don't want to turn this into a second trial for you, but since you persist on recounting a rather rose-colored version of events, I just want to quote a couple of choice phrases of yours that you threw out last time, that go WAY beyond "pointing out there was a general problem with commentary": "Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harrassment of the subject." "Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harrassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, to refer to someone who self-identifies as a woman, by insisting on using their former name with which they no longer identifies." "Consensus" doesn't overrule policy, and especially not BLP. Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people who completely ignore Wikipedia policy. We don't move articles because some people hate transgendered people, it's that simple." "Phil merely employed the mainstream, common definition of transphobia. The idea that you can insist on childishly calling someone who states her name is Chelsea, "Bradley", is really a WP:FRINGE POV and not encyclopedic at all." (in response to: Wikipedia is not the place to advance any agenda. And no-one should assume opposition to this article being at Chelsea Manning as being evidence of "transphobia" - Josh says: "Which other reason do you suggest exists for insisting on referring to someone using a male given name, that they have explicitly asked not to be used and said they do not identify with? I think you will find that according to the common definition in polite society, at least in the media world outside of Wikipedia, this is probably the most common form of transphobia" - thus, anyone who wants the page to be titled Bradley, is transphobic. Josh, these weren't only blatant personal attacks, they were attacks against EVERYONE who was commenting on the side of Bradley. You weren't the only offender, and I agree there were inappropriate comments on both sides. I could go on, but I won't. The point is, you (and others) went far beyond simply remarking that there was a bit of potentially offensive commentary - you accused people of sexual harassment, accused them of "hatred", of being not only transphobic but "virulently" transphobic, and so on and so forth - and all of this was in the MIDDLE of the discussion (and not at ANI, or a talk page, or somewhere else), that all started 1 day after the announcement, when the bulk of media sources were still referring to this person as Bradley. As such, I really don't think you're the best person to be deciding what the guidance is going forward - I'd rather others weigh in here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Is this, "a bit of potentially offensive commentary", a fair assessment of what was being responded to? I'm curious. Is it your view that there was commentary that could be reasonably interpreted as transphobic on the first day of these discussions, or would you characterize it differently? __Elaqueate (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi, this is not really the place to reopen old and irrelevant debates. Furthermore, I have made no personal attacks whatsoever, and continued attempts to cite various comments—that address either the content decision, explain the concept of transphobia in general terms or are reasonable responses to claims the BLP is a psychotic dog—out of context and misrepresent them doesn't impress me. Also, proposing that moving the article to Bradley should be sanctioned was a reasonable suggestion in light of the fact that the article had been moved to Chelsea by an administrator specifically citing BLP. Your proposed wording still looks like an attempt to reopen an old debate. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Josh, I don't want to open up old (while nonetheless quite relevant!) debates, but you continue to willfully misrepresent what you did and said, and I'm trying to make the case that you step away from editing this particular guideline due to being too INVOLVED - indeed your behavior is one of the inspirations for this guideline existing in the first place. As for your assertion that "I have made no personal attacks whatsover", I'm sorry but the only way to describe that is 100% high-grade wikilawyering bullshit. "Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harrassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, to refer to someone who self-identifies as a woman, by insisting on using their former name with which they no longer identifies." - you used this statement (and many others) to refer to EVERYONE who refers to Manning as Bradley - this was not just an attack on ppl who compared her to a dog. (Here's another one: "Referring to her as "he" is a BLP violation and gross sexual harrassment" - so the simple use of a pronoun "he" by many editors in the discussion was in your mind gross sexual harrassment) How you can imagine that this doesn't constitute a personal attack is beyond my comprehension. You didn't personally attack one person, you personally attacked EVERYONE who supported keeping the title at Bradley - even if they were doing so for reasons not motivated by "transphobic hate" and "sexual harassment" - you even accused them of "libel", which is a tort! So please, spare me. Read WP:NPA and try to really understand what qualifies as a personal attack. I'm not trying to open up an old debate, I'm trying to get a consensus wording that both sides are happy with in order to make it clear that the sort of statements you (and others from BOTH sides) were making during the course of the discussion are not acceptable behavior, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't opine further on the wording at this point and let others help tweak it further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Apparently you admit to writing that particular sub section as a way to criticise me and promote your own disputed account of the last debate, and I'm not going to tolerate that. If you want to do that, sign it as your own personal comment. You are not the right person to accuse others of personal attacks; even your above comment includes plenty of those directed at me. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Josh Gorand, many editors feel that your comments are disruptive and battlegrounding, regardless of whether they are targeted at particular individuals. We strongly suggest that you act in a way that does not provoke so much tension. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC) No, many editors feel that your behaviour is disruptive and battlegrounding; specifically repeatedly telling other editors' that they cannot edit a proposed (unsigned) guideline and engaging in WP:OWN behaviour is disruptive. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC) At no point did I suggest anyone could not edit any guideline. However, I strongly advise you not to edit the guideline until we have reached consensus. A number of editors disagree with your edits, so we should discuss first. If you continue changing content without consensus you may be blocked from editing - by admins, not myself. I'm giving you advice, and I strongly suggest you follow it, but you have free will. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Um, this is a proposed, unsigned draft, on which there is no consensus in the first place and which editors are allowed to edit per long-standing precedent. If the author of that text insists other editors can't edit it, he will have to sign it to make it's clear that is is a user comment that other editors can't edit, and we will have to continue debate on possible guidelines in another section where the draft is open for everyone to discuss and make changes. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Stop making shit up Josh. I said you would do well to avoid editing it, as you are too WP:INVOLVED. I would welcome any other editor to propose changes, but the changes you've suggested thus far are, frankly, way off mark and propose an accelerated route to ANI sanctions for any minor transgression, such as using the pronoun "he" (as per your previous comments, that "he" represents gross sexual harrassment.) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (ec) Elaqueate, yes, there was "commentary that could be reasonably interpreted as transphobic". I don't have a good sense of when, or how much, but clearly there was some. And I've (call me a slowpoke) finally figured out why we've been talking past each other all this time. Here's the sequence: In the aftermath of the move from Bradley to Chelsea, while discussing the move back to Bradley, some number of editors (call it M) make transphobic statements. Some of them are quite virulent. Some other number of editors (call it N) make various statements out of ignorance or ask questions which would not reasonably be labeled as transphobic. A certain number of editors, passionately defending Bradley and/or transgendered persons in general, seem to criticize the N as well as the M. (And as in (1), some of this criticism is quite virulent.) To yet other editors, the defense in (3) seems overzealous, counterproductive, and actively hostile to the goal of reaching consensus on retaining Chelsea as the article title. They say so, and (among other things) propose including the words "If you see someone's comment and it offends you... consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page" and "Stating... 'you are transphobic' polarizes the discussion" in the guidelines for this next move discussion. (this is the key point) To the passionate defenders in (3), the critics in (4) seem to be defending or excusing the M transphobic editors in (1). So: to the passionate defenders in (3): If I seem to criticize you, it is for overzealousness, not because I think you are wrong in condemning the M. But please don't lump the N in with the M. And if I fail to say, "the M are very wrong", it doesn't mean I think they are right. —Steve Summit (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I like your model and appreciate your thoughts. I hope that we can also help keep clear the qualitative distinction between the two different statement-types "I think you are a person who has made a conscious commitment to transphobia" and "There are arguments based on transphobic foundations or expressions extant in this discussion." __Elaqueate (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I really wish the stick could be dropped already on this, there are sources using Bradley and referring him to a man, and sources using Chelsea and referring her to a woman. I do not see why you need to get ticked off everytime someone says what you might feel as transphobic when you have source using the term covering the event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Do you not agree that there was some commentary that could reasonably be interpreted as being transphobic? What is your definition of a bona fide transphobic comment? __Elaqueate (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, there was, and you'll notice we have a large section now with 7 or 8 "things to avoid" in order to make it clear what sort of comments can be considered transphobic. but the fashion by which some responded to certain statements had a chilling and negative effect on the whole discussion, and we need to avoid this next time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC) As you say, there was transphobic comment. That might have had a chilling and negative effect on the whole discussion as well. I agree that no one would enjoy engaging in fruitless debate based on prejudicial foundation. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, there was and it did. The way to combat that is to team up as a project (English Wikipedia) against it. Going arm in arm with your political rivals to combat unacceptable degradation of human decency. The way it happened, however, was that the political rivals were lumped in with the 'haters' whom were mostly SPAs and the situation was polarized.--v/r - TP 14:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Less lumping, fewer arguments based on transphobic assumptions. These are not unreasonable goals. --Elaqueate (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC) @Elaqueate: The use of -phobia suggests a "fear" but the definition of transphobia includes behaviors that can be attributed to other emotions or ignorance. It's an issue of academics misusing a suffix because a better one doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 13:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I think #3 is questionable. I think it would only be appropriate if opinions about Manning being a woman were also ruled out of order - that is, Manning's womanhood is irrelevant to the issue of the naming of the article. If the discussion guidelines state that Manning really is a woman and no-one is allowed to dispute that, it is introducing irremediable bias into the discussion. But I would be happy to exclude the entire issue of whether or not Manning is/always has been a woman as irrelevant to the strict issue of the article title. That is to say, we should have something like: Do not share your opinion that Manning really is a woman, or is not a "woman" until she has had surgery, or hormone treatment, or a legal name change. This is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex. StAnselm (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I don't think there was any real discussion to change the text to suggest that calling Manning a woman may be offensive. You cite your single comment as discussion. Maybe it's an interesting change, but is there a Biographies of living persons argument that calling Chelsea a woman will be offensive, as there is for people who would call her a man? I think they are different and the guideline could reflect that. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Well, nobody had responded to my comment in over a day. StAnselm (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Anyway, what is the BLP argument against calling Manning a woman in a move discussion? StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I can see where StAnselm is coming from, although the proposed wording (and, for that matter, the wording it replaced) seem a little awkward to me...but it's hard to think of a better way of phrasing it. Maybe "Do not share your opinion on whether or not Manning is really a woman, or needs to have surgery, hormone treatment, or a legal name change to become one. This is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's 'true' gender or sex."? Or perhaps we could drop the first part altogether and just say "Keep in mind that this is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's 'true' gender or sex."? -sche (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Well, I am still wondering. Is there an argument that calling her a woman causes harm per BLP? Because there is for calling her a man. If it is a guideline that suggests people to not call her a trans woman at any time, it is unlikely to achieve any nominally stated goal of reducing commentary based on a transphobic foundation, "the sort of comments one should avoid that have a tendency to offend trans* people". __Elaqueate (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I would be happy with either of User:-sche's proposed revisions. Elaqueate, would the harm you mention (in calling Manning a man) be to Manning, or to trans people in general? StAnselm (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC) When looking at a specific BLP, the possibility of harm should be considered to the individual and that harm seems to be possible [4]. Manning may have said she expects her name to be used in certain instances, but she is not admitting or denying that she is harmed by it. Thus there is a strong possibility, backed up by these reliable sources on transgender experience. I don't see that there is any argument given that calling her a woman will cause her any distress at all. Is there one? __Elaqueate (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC) No, there isn't. But bear in mind that this talking about Manning being called a woman on the talk page. BLP does also apply to talk pages, but the possibility of causing harm in this way to Manning individually seems rather remote. StAnselm (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC) This argument is that people are unlikely to get caught doing it, or that these discussions have no chance of ever being referenced in, say, international media? Does policy not have some application to even the most obscure page? I don't think the overall possibility of scrutiny is a great motivation to not consider avoiding harm to the subject of a BLP at the quietest of times, but it seems this discussion might not be so obscure that it's invisible to anyone but the participants. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I concur with StAnselm. The point of this particular conversation, and that *particular* guideline, is to avoid discussions which don't lead anywhere - not to avoid some sort of BLP issue. As to whether Manning is a woman or not (recalling these are socially-defined identity roles, so there's no objective truth to be had here), that is orthogonal to what title we use for the article, so it's better to avoid such discussions all together as the assertions that Manning is still a man were offensive to certain editors, while assertions that Manning is a woman just because she says so are offensive to other editors. Rather than everyone getting all offended over what is ultimately a useless argument and irrelevant to the title, it's better to just say "Don't discuss that" per WP:NOTAFORUM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (I moved this comment from below, this is a more appropriate section) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, #1 and #4 are the only ones purely grounded in actual policy of no harassment & no personal attacks. #3 is borderline, it'd depend on if the opinion given in that direction has any grounding in policy; if it's just 100% opinion, then it should be kept out of the discussion. The rest are the preference of one group of people on one side of a debate, and have no binding nor backing whatsoever. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, there more I look at #5, the more I think it has the same problems as #3 that I mentioned above. We shouldn't be allowed to say that Manning's "real" name is Chelsea, either. But a person's "real" name is not tangential to the discussion of article title in the same way that his or her gender might be. I think we should drop #5 altogether. Mentioning "real name" might be a weak argument, but it shouldn't be excluded a priori, as it were. StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC) How's that? I think it helps people focus that we are considering the commonality and suitability of two actual names in use by sources, rather than arguing whether a person can only have one true name ever, which would be a pointless argument, I hope you'd agree. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC) But as it stands, the guidelines are singling out saying Manning's real name is Bradley. That doesn't sound like the neutral and unbiased guideline we would need at the start of the discussion. So we could have something like Do not state what you think Manning's "real" name is - but that sounds rather strange, and needlessly authoritarian. StAnselm (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I think the current language is good, as it says no claims should be made about 'real' name - both because some people may find it offensive to suggest Chelsea isn't her 'real' name, and also because the notion of 'real' name is meaningless in this case. All we have is subject's preference (clear), legal name (somewhat clear but mostly irrelevant per policy and practice), and commonname, which will likely be the deciding factor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on "How to respond to offensive language"

There seems to be a little edit war brewing on the inclusion, exclusion, or wording of the "How to respond to offensive language" section (the one that includes the words "If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page"). My impression was that the longer wording, that has stood here for several days, is now acceptable to most editors who have read, thought, or commented about it, and that it does represent a decent, consensus viewpoint. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As the discussion demonstrated, several users found the text proposed by Obiwankenobi worded in an unacceptable way for a number of reasons. However, as Obiwankenobi tells other users they cannot edit the text and ignores their views', any productive work on improving it is impossible. Also, it seems clear there will never be consensus on that text and that it is Obiwankenobi's personal comment, that should be signed by him if posted to the next discussion. If the author of the text doesn't want it to be edited without consensus (as if there was any consensus on the draft in the first place), he should sign it to indicate it is out of bounds for other editors. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get the impression that ObiWan was owning that paragraph; sorry if I missed it. Certainly the wording was acceptable to more editors than just him, and does not need to be attributed to him. (For example, it was acceptable to me.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support the longer guidelines. They are fair and reasonable, providing good faith advice to editors. Just as we caution against transphobic comments, we caution against comments that accuse of transphobia. Neither is acceptable. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as above. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's not perfect, but this (the "longer version") is a lot better than this (the "shorter version"). -sche (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support the longer guidelines. They are a reasonable approach to push the discussion in the direction of consensus building and away from more extreme and polarising debates. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose both versions. The guidelines (both versions) display deeply entrenched cissexism: trans people and their allies are not allowed to say that something is transphobic, because that would be too upsetting for the poor cis people who want to be able to cling to their bigoted views. Sheesh. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Daria, it seems you missed out on the brouhaha last time around, but there is an ongoing arbcom case where evidence is being presented against certain trans-supporters for exactly that - overuse of the term 'transphobic' applied with too broad a brush to all editors who opposed. This isn't about what is 'allowed', (you are 'allowed' to do whatever the hell you want but you need to accept the consequences the community will dole out as a result) - instead this is a suggested standard of behavior because the majority of editors seemed to agree that the blanket accusations of transphobia were misplaced and did nothing to help the conversation. I do think it's awesomely ironic that you call Josh Gorand's version 'deeply entrenched cissexist' - I'm sure he would be proud of that label.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I know there's an effort to pressure ArbCom to ban discussion of the cissexism and transphobia on this site, and to retaliate against editors who complained about the cissexism and transphobia. But if we can't call transphobia what it is, that will lock in the systemic cissexism here and drive out trans editors. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any such effort - rather I see some editors proposing that other editors went too far. Certainly you would agree that transphobia is not the only reason someone might want the article to remain at Bradley, in the same way that a critique of a woman is not always sexist nor is a critique of a black person necessarily racist. It's not that those terms can't be used, it's rather that they shouldn't be abused and used as a personal attack on editors as many feel they were last time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's the latest flare-up, where Morwen is accused of creating a hostile environment by referring to the transphobia in the discussion without referring to specific comments or editors. I got exhausted just reading the page as it existed at the time. I can understand why someone would express frustration about it. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I haven't seen the short version, but this version puts an unfair burden on those under attack. First, they don't allow users to discuss the general tone, only individual comments, and also personalizing things makes flame wars more likely. Second, they require users to reply on other users' talk pages, which heightens the risk of retaliation. Third, they require users to explain why each comment is transphobic, while under attack. It can be hard to explain the obvious, and it can be hard to explain anything while dealing with a hostile environment and stereotype threat. Fourth, as a positive step, I think it would help for editors to create a resource discussing cissexism and transphobia, linked in the how to respond section, which editors can refer to as needed, and I think this would avoid some of the problems with trying to explain everything while dealing with a hostile environment; there are some issues that come up in these discussions that don't come up in most resources. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

none of this is required. These are merely suggestions. If you want to muse generally on transphobia at wikipedia i'd suggest opening a devoted section at village pump or jimbo's page and then you can ponder till the cows come home but please dont repeat what happened last time. Another thing - you arent required to do anything - you can choose to simply ignore things which offend you. Insuggest you read wp:npa, which is a policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• support this version sets an admirable and achievable code of conduct that is aligned with wikipedia policy around personal attacks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Beware: possibility for confusion: multiple versions

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are now were two copies of the discussion guidelines here, one above and one below. I don't have time just now to compare them to see how they differ. There's going to be inordinate confusion as some people edit or comment on one version while others consider the other. Let's sort this out quickly, and get back to one working version. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Now fixed -- thanks, -sche —Steve Summit (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) The problem was that one editor was WP:OWNing the original draft, repeatedly telling editors they couldn't edit it and or even discuss it and insisting on his own version despite multiple objections to various parts of it. This situation makes it impossible to develop a text that is neutral and everyone can agree to. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I support having just one draft and discussing it in a civil way. Compromise may be difficult, but it's possible. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, compromise may be difficult, but we had one user completely unwilling to compromise here by telling other editors not to edit it or even discuss it, and ignoring objections to three of the sentences. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC) The two versions were identical in all but one section, so I've deleted all the duplicate sections (they were indeed confusing) and placed the two versions of the only section we don't agree on side-by-side. -sche (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the shorter version of "How to respond..."

this discussion has run it's course and there is no consensus to use the shorter version.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please remember that the policy No personal attacks applies to this discussion. Clearly offensive comments and comments that violate WP:BLP should be reported on WP:ANI. Some users have suggested that you could also consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page that you find their language inappropriate. This is a draft of an impartial guideline for the next discussion, open for everyone to discuss and make changes in order to achive a result that is fair to everyone and neutral. Given that one user told editors they couldn't make make changes to or even discuss his above draft, it's fair to assume that it will never evolve into a text everyone can agree on. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Specific problems with the former proposal by one editor that various users objected to included The sentence "If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page"; as pointed out, posting notes on talk pages is not necessarily the most productive reponse to comments that say things like "(the article subject) is psychotic" and "how about people who claim to be dogs?", and the text is insensitively worded. Unacceptable comments should primarily be reported on WP:ANI, this needs to be mentioned first. The sentence "e.g. "You said this, it made me feel this way", which totally misses the point. The matter is not Wikipedia editors' feelings, but whether comments are allowed under WP:BLP on the talk page of an article on a BLP The sentence "Stating "your comment was wrong" or "you are transphobic"" which conveys the very personal opinion, with no basis in Wikipedia policy or precedent, that one cannot point out that someone's comment is factually wrong, and that includes a strawman (noone ever said "you are transphobic" here) The problematic sentences that several editors objected to have been removed or reworded in this draft, but I'm very much open to improvements. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "it's fair to assume that it will never evolve into a text everyone can agree on" - I, for one, am hopeful that we can reach consensus. We are not really that far apart in our belief that we should have a civil discussion. I am not familiar with "various users" objecting to any of those statements. There seems to be general agreement around those statements. I would also note that User:Obiwankenobi started the discussion guidelines section because he wanted a more civil discussion - and the discussion guidelines he started include transgender-sensitive guidelines. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Well, people have said "you are transphobic", or words very much like it. But we're not telling them they can't say that; we're just suggesting they might not want to, because saying that makes it more likely that the person they're saying it to will harden in their transphobia and !vote to retain the name "Bradley" out of spite. And further to that, you're missing the point if you think that Wikipedia editors' feelings don't matter. Their feelings have a lot to do with whether they'll agree with you, whether they'll coalesce around the consensus you want. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I would argue that it wasn't just a case of people hardening their transphobia, the tone of the previous discussion polarised a lot of reasonable, non-transphobic, editors who had valid policy-based positions on keeping the article at Bradley, but might otherwise have been open to persuasion. When language like "transphobic", "sexual harassment", "libel", "antediluvian" and "morally corrupt" is being fairly indiscriminately thrown around (and to my mind, cheapened), it makes the middle ground a bad place to stand. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC) We may want to move the guidelines and discussion to a subpage since the fork makes the guidelines and this page as a whole massively confusing. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Josh, are willfully misrepresenting my actions here. I never said "editors couldn't make changes or even discuss" - I said you specifically, based on your behavior in the past move, and your behavior recently here, would do well to bow out of discussing this particular guideline. You said that use of "he" was "gross sexual harassment" - thus according to your new (shorter) wording, any editor saying "Keep at Bradley, he was convicted as Bradley and that makes sense for the reader" would be an instant candidate for referral to ANI - which I think is ridiculous. The longer version I and others drafted follows WP:NPA, which has a clear escalation path, starting with doing nothing, then going to dropping a civil note on the talk page, and then if it persists, going to ANI. You, on the other hand, are proposing going to ANI right away. I don't support the shorter version, and I again encourage you to let other editors tweak this wording, as you are way too involved and clearly believe that every comment you made last time was within reason, and I'm quite sure you will happily continue to make the same sort of comments next time. Nonetheless, we cannot write guidance which sanctions this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Echo what Obi says. Suggestions that "he" is "gross sexual harassment" are entirely off the mark and not supported by the vast majority of editors. ANI is an appropriate forum for escalation or for gross misconduct (such as the use of slurs), but not for actions such as using "he." I strongly suggest, once again, that Josh steps away from editing this while others discuss. His dramatic edits to the guidelines do not appear to have much, if any, support. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Context is important -- some people use 'he' as snide rejection of a trans identity, some people use it because they're innocently clueless. When in doubt lets give the benefit of the doubt. Probably a useful thing would be for admins to proactively hat threads that are heading towards standard "trans 101" arguments and have a boilerplate talk page message explaining the situation to the user in question. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan, I have never said people who use "he" should instantly be reported on ANI, that's ridiculous. My initial proposal mentioned clearly offensive comments (such as comparisons to pigs or dogs) as ANI candidates. In fact I retained the suggestion to post notes on talk pages in some case in my draft and agree that would be sensible in regard to people using "he" (we have a guideline that says we use "she" in these cases, so the pronoun is not even the subject of discussion). Furthermore, I have never insisted on a specific wording, but objected to aspects of three sentences for the reason of not being based on policy/precedent (such as "do not tell others their comment is factually wrong"; which is entirely normal on WP and necessary for debate in many cases) and the initial wording of the "polite notes" thing that several users found worded in a problematic way. I agree with others that posting notes on the talk pages of everyone who makes derogatory comments about Manning/transgendered people could rather provoke a negative reaction and we would be talking of a very large number of such notes in the last debate; whereas my and other editors intention was not to confront individual editors, but have a debate on which comments that the closing admins should discount, and generally how Wikipedia's ultimate (content) decision would be perceived in society at large. I have very little interest in confronting individual editors over their comments, even when they're unacceptable, and I'm surely not the person who will be reporting editors on ANI over using "he". You continue to insist I'm "involved", we are both equally involved in this dispute/debate. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC) josh, you stated quite clearly that 1) use of 'he' was gross sexual harassment and 2) referring to Manning as Bradley is libel and hate speech. As such, I think it's fair to conclude that both of those offenses, if you truly feel those words apply, would merit referral to ANI. If you've moderated your approach, then that's good news. I already removed the 'this isn't correct' bit, you were right, so thanks for that. What we don't need is more abstract transphobia threads esp in the middle of the discussion - if you feel the need to opine on general transphobia I suggest you post diffs and propose sanctions at ANI - not in the middle of the debate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I only recollect using the term "gross sexual harrassment" in regard to the content decision, i.e. Wikipedia having the article titled Bradley, for the exact reason the article was moved to Chelsea by an administrator specifically citing BLP. I do not recollect using that term in regard to editors' individual behaviour. The interpretation that I would report people to ANI over using he or Bradley is your very personal interpretation and not mine, and I never had any intention of any such thing. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Well, Josh, that's quite interesting that your memory is failing you. Luckily, Wikipedia remembers. I suggest you take a look at the below exchange: Strong oppose. Wikipedia rules and guidelines, including MOS and BLP, explicitly require us to respect her wish to be referred to as female and use the name she prefers. It would be a blatant BLP violation to do otherwise, and well as violate MOS. These rules overrule the opinions of individual editors on this talk page too, it is not allowed to ignore BLP. Regardless of this discussion and its outcome, the article is not going to be moved anywhere because it would violate BLP which takes precedence. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) @Josh Gorand - re " It would be a blantant BLP violation to do otherwise" - Really? Could you point to the passage in WP:BLP that says that? NickCT (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Referring to her as "he" is a BLP violation and gross sexual harrassment. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" As you can see, you clearly state that "he" is BLP violation, ipso facto, use of the word "he" anywhere would be a BLP violation and gross sexual harassment. Please cease your ridiculous claims of "I never referred to individual editor's behavior" - you were referring to the behavior of ALL editors on talk pages and accusing ALL of them of "sexual harassment" for using "he" - Just because you didn't name names doesn't mean you didn't lay blame. If you're saying that you're still not going to report people for this, or that you've moderated your position, then we're all good - but your righteousness and denial of what you actually did has got to stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC) It is very clear from that exchange that I'm talking about the title of the article, and agreeing with the administrator who moved it that having Bradley as a title would be a BLP violation (and stating that having Bradley as a title harrasses the subject, a sentiment expressed by many other editors). It is very clear that I'm not referring to any editors. Now, stop misrepresenting what I have said. Also, I find it to be of little interest to rehash an old debate. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I did ask what those comments, that were being offered to frame Josh Gorland's credibility were in response to. I never got a suitable answer. I suspect they were more than just "a bit of potentially offensive commentary" as they were described. At the time, I thought it was strange that one editor felt they had to put another editor on "trial". It seemed an especially regrettable example of invective and hostility in the middle of a discussion on civility. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Since week-old comments by myself are being interpreted in new and interesting ways that have nothing to do with what I meant to say, let me state this clearly: I don't believe it's a very serious offense when editors refer to the subject as he or Bradley on a talk page; in many cases that only shows a lack of familiarity with transgender issues, although in some cases it may be a deliberate expression of a lack of respect. I think it's perfectly sensible to drop polite notes in these cases reminding editors of the relevant guideline (personally, I wouldn't bother to confront editors over this at all). The last discussion however was rife with comparisons of the subject to insane people claiming to dogs, pigs or whatnot, statements the subject is psychotic and more, which is something different entirely that is explicitly forbidden on talk pages as a matter of non-negotiable policy. This is when I believe the polite notes solution no longer works and would rather be counterproductive. The comments cited above did not address editor behaviour but content decisions. It's a fundamentally different matter whether Wikipedia uses the wrong name and pronouns in Wikipedia's voice and in the title. Borderline comments in regard to BLP are made all the time, and only using "he" or "Bradley" on a talk page are very mild borderline comments that I don't think should be sanctioned. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I think it is important that we distinguish between milder comments, some made without malice, from truly malicious BLP attacks such as slurs. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding animal and object analogies

Seems to have been resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments such as "if I wake up one morning and decide I'm a dog, that doesn't make me one" are obviously unhelpful in this context. However, they are clearly not comparing the subject to a dog: they are comparing the subject to an insane person who believes themself to be a dog. Please clarify that entry, or even remove it, as its point is already adequately covered by the following one ("not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex"). – Smyth\talk 11:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Statements like those are not really either comparing the subject to a dog or comparing the subject to an insane person who believes themself to be a dog - what they are really (ineloquently) trying to ask is: How do we go about maintaining encyclopedic entries on subjects if they are able to change substantial aspects of their identity by self-declaration? Unfortunately in an attempt to illustrate this point with comparable but different examples, most people seemed to choose an animal, inanimate object or something ridiculous, which can then (justifiably) be interpreted as demeaning and trivialising the concept of identifying as a woman. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I think really my point is that it should be something more general like "Please try to avoid using analogies whilst discussing the situation, there are very few comparable scenarios, and inappropriate comparison may cause offence." --Jeude54cartes (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC) All of the guidelines can probably be adequately summarized under the advice "Be civil" but it is useful to specifically address this one (as well as types in other parts of the guidance) as it was formulated often in the last discussion. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I see what you mean, it was something of a recurring theme in the last discussion, so maybe it should be kept specific to hopefully avoid having to see too many arguments like that put forward again. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC) There is nothing inherently wrong with such analogies; the fault lies in the mistaken and overly-literal interpretation of the allegedly offended party. This all stems from my "lipstick on a pig" allusion a few weeks ago, a rhetorical expression that by some accounts dates to the 16th century. A person utilizing this expression is not comparing any person to a pig, it is an allusion to the notion that external changes to not change a person's inner self, is all. Editors such as this one have continuously, and wrongly, been milking this for all its worth, but it simply isn't true. No one has called Bradley Manning a pig or a dog. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Long usage isn't insulation from something being considered offensive, in context. But it's useful that you admit that your usage was found offensive by some, and that your simple point wasn't made because people were distracted by your choice of words. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I can see both sides here. Lipstick on a pig is commonly used, but usually to describe a project, a proposal, a product, or otherwise inanimate object, but also usually in a slightly pejorative sense (unlike the Lincoln dog leg quote, which is more innnocuous) When the topic is someone who will may literally want to start wearing lipstick as part of their transition, then i could see how the comparison might offend, even if the intent was not to compare the person in question to an actual pig.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC) You're right, this example is different from the use described by the second guideline. Animals notwithstanding, it is much more likely (let's say guaranteed) to cause offense under the third guideline, if it was applied to support, or stand in for, the argument that a trans woman wasn't "really" a woman. There might be a consensus that this argument will not be usefully advanced in the next discussion. It does still seem like a good example of where the guidelines would help.__Elaqueate (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC) And Lincoln never originated or was even confirmed saying that quote. Even so, it's also useless as an argument because you can always say that even if you call a trans woman a man, it doesn't make her one. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Hmm, it seems that quote was used to make fun of Lincoln for issuing the Emancipation Act. The idea being that just because someone says a person isn't a slave, doesn't mean that a society can't keep treating them as slaves. How interesting. I suppose there are still people insisting that society can tell individual people what they "really" are, so I suppose it's topical that way. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC) There are several contemporary sources(scroll down a bit to a post dated 03 July, 2006 09:49 PM) that attribute the saying to the president...not that he created it, but that it was one in wide use at the time. Anyways, I have no regrets about using that particular figure of speech the first time around, but see no reason or cause to repeat it in the next Move Discussion. I just find it wholly unnecessary and a bit pointy that such a minor thing needs to be spelled out as if it were a solid finding-of-fact that it's use was deliberately offensive, as it certainly was not. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Um, yes, I saw this. All the "attributions" are clearly humorous anecdotes about "Old Abe". And they're all about how people would be slaves, even if they were told they were free. It's unlikely Lincoln would have made the joke about himself, but who knows, right? As for your speech that you say was found offensive and disruptive, I don't think the guidelines as written assume you are (or were) deliberately trying to be offensive. Only that certain approaches are disruptive. Aside from the guidelines, if the view is put forward, through analogy or not, that trans women can't be women, it is going to be guaranteed offensive to some. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Lipstick on a pig shouldn't be offensive in of itself, but context matters. I recall Obama used a similar phrase about Palin, and the hateful glee expressed by his supporters and the moral outrage by his detractors. When women are involved, it is perhaps best not to ever use the word "pig". I agree that some will use such as a sword and a shield to wreak havoc in a discussion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I posted an example regarding Bonapartism. If a group of people consider someone to be the rightful Emperor of France, and that person declares themselves to be the Emperor of France, does that make them the Emperor of France? This is a good example where we should not respect ones self-identification; though certainly we would have a section devoted to the claimed identity. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Is your argument that all trans people are equivalent to people who claim to be heads-of-state? __Elaqueate (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Do you believe it is as unlikely to become a woman if you were born in a male body as it is to become the Emperor of France with a weak backing of citizens? __Elaqueate (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC) If someone you know says they are undertaking a hike across a state, would you ask them why they don't just walk to the moon? __Elaqueate (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) This is the problem with this type of argument. By choosing ridiculous abstracts, many people will reasonably assume you are pre-judging their claim as ridiculous. The argument holds only when the terms are not apples and oranges. In this case, Manning has, from reliable sources, not decided any of this overnight or without medical questioning. Most analogies that had been used seemed to be false equivalencies. __Elaqueate (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC) There aren't any other apples - that's the problem here - so people search for (sometimes inapt) comparisons. I think the change Chris made is better - the point is to avoid suggesting that Manning announcing a new gender is similar to a mentally disturbed person deciding they are a dog.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, we agree here on uneven or inappropriate analogy. I hope others see the same logic. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I had a go at tweaking point #2 of the text to more accurately reflect the objectionable comparison -- that is, comparing having GID to thinking you're Elvis, as opposed to comparing the person with GID to Elvis himself. Do revert if you think it's worse this way. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I think that the change makes it clearer and more accurately describes the kind of arguments people were making. --86.146.0.129 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I agree. -sche (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Very much appreciate the clarification - it gets to the core of the problem without using inaccurate language. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Using disputed rules

MOS:IDENTITY is under dispute. There are proposals to reword WP:COMMONNAMES. Shall we use cite them during discussions? --George Ho (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Language regarding 30-day waiting period - now seems resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Language proposal (originally titled "Proposal to remove useless language regarding 'stated disagreement with the 30-day waiting period'"; shortened to avoid extending the TOC) I would propose at this time to remove from the page the sentence, "Some have stated disagreement with the 30-day waiting period, which has no official status". Firstly, this is inaccurate. It has the "status" of being a determination of the three-admin panel which closed the previous discussion. Secondly, it is moot. Anyone wishing to reverse that element of the close is free to do so, but, like any other move review, the discussion would need to be kept open for a long enough time to allow a full and open discourse, which probably translates to a seven day discussion. The only previous discussion proposing to advance this date had more participants expressing support for the the 30-day waiting period than opposition to it (as did a counterproposal to extend this date to October 3 or beyond). I would therefore consider the 30-day period to be the established status quo with respect to this article, and a unilateral move to circumvent it to be a violation of the Arbcom injunction in place on this article. bd2412 T 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC) I agree, it is useless, but it's sort of like giving a piece of candy to prisoner. It doesn't change their status, but makes them feel a bit better. That wording is basically the same - it allows those who didn't like the 30 day wait to say, officially, "we disagree". I'd be ok with removing it, too, but there are those will revert.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC) It was reverted; the reverter suggested starting a discussion. The problem with acting is if the 30-day waiting period is meaningless is that it is a double-edged sword. If that provision has no meaning, then any editor could shut down a move discussion newly initiated after 30 days on the grounds that it is "too soon". However, another editor has since (again) removed this language, so the point is probably moot. bd2412 T 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Im that editor that reverted it back again, I see it as it falling under the WP:DEADHORSE argument, the discussion ended with a consensus, editors are still unhappy about it so a reminder of how unhappy they are has to remain in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Streamlining.

At the moment, Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request is over 130k, and is still under construction. I would suggest that before the proposal goes live, all resolved discussions be archived off the page, and the page itself be streamlined to the greatest extent possible. Although the few dozen users who have worked on this page have done a commendable job, once the discussion opens the page is likely to be read by hundreds of people. The paramount goal of the sections above the !vote itself should be to clearly and concisely present the evidence and arguments that should form the basis of this decision. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I expect the page to double in size anyways given the amount of editors that are involved as well - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to the few dozen.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

concur. The move should happen on the main talk page anyway, so we should just move over what we want and mark this page as archived/closed once the move request starts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposition that the move should happen "on the main talk page". We did that last time, and the multitude of other discussions going on made it difficult to keep track of the edit history (which is important for the page closer seeking to prevent shenanigans). We frequently use separate pages for policy discussions (technically all AfDs, MfDs, and RfAs occur on their own dedicated page), and this works well for the isolation of these discussions. Also, I expect that the discussion will be semi-protected for its duration, as the last one was, and keeping it on a separate page allows IPs to continue commenting on the article talk page. The discussion should be prominently linked on the article talk page, but there are good reasons for it to take place in its own reserved space. bd2412 T 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with bd2412 on both points: that it would be best to have the actual discussion (the edits and edit history) be on a subpage rather than the main page, and that the subpage needs to be linked to very prominently from the main page. Perhaps we could even transclude the move discussion into one section of the main talk page (while collapsing it for space obviously), like this. (Or just link. I have no preference.) -sche (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sweet. bd2412 T 02:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, people will still comment on the main page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

People will do what people will do. Just make it clear that the discussion that will be weighed by the closing admins will be the one occurring on the subpage. If the subpage is transcluded as -sche has proposed, editors will see it on the main page anyway. bd2412 T 02:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have cut the size of the Move Request page in half (by archiving discussions to this page, lol). Cheers, -sche (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived: comments about policies and guidelines relevant to titling

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) yup, done. privacy is one of the weakest arguments ever, esp given "Bradley" will be in the lede until pigs fly...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 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) It has been resolved with the addition of WP:DUE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 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)

Archived: comments about sources

Limited coverage of trans people in media
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's worth pointing out that what here constitutes a 'reliable source' will necessarily limit the examples that are able to be given here. Representation of trans folk by trans people in newspapers is pretty thin on the ground, as are stories that factually recount e.g. suicide rates together with contributing factors. This section is worthwhile and I shall contribute if I have time (moving house again + jobhunt), but people need to be aware that asking for reliable sourcing of the effects on a group with little to no media access is going to be difficult. 7daysahead (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

On Leveson Inquiry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(On Leveson Inquiry) This states clearly that the use of previous names is intensely painful to trans people (and is illegal in the UK in certain circumstances). 7daysahead (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 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) I disagree with that reading. Source: I am a trans woman and being called my birth name makes me want to drink until I am unconscious. 7daysahead (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

re the Urban Archives article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't see this passing muster as a 'reliable source'. 7daysahead (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 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) It's okay to include the source, but since there are doubts about its reliability I do not think it should be labelled as "reliable." CaseyPenk (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Only use post-announcement sources?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe we could agree that we should source evidence of media preferences from after the announcement. Is this unreasonable? Elaqueate (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) 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) I can't find anything about her before December of 1987 in any of the world press.Elaqueate (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Link to specific articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see Elaqueate has removed AJ from the list of sources using "Bradley", I was about to do the same thing and for the same reasons: the articles use "Chelsea". (If a specific article uses "Bradley", link to it.) In general, I think we should link to specific articles, not "topic sections". -sche (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Telegraph
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It appears that The Telegraph has actively changed one of its stories from Chelsea to Bradley, but left the other story alone - I've put it in both sections for now, with the appropriate reference for each, but I think the changed story is more recent, so that may put it more firmly in the Bradley camp.--Jeude54cartes (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

AP sourced articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sources are being deleted where an article is AP-sourced and where the news agency has made editorial decisions to maintain the use of the name Chelsea and female pronouns. Agencies such as the Miami Herald, which ran multiple stories vetted by their news editors with female pronouns and one opinion piece that uses both, is placed in the "News agencies using Bradley Manning" column. Where a syndicated source (such as Xinhua) uses Bradley, secondary agencies using their reporting in this way have been included. Elaqueate (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC) 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)

Decision to list news agencies that syndicate AP articles and retain "Chelsea"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do we really need to list all the news agencies that syndicate Associated Press articles? I found it redundant and pointless to list all the sources that syndicate Xinhua and Reuters, so I chose not to. There are likewise plenty of Xinhua and Reuters-based articles from various news agencies that use Bradley, but in my opinion it would be pointless to list every single one. --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) 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)

WP:PAYWALL
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(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)

regarding Agence France-Presse (AFP)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the world's three largest press agencies (along with Reuters and Associated Press), is using "Chelsea Manning" as of today [5] in its German articles. (It also publishes in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabic, but it hasn't released any articles on Manning in those languages since 22 August.) I checked several German and Swiss newspapers which use AFP stories, and they're all leaving the name as-is. I updated the subsection heading in the list to reflect the fact that both AP and AFP are now using the "Chelsea" name, and added entries for a couple of the larger German-language newspapers using the AFP stories. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC) 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) I had an email exchange with AFP about it and I got a response from a German representative of AFP today from the German editor in chief: "AFP hat sich festgelegt und schreibt seit gestern in allen Diensten Chelsea Manning." (translation: AFP has now decided and writes Chelsea Manning in all of its services.) -- Mathias Schindler (WMDE) (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Sources which haven't reported on Manning since the announcement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think we can make a call on what the position of a news source is if the last story it carried on Manning was the announcement of her change of public identity. Although it is not the call I would have made if I were a news editor, I think there's a legitimate POV that the "transition" story represents an exception to the rule. There's a logical argument that if the story is a about someone who has been considered male up to now then the subject of the article is male (or, to put it another way, "woman decides she wants to be referred to as a woman" is a confusing headline). For example, I don't think the BBC has bathed itself in glory over this. But its own style guide would seem to suggest that it will be using "Chelsea" and "she/her" from now on ("Pre-operative transsexual people should be described as they wish"). We can only wait and see, but in the meantime I don't think we can say we know what its position is. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) 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") I'm not sure it makes sense to do that... -sche (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 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) I agree; the author shows a sense there was a better-than-normal chance that Manning would change her name at some point. The text would not make sense without that kind of strong suspicion.__Elaqueate (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on entries
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding the comments beside "Official Statements" and "Undecided": Isn't this just editorializing by proxy? These blurbs cannot be responded to easily.__Elaqueate (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 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) Does anyone have the date on the Bradley post of the Washington Post, and can anyone find any other non-AP articles from the WP? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC) The photo essay was an earlier photo series on Bradley Manning from 16 April 2011 (see web address). It was updated 22 August 2013 with the single picture of Chelsea Manning in her car provided by the military.__Elaqueate (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Source deleted by Elaqueate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Private Manning Support Network (http://www.privatemanning.org) uses a mixture of "PVT Manning" and (in the petition to the White House) "Bradley Manning." -- 101.119.29.91 (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing long sections
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do people feel about collapsing (using the collapse top/bottom templates) some of the very long sections (eg. the ones containing lists of news media using either term) to improve readability? Josh Gorand (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Agreed. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC) It would also be nice if resolved issues in the comments sections could be collapsed. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Agreed. I've been doing some of that. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of notes on news headlines and name usage
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Newspapers and newswires frequently compress information in their headlines. This is not uncommon. Using the surname alone does not indicate preferred personal name usage one way or the other. It would be a mistake to read too much into a "Manning Does Something" headline, any more than a "Smith Does Something" headline. In the body of an article, general journalistic practice is to mention a subject's full primary name first, then subsidiary names, then to use surname only for subsequent mentions. A news article that only mentions a personal name once isn't making an exception to shun a name, it's the most common industry practice for news items.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Q: Why is the Washington Post listed as using Bradley Manning? A: Now in undecided.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not sure why the Washington Post is listed as using Bradley Manning. The link goes to a slideshow from 16 April 2011. Meanwhile, there are WP stories from 22 August 2013, 22 August 2013 (different story), plus the reuse of AP stories from 4 September 2013 and 9 September 2013, all using Chelsea Manning. I'm not going to move the Post myself because maybe I am missing something here -- but if not, could someone please move it? Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I'm going to put it in undecided for now. Two separate editorial board missives have used "Bradley" - there's just no consistency for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Washington Times as a source

we must not go down this route of excluding widely-read and discussed sources based on political bent. Save your critiques of particular sources for the debate itself, but we shouldnt try to eliminate them in advance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the "Statements by news agencies about how Manning will be addressed" section, an article in the Unification Church's publication The Washington Times[6] is cited favouring Bradley. Interestingly, that source, which contains rather extreme and abusive language (referring to Manning's gender transition as an "absurd request", and further slurs about "illegals"), nevertheless notes that the AP Stylebook recommends using Chelsea and feminine pronouns and that most media "fall in line with PC agenda"(!). While we can note the opinions of the Unification Church, I doubt whether the Washington Times qualifies as a reliable source in this context on par with the other news sources cited (like AP), due to its lack of neutrality and its extreme views. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 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) The Washington Times is openly anti-trans. I don't think this is a "liberal and/or conservative" issue, this is a "don't use bigots to describe the groups they hate" issue. I'm not going to link to the piece, but you can probably find their editorial "Discrimination is Necessary," and it calls trans women "she males" and "unnatural." Ananiujitha (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Agreed, we wouldn't use the Westboro Baptist Church as a source on how we refer to gay people either. The Moon church isn't just "a church;" its founder (and founder-owner of The Washington Times) had been banned from entering many EU countries for example, as German authorities consider the movement to be "a sect that exploits the psychological instability of many young people."[7] Josh Gorand (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Discussion of whether or not to list the Lawyer's statement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the above section on "reliable non-news sources on what name to use", a statement by Manning's lawyer is cited as if it supports the name Bradley as the "name to use." This is misleading, even incorrect, as the lawyer is only commenting that Manning expects the old name "will continue to be used in certain instances", which is something different entirely. She expects what any reasonable person would expect given her fame, but has made a clear request on "what name to use." Josh Gorand (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC) 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) By this standard, at this point from since just after the announcement, all media sources mention both names, some cautiously, some enthusiastically, some with derision but both names mentioned, and in non-announcement stories, too. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC) For reference, this was the bit I (-sche) (re)moved Lawyers for Manning using name "Bradley" and "he" in 9/3/2013 cover letter to the President. Pardon request cover letter for Pvt. Manning. Lawyer for Manning said, "There's a realization that most people know her as Bradley," Coombs said. "Chelsea is a realist and understands."[8] "Coombs said Manning knows there is the potential for confusion with the name change, and said Manning expects to be referred to as Bradley when it has to do with events prior to sentencing, the appeal of the court-martial and the request for a presidential pardon. Prison mail must be addressed to Bradley Manning." "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

Reuters now in undecided category
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am putting a comment here because I feel people are adding things with undue consideration. This slideshow contains 18 pre-announcement pictures. It is most likely from July. I know that, in good faith, no user would add it if they noticed that. The Reuters articles use Chelsea as the first and primary reference. That is how we have been dividing all of the other sources. If they change usage we can place them in Camp Bradley, but it is not useful to treat this like the deciding Florida election. "slideshow titled with Bradley even though female pronouns sometimes used" - - - At no point are female pronouns used for Manning, nor is the name Chelsea, nor is any picture post July. This appears to be a sloppy and inaccurate misreading, and I would not like to think that Obi_Wan is deliberately putting in false sources. I'm sure he will confirm his honest error. 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)

sketchy source, "News Channel Daily", removed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone please vouch that this source added by someone is an actual reputable news source and not a spam and dodgy cookie deliverance system? It has articles that sound like hastily re-written yahoo articles at best, Nigerian spam at worst (best?) It only has 40 of 50 mini articles in its entire (six-month?) history as a "news agency" and a dodgy "privacy policy" and no specific business name or association name. Sample news stories: 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. I've removed it for now. -sche (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources are sorted based on latest use

Yes, sources are sorted by which name they most recently used, unless they waffle
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So that people understand why sources that used 'Bradley' on the 24th and 'Chelsea' on the 29th are listed in the 'Chelsea' column and not in the 'Bradley' column (and so that they don't think the list contains errors just because they can find those uses of 'Bradley' on the 24th), I'd like to add something to the intro (after "...that is not of interest here.") along the lines of: 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) 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) 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: [9] which has this tag: [10]; 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)

Need to document issues with unreliable "reliable sources" before the discussion

Some of the sources listed above are openly anti-trans, and one has used anti-trans slurs in their editorials. If editors can discuss the controversial sources and sometimes hate sources, in advance, then editors can more fairly weigh them during the next discussion. It gives an opportunity both for those challenging some of these sources, and for those defending some of these sources, to make their cases. If everyone has to do everything at once, I think that could create a mess. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The master source for information on an individual's name is the individual themself. Any source which contradicts what they say on the subject is automatically unreliable. 94.14.190.115 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

listen, poindexter, people dont appreciate blanket truths and broad sweeping generalities, especially those that flatly contradict existing policy and practice. Start by recognizing nuance here. We arent discussing the subject's name, we are discussing the title of their article. These are sometimes the same, but sometimes not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1. This is needlessly uncivil. 2. Please give me an example where the biography of a single living person has a title that can't arguably be described as one of a person's names. __Elaqueate (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Mu. I unask your question as it is flawed and misses the point. The IP asserts that only the subject can determine their one true name. This may or may not be true but it's completely irrelevant for our purposes, since the title is not THE name for the subject, but rather the moniker by which they are most commonly known. This can be a nickname, a stage name, an official title, a pseudonym, etc, or even a 20th century roman character transliteration of a post-hoc appelation for this person - and all of these things may be quite different from what the subject in question would respond if asked 'what is your name'.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't too hard on people just for stating that titles of biographies use people's names, I won't ask for an example where they don't to prove your claim. But I agree with you that the original comment here is overly simplified. The title is not necessarily THE name for the subject, but generally the moniker by which they are most commonly known. Of course, it is not accurate to state or imply that titles are always the name by which they are most commonly known. Sometimes the most common name is avoided because it has problems. __Elaqueate (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

eliminate opinion pieces?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've mostly avoided opinion pieces as they're written in the voice of the individual and not from the perspective of the journal - as such I don't think they are a good indication of a paper's editorial direction. The one exception would be opinion pieces by the editor/editorial board, which obviously carry more weight. Would you agree to eliminate other sorts of opinion pieces, and try to replace (if possible) with news stories? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I agree, blogs and opinion pieces are usually not reliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC) This would be wonderful in an ideal world, and I had previously noticed this kind of thing from looking at the Miami Herald, a paper that ran something like four Chelsea headlines in their "news" section but then ran a single syndicated opinion piece that started with Bradley and ended with Chelsea (I think it's fine in Bradley generally). But I think that it will be too hard to parse them out objectively. The bigger papers (like the Washington Post) can actually have an editorial board/editorial page opinion that is more firewall-separated from their news operations (hence the Washington Post "unreliability"; if Editorial Board had influence over the Daily News Desk it would be cohesive, but they have none), many papers have separate editorial between news reporters and opinion columnists (as you have said) while smaller papers can have the same editor managing both opinion and the news desk. And when it comes time to decide whether a "Lifestyle" or "Entertainment" piece is more opinion or more news (probably both), I think we'll get bogged down again. I was operating under the rough principle that to readers, they will take an exposure from hard news or the editorial page as an exposure, even though I know the decisions can ultimately come from different authorities and might mean something more for future usage. But I've seen it go both ways, a conservative paper that lets out opinion pieces that are strong Chelsea (this happened with the Wall Street Journal) and papers that made strong commitments to the new name not eliminating a mention in an marked-as-opinion piece (I think it happened with the Independent, Outside Voices section?). So I still think it's better to favor documenting simple usage and the most generally current and let people judge the source. (Unless we can come up with a easily verifiable consensus benchmark that something is really opinion, of course) (And I am also sensitive that it would gut the Bradley section more than would be useful at this point.) __Elaqueate (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Short read: Washington Post Opinion and Washington Post News are completely different editorial cultures that don't talk to each other and live in the same paper, but nobody ultimately cares and we should just list actual use and attribute it correctly. As per "Save your critiques of particular sources for the debate itself, but we shouldnt try to eliminate them in advance." __Elaqueate (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC) you make reasonable points, so lets keep the opinion pieces for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I disagree as editorial boards of news organizations set the editorial MOS. Opinions by editors reflect the MOS they will be using and enforcing. Opinions by columnists are different. They are not subject to editorial oversight. We should distinguish opinions by columnists (Commentary/Opinion) but Op/Ed pieces should reflect policy. It is the editors that make sure organizations like AP and Washington Post are consistent with their internal MOS. --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I've been wanting to voice roughly the same opinioin before, but some publications publish their articles under their writers names, while others attribute everything or almost everything the 'the redaction', or 'an editor'. It might be hard to find a clear line in this, but we could give it a go and see if/where disagreement arises on edge cases. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) this is the problem. 1) letters to the editor can be considered as 'opinion' albeit not solicited by the paper. 2) regular columnists are opinion, though with presumably less editorial oversight than a regular story. 3) op-eds are pieces accepted for publication by those with something to say but who aren't on the regular roll. 4) the editorial board often shares their own opinion of events on the editorial page. The question is, what do we do with sources - and there are several if I recall - where you see differing usage - for example, Bradley in one column, Chelsea in the next, and Bradley in the story, but Chelsea in an AP reprint?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC) For my opinion vote I am going to go by reliable sources past and present and ignore the opinion pieces. Opinion pieces in this request should be given little to no weight - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

BBC?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find the BBC's use rather awkward in their latest piece supporting "Chelsea." They use "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning" every time they say "Chelsea." It's not like they introduced her with an opening sentence and then used "Chelsea" throughout the piece. They actually use "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning" all three times they use "Chelsea." It's almost like they believe her name is now "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning". I don't think it comports to the spirit of published MOS where one introductory use of "Bradley" is acceptable but repeated use "Chelsea, formerly Bradley" is rather a stretch to be definitively one way or the other. I can't imagine it would considered respectful to do this. --DHeyward (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC) We cannot speculate on what they believe but what they did does not seem quite so untoward as you suggest. They use that formulation once, but in three different parts of their publication: once in the Summary, once in the Body of the article, and once in a picture Caption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Understand. It read quite odd as it was everytime but you are correct that they were different section. It just felt like s/Bradley Manning/Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning/g. We wouldn't do that I hope. I think we only use Bradley in relevant place, the "Born as:" in the opening section and quotes of either sources. I didn't like the style as it seemed half-assed an non-committal to either style. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted 2 book references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have gone ahead and deleted two book references for Chelsea on the grounds that they are opinion pieces and that there are books for both names involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC) We decided above that opinion pieces were ok for newspaper, so I think its ok for books too. If you have other books, published after Aug 22 especially, that are relevant, please add them and note the name they use.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How would you classify this Mother Jones piece?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not totally disrespectful http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/warrant-immigration-detain-david-house but doesn't use Chelsea. --DHeyward (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I'd list under Bradley Since they use Bradley to identify the person to the readers. But check other mother jones articles and see if they are consistent, or if they flip flop. It's interesting we're starting to see some sources that use Chelsea when talking about Manning's case but Bradley when mentioning him as an aside.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC) That's our own MOS for Changed names. Current name in the bio, "name at the time" in articles that reference the subject. We don't often discuss that aspect and people have wholesale replaced the "at the time" and associated gender (Changed names doesn't addresss gender) in tangential articles that refer to Manning such as the trial. --DHeyward (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Also, sources that used "then Pvt. Bradley Manning" is post-announcement, deliberate, as his proper title prior to announcement was "Pfc. Bradley Manning" - so articles that refer to "then Pvt. Bradley Manning" are "Bradley Manning" as they skirt the announcement but use the post-announcement reduction in rank. Proper pre-announcement reference would be "then Pfc. Bradley Manning" or "then Spc. Bradley Manning" depending on the period of time they are referencing. --DHeyward (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebony reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The revert war about Ebony is over one article. I agree with Obiwankenobi that it an opinion by someone quoted. Editors chose the quote though. I haven't seen Obiwankenobi's rebuttal article. A search of ebony for manning yields only that one article (through google anyway) but a search for trangender yields a few: Actress Laverne Cox dazzles in Netflix's breakout hit Orange Is the New Black (04 September 2013) clearly seems to be in the spirit of Chelsea if not mentioned. The character interviewed is a "trans lesbian". I am not familiar with the show but generally if someone is going to recognize "trans lesbian" as female (one of the least recognized groups of women - the out er of the outer circle if she is pre-SRS). They use female name and gender pronouns, it's pretty safe that Chelsea, who is attracted to men like the large majority of non-trans women, then they would most likely use "Chelsea" and her. I haven't found anything there to contradict "Chelsea" usage. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC) We don't need to list every news source. As soon as Ebony publishes another article, they should be listed; but if we started adding newspapers under the "Bradley" column (or undecided) just b/c someone they quoted used the words "Bradley Manning" then that would add a ton more to the Bradley and/or undecided column. I think quoting someone is not tantamount to writing an article about Manning, so in the absense of further data we should leave Ebony off.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editorial board (presumably sets MOS for paper?) has an editorial about Journalist shield laws that uses only Bradley Manning. Where does this fit? --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Moved to undecided thus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article/blog by paid WP reporter (24 September 2013 in an article on Diversity at the Washington Post website. Only lists Bradley Manning. These are high profile news organizations that apparently paid lip-service to using Chelsea. Only reference to Manning: Then there are Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, who leaked secret information for ideological reasons. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC) The post is already in our 'undecided' section.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I think it's still in "Chelsea Column" too.--DHeyward (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Removed. --DHeyward (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived: Disagreement with the premise that "reliable source" usage is what should determine this issue

Editors !voting will decide what should determine the issue; reliable sources will certainly be one criteria, but editors are free to bring in any other arguments, and we have sections of this page devoted to those.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Much of this page seems to tacitly accept that the outcome of this decision will be a numbers game of how many news articles can be found that refer to "Chelsea Manning" as opposed to "Bradley Manning". I do not. I cannot, because the fact of the matter -- something that is blindingly obvious to trans people but somehow invisible to many cis commentators -- is that the media is one of the worst offenders in upholding cissexist assumptions, when it is not being outright transphobic (and that doesn't just apply to right-wing media). If we allow the media to become gatekeepers of trans identity, we've already lost. Their veering between snide insults and objectification of trans people is fucking up people's lives. Wikipedia should be better than that; its biographical articles should have a responsibility of basic respect toward their subjects. That is the issue here. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC) 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) See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Conflict_with_MOS:IDENTITY.2C_and_proposed_change. 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) we are supposed to be a neutral documenter of what other sources say. We have no editorial board and are not supposed to have a political bent or pov. As such, we are subject to the whims of our sources in ways others are not. NY times has an editorial board that can make a binding decision on content, whereas we work via consensus and discussion amongst editors. We are just a very different beast.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 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) you obviously havent followed the discussions to the extent some of us have, but none of the points you are bringing are new - hence ppl are a bit terse. You'll have to read the archives to understand where and how it was decided to wait. Patience is a virtue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 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) all of the news sources we've been gathering are post announcement, and policy states those should be preferred. So i dont want to be rude but plz start reading more and stop tilting at imaginary windmills. Imo Chelsea is quite likely to win based purely on commonname, so i wouldnt kneecap that policy just yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC) I have no problem with the move back to Chelsea but do we go on what Manning is most notable for or what the most recent sources say? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC) unless some magical BLP exception is invoked and passes consensus, the article title should follow WP:at which includes usage in reliable sources as well as consistency, recognizeability, conciseness, precision, etc. the idea of 'X is most notable for Z, therefore we must use the name X was known under even if they are now better known as Y" I don't think has any basis in policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC) This is a good analysis. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC) This page is only intended for collecting sources, including applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which also include other policies than WP:AT), sources on how naming decisions affect trans people and sources on what constitute accepted practices. I invite you to contribute in this effort. There is no premise that we will only be counting news articles, that's just one of several factors. Josh Gorand (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Recruiting an admin panel.

Now might be a good time to seek a panel of administrators to oversee the conduct of this discussion, once it goes live. Ideally, you want to find admins who are dispassionate and neutral on the ultimate issue, and of course who have not previously been involved in the discussion (or closure) of this matter. You could just post a request on the adminstrator's noticeboard, and see who pops up (which is how I got involved). However, in legal arbitration (which I have had some experience in), a common practice is to have each side in a dispute pick one arbitrator to serve on the panel, with those two arbitrators agreeing on the third member. That might work well here also, although we have not really identified "sides". bd2412 T 17:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you know the admin corps well, and have been following the arbcom trial, can you propose a few names that you haven't seen involved, anywhere, but that you know to be cool/wise heads? Then we could reach out to them directly. Rather than asking for volunteers, I'd find it cleaner if the three previous judges quickly agreed on three additional judges to reach out to.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Participants in the previous discussion who took issue with the closing may not wish to have any of the previous closers involved in the selection of a future panel. bd2412 T 18:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think BD's suggestion is a good one (each "side" picks one, and those two pick a third). Alternatively, we all look for experienced admins who appear not to have an opinion on the issue, and who are able and willing to withstand criticism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

But what is the process of a "side" agreeing? 3 people who wander by here !voting? I'm not sure. Actually why don't we do this - agree together on one, and then let that one pick two others. I will put forth my proposal: David Levy. I haven't seen his name in any of these discussions, and I've found him to be quite balanced, civil and detail oriented. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that way of doing it, and David sounds good to me. Sandstein also springs to mind as someone who makes decisions without fear or favour, and he's very familiar with the policies and processes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been impressed by David too, but unfortunately he hasn't been around much lately. Neljack (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Would User:The Bushranger be good? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you would consider me, User:Knowledgekid87, but I honestly have no desire to become involved in this dispute. Thanks anyway though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is going to be hard to recruit admin who have not already been part of the discussion who want to join in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• How about User:Keilana? She has lots of experience in closing highly contentious discussions, such as the Muhammad Images RFC and the Jerusalem RFC, and people seemed to think she did a good job with them. Also perhaps User:Dennis Brown - he seems to command very wide respect in the community. I don't think either of them have been involved in this issue, though I could have missed something. Neljack (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, I'm flattered my name came up. I'm confident in my ability to assess consensus in complex RfCs because I've got a fair bit of experience, so I'd be happy to close this one if the community agrees I should. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, looks like we are getting a crew together, should be all set soon. Idealy a 3 panel admin should look at the closure like before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@Keilana, I have absolute confidence in your ability to oversee and close this discussion. Would you like to recruit the other two admins for the panel? Some names have already been suggested here (David Levy, Sandstein). If it is of any use to you, I have kept a thorough record of the arguments made in the previous discussion, and my thoughts on them. Obviously, the procedural issue which was a big concern in the last discussion will not exist in this one, which should clarify the issues a great deal. Also, since this discussion will begin with separate sections for supporting and opposing !votes, it should be much easier to keep track of where the community lies, and to prevent shenanigans. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I also agree with the choice of Keilana if she's willing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The Arbcom committee said in a statement that they would find admin to use in a closing of the move request so you might also want to notify them of the admin who are on board here as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Arbcom not watching this page? They really should be. bd2412 T 00:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't know why they would go and say "The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors. The Arbitration Committee will announce the names of the three editors no later than one week following the close of the case." In their proposed remedies though if they were watching this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now mentioned it to them. bd2412 T 01:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with Keilana, and with her choosing two other uninvolved admins to form a panel.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

From the point-of-view of transparency, I don't think it is ideal to ask a closer to pick their own team. Formerip (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Who would you suggest for the panel? bd2412 T 13:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've no-one to suggest, I just think its better if the closers are appointed independently of each other. Formerip (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is fair to claim that BD was on a "team". They (the closers) never picked sides IMO.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Obviously, they did pick sides, rightly or wrongly. Please substitute another word you would prefer. Formerip (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We are looking for uninvolved admin to close the discussion its as simple as that, no hidden motive here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't suggest any hidden motive. However, if you think that a hidden motive could possibly be insinuated, that in itself is good enough reason to ensure that independent closers are appointed. Formerip (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

frankly weve run out of time, the move will start soon and we're not selecting supreme court judges, any 3 uninvolved admins will suffice; random admins and editors close discussions all over the wiki every day on their own volition, if you have strong opposition to one of the names chosen by Keilana you can note it here but we simply dont have time for a consensus process around 3 admins - we already have agreement on one with impeccable bonafides and she's willing to do it. Lets just move on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we should start the move discussion until arbcom has ruled on it, if the majority see that the move discussion is to be delayed then why start a move discussion if it is going to be closed anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Obi-Wan Kenobi - we don't need to have a panel in place before the discussion starts. One admin for oversight is enough, so long as the other panel members are selected in time to close the discussion without unnecessary delay.

@Knowledgekid87, ArbCom can not even agree that it has the authority to rule on the move discussion. Frankly, I do not see how any future discussion is within the scope of the matter brought before them, which was the conduct of editors with respect to the first discussion. ArbCom is not a Star Chamber, empowered to extend its grasp without limit. bd2412 T 17:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.