User talk:DHeyward/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Jodie Foster

These stories are still just gossip unless Foster publicly confirmed them herself. Please discuss on talk page before adding the information again. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Reported in multiple reliable sources. There is nothing contentious. It is not a label or cat. Please stop reverting factual information reported in reliable sources. There are no conclusions being drawn by Wikipedia so the content is proper. There are plenty of biographical information about people that is published in Wikipedia because it is published in a reliable source. I agree that labeling or cat'ing her is inappropriate. Facts, however, are not. --DHeyward (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done

BLP issue

Please check your mail.--MONGO 18:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited General Grievous, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jedi Knight and Mon Calamari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock (IP range block)

{{unblock|my ip range is blocked when I am logged in from this location. I don't know why. My account is not blocked. }} --DHeyward (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You must be trying to edit through a hardblocked IP. When you try to save an edit, you should be getting a block message that tells you just exactly is blocked and who the blocking administrator is. If you wish, you can share that notice here. If you prefer not to reveal the actual IP, consider passing along just the name of the blocking admin so they can be notified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello DH. You've resumed editing so I assume that this is no longer an active request. I disabled the template to remove this page from Category:Requests for unblock. If you are still unable to edit from a particular location and you would like this problem to be looked into, consider making a request at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Florida Taser incident

Hello, I am recommending keeping this article, and have brought to the deletion debate quite a few references in newspapers, magazines and books discussing the event in detail over a period of five years. I respectfully request that you take a look at what I've found, and reconsider your decision. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Request

Dear Editor DHeyward: I have posted the following to the Aribtration Committee e-mail list:

"The Arbitration Committee has long had the page Torture Memos on article probation, because of a history of disruptive ideological edits. Yesterday, an editor without so much as a word on the talk page, moved the page to a new invented title. The editor created the neologism "8/01/02 Interrogation Opinion" Apparently the editor has used administrator powers to block the ability to undo the move.

Every major news publication, magazine, and television network in the English-speaking world calls these memos the Torture Memos--regardless of whether they are ideologically left, right, or center. For example: the The Washington Post, or the New York Times, periodicals on the right such as National Review, and on the left such as The Guardian or in the center like The Atlantic Magazine; CNN (noting even conservative Speaker John Boehner calls them the "Torture Memos"), NBC, ABC, and conservative [www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344730,00.html Fox News].

The dozens of editors who have been working on this page for the last several years recall a prolongued discussion on what the name ought to be, now archived. The consensus was "Torture Memos." Now a single editor, unfortunately an administrator, has taken it upon himself to undo the work of dozens. So far, despite comments on the talk page questioning the unilateral move, the editor has not offered any defense or justification.

Accordingly I would request an adminstrator on the Arbitration Committee to enforce its probation notice, by undoing the move, and returning the page to the title Torture Memos.

Whether the editor who abused the powers of an administrator should be called to account for misuse of power and breach of trust, is a separate inquiry to be taken up later. cI am cc'ing this to the talk page of the editor in question."

ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize as I didn't realize there was that much of an issue with history. I didn't create the page "8/01/02 Interrogation Opinion". That was a redirect to "Torture Memos" Given the titles were interchangeable as far as I could tell with the sources I went with the less POV name. I am not an admin and didn't use any special tools to do the move. The redirects just flipped. It's easy to undo. --DHeyward (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention to the matter. I will e-mail the Arbitration Committee that you voluntarily returned the pages to their previous title.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Share

In WP:Share you apparently missed the key word "advised" (to declare any such connection to avoid accusations of sock/meat-puppetry).

Our policies prohibit unsubstantiated accusations, e.g. of sockpuppetry.

Will you please redact your violations of policy or mis-statements, the better to avoid the appearance of dishonesty or fatuity?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Keifer. Can you provide me of a diff of the comment that is of concern? I probably mentioned WP::Share a dozen times lately so I am not sure what exactly I did wrongs. thanks. --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Keifer...you never cease to amaze.--MONGO 04:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate NAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Ferguson (musician)

If it's not a clear consensus, please let admins close it. NACs are appropriate in very limited situations where it's a very clear consensus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Ferguson (musician) isn't one of those situations, so the inappropriate close has been reverted. - SudoGhost 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, Sudoghost - for future reference, NAC is only appropriate in the following situations: Where there is a CLEAR Keep vote, or where there is a SNOW Keep - in the case of a delete, you cannot close, since you cannot delete the article, and in the case of No consensus, such as this - it requires an admin to make the final decision. Your NAC was ruled inappropriate, albeit by an involved editor, because you are in no position to be able to close the AFD down. I have also reverted your "Note" at the top, and will do so again. If you aren't the closer, your comments belong in the text of the discussion, not splashed right at the top. Fish^Barking? 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• DHeyward, please disregard the previous two posts.  Neither editor has shown the technical competence at the AfD to even be able to refactor material without messing up.  I found your analysis regarding WP:MUSICBIO 7, 10, 11 to have great depth of understanding.  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.  I am aware that SudoGhost has edited through the closed-discussion template.  If you wish to respond, I'd suggest that you move the entire meta-discussion to the Talk page of the AfD, or I will do so if you request it.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I don't think I need to reply anymore. --DHeyward (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe you don't, DHeyward, but I will. I made one tiny mistake on your timestamp when I reverted something - I put your comment forward one hour, owing to the fact I'm in Germany, and I copied your message verbatim. Unscintillating seems to think this is almost a sin, and blames lack of technical competence. In fact, it's a genuine mistake for which I apologise - Unscintillating however, has no right to tell you to disregard other people's comments. Myself and SudoGhost have been round the block a few times on WP, and one mistake is not the end of the world :) Sorry for the trouble. Fish^Barking? 23:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq

An article that you have been involved in editing, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

I am surprised at your edits to Ted Cruz removing his Canadian citizenship from the article based only on your incorrect opinion and ignoring all the easily sourced facts. In Canada (like the US) anyone born on Canadian soil is a Canadian citizen a birth. Citizenship is automatic. No action is required to claim citizenship obtained by birth and no action is required to retain it. Formal application is required to renounce citizenship in Canada, a press statement does not do that. Remember citizenship carries both rights and responsibilities and you can't just decide you don't feel like being an American, Canadian, or any other citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.36.41 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The same types of laws grant Kenyan and British citizenship to Obama. The reality is that neither of those people have complied with the laws that would grant them citizenship. The issue is whether Cruz attempted to comply with Canadian law OR applied for benefits of citizenship. Remember that Obama never renounced his Great Britain or Kenyan citizenship. He is entitled to both because his father and the laws of the country. Neither Cruz nor Obama have attempted to claim citizenship in a country other than the U.S., of which they are both citizens. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

DHeyward: Absolutely correct. Have a good day!--Bing Norton 22:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BingNorton (talk • contribs)

Your statement on the Chelsea Manning case request

I have removed the statement you made regarding the Chelsea Manning case request because the majority of it does not relate to the reason a case should be accepted or declined and instead reads like soapboxing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I (without discussion with any other Arbitrator) have asked the Arbitration clerks to remove your post to the Chelsea Manning arbitration case request. To put it frankly: it was offensive and it mostly soapboxing. There were points there that were fine to make, but it was impossible to disentangle from the larger message. I would seriously recommend that you disengage from either Arbitration or the broader topic for a while. If you reinsert that post or an analogue of it to the Arbitration pages, you will be blocked. NW (Talk) 12:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not offensive and if you read it that way, I believe you misread it. I'm not sure what you would consider offensive. With a very broad stroke, Manning, as an individual, has made claims that gender identity disorder and the related stress of not living with the proper outward appearance was a reason for his crimes. On the one hand there is the desire to unconditionally accept her statement as the living embodiment of what transpeople go through emotionally, but on the other, there is also a desire not to broadly associate Manning's crimes with being transgender. Stereotypes and bullying is what comes out of the broad brush. If you don't believe the actions of a few can be broadly construed to the whole, look at what Catholic priests go through when a few committed crimes. Manning's identity with a group that is already bullied and already stereotyped, should have a high bar for inclusion which includes reliable sources that state unequivocally that Manning has GID/GD and is female. It would be like finding a letter written by Benedict Arnold that stated he was gay or trans and propagating it through Wikipedia. That better be a pretty rock solid source for the claim and even then it should be minimized to its relevancy to his notability. We certainly wouldn't change his article name or name that made him notable. regardless, I won't restore the material. --DHeyward (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that any critique or even a fair analysis of any minority group is always seen by members of that group as discrimination or bigotry and discussion of the matter as hate speech. The minority group shuts down any constructive discussion by yelling bigotry and no one in their right mind wants to be labelled a bigot. The APA is less and less likely to label any gender based identity issues as mental issues. They are mainly focused on helping people know they are normal, so they can better fit into a society when they are in fact abnormal. "...law (Assembly Bill 1266) which goes into effect January 1, 2014, requires that California public schools respect students’ gender identity and makes sure that students can fully participate in all school activities, sports teams, programs and utilize facilities that match their gender identity"[1] I bolded the section of concern because this means lavatories and locker rooms...and this is a particularly odd issue since we are talking about mostly minors. In Nebraska, a self identifying male born transgender is allowed to use the lavatoy in the nurses station, but the laws here are more conservative for the time being. I shouldn't be forced to leave the mens room if a born woman transgender enters. Its unfortunate that discrimination exists and things should be done to make sure they don't but surely not in a way that compromises the good intentions of the vast majority.--MONGO 20:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't even articulating a position of normal/abnormal or how Manning should feel or what she should be entitled to. Merely that she used transgender to explain away felonies and treason. There are transgender soldiers and civilians with military clearances that just heard how being transgender makes them too emotionally unstable unless they are able to come out and live as the gender they feel. Those people want Manning to STFU about how GID made her unfit and that her crimes are about HER not about her identity disorder. Since GID is largely immaterial to her crimes, making it the number one topic about her IS offensive to those that have stable emotional personalities and live their lives with GID. The Benedict Arnold hypothetical is very apt here. It would be completely unfair to LGBT to suddenly make GID the most visible notability of Benedict Arnold and they would (and should) scream bloody murder if we started rewriting Benedict Arnolds bio to make it appear as if GID was behind his treason. Except we live in backwards land where people can't see the forest for the trees. They can't see that a) GID is a side note to Manning, b) that her legal stance as GID is insulting and demeaning to others that have it and c) its hardly been established that she has GID and there are obvious benefits to being classified a female before she goes to prison. The argument "no one who isn't GID would claim it" is BS. Plenty of death row inmates suddenly claim incredibly low IQs too. Something they would not be putting on job applications if they were in the real world and weren't in prison. There was recently a murder and the defense tried to say it was Aspberger's Syndrome that caused this person to commit murder. Fortunately, the Aspberger Syndrome support groups called BS and wanted nothing to with him and distanced themselves completely from his self-identifying claims - because identifying yourself as having the same disorder as a criminal doesn't help your cause much. LGBT groups would be wise to let the Manning issue settle down for a few months or years. In the meantime, Manning can get the treatment she needs without the pressure of having to fulfill these expectations that advocacy groups will be putting on her. She is now going to be under a tremendous amount of political pressure to fight for and accept hormone therapy because it is no longer simply a private personal desire between her and her doctor, she made it a public request through her lawyer. For all the GID persons with stable lives, jobs, families and friends - Manning needs to be differentiated, not included. GID is not her defining or notable quality and making it so is demeaning to others that have GID. --DHeyward (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It was waaay too long. At this point in the game you just want to post succinct reasons for acceptance or rejecting the case. I'd suggest asking Callanecc for consent to post this part:

• Arbcom should clarify BLP considers classes of living people as well as individuals and guilt by association is to be avoided.

• Arbcom should take this case for article titling and mos:identity and clarify that they are also tied to BLP for groups as well as individuals and that the identity and titles reflect the notability requirements for existence (personally, I don't think Manning is even notable as an individual to warrant an entire biography that centers around a single instance of leaking, let alone having GID be the defining part of it, but that seems to be community consensus to have it as its own article).

• Arbcom should also establish that historical facts referencing historical documents need not be updated immediately or at all if the update might disparage a group or individual or if the change doesn't alter the history (minutae detail of gender that is unrelated to the underlying fact) but would likely be contentious (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Let sleeping dogs lie.

and then save the rest of it for the evidence page and/or the workshop page. NE Ent 11:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't waste my time...I think DHeyward's analysis is too deep for most to grasp his meaning and the radar is on and even a slight deviation from the politically correct narrative might lead to a block.--MONGO 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  The workshop page is just plain wacky....I can't relate to idea of victimhood and the notions that only self proclaimed or otherwise unceremoniously promoted experts on the subject have the ability to understand the issues and therefore make major changes to such bios such as page moves.--MONGO 11:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  yes, that's a bit over the top. The issue experts are apparently free to edit other articles, though. I did find my Benedict Arnold example. Wolfgang Schmidt (serial killer) has an interesting deletion history. I also haven't found the reason for the removal of LGBT cats and portals to Adrian Lamo. Lamo has significantly more involvement with the LGBT community, historically, than Manning but mysteriously after he named Manning as the source, he was evicted. --DHeyward (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Migrated Workshop Discussion

So on the workshop page you said:

Genderqueer is probably too speculative to address. She's self-identified as a transwoman and has diagnosis for GID/GD, narcissistic personality disorder and possibly Aspberger syndrome and fetal alcohol syndrome. All of those have contributed to an unstable mental state. People unfairly tunnel vision on "transgender" and "unstable." She's never had the opportunity to live as a woman. It's not clear what and how the other diagnosis play into feelings of dysphoria so its premature to say whether she is genderqueer/genderfluid until she's had the opportunity to live as a woman. For now, she wants hormones but not surgery and I can't imagine a surgeon willing to perform an operation until she has lived as a free woman for a few years (although I suspect certain activists would fight for surgery if she requested it for treatment). For that reason, I don't think she will distinguish between genderqueer/transgender until that happens and for now she has identified as a transwoman which is fine. She's stated that the most stable part of her life was when she lived with her aunt as an openly gay man and that didn't appear to be particularly stable to me. But for WP, I think it's largely irrelevant. As I wrote in another section, editors are okay with "she lived as gay man" versus "he lived as a gay man" as the pronoun is offensive. But the reference to "man" is not. If we truly rewrote everything as she felt, that period would be a "heterosexual transwoman." That's an interpretation of the source, potentially demeaning to her partner and overall not an accurate portrayal of how she lived at the time. Her B/F was gay, called her Bradley and believed she was a gay man, too I think it would be too negative to portray her as deceptive at that time which is what is required if we rewrite her as transgender when she was portraying herself as a gay man. As a narrative it is easier, more accurate, and overall less speculative/offensive (in my view) to write in the past tense using names and gender at the time. It's really not reconcilable to do otherwise without some form of slight to her, her partners, her honesty, etc. Rather than speculate, just writing consistently will keep us out of the weeds. Take her feelings when her father remarried and adopted the son of his new wife and the new son took the name "Manning:" Suddenly Manning felt lost as her father had a new son. That makes a lot more sense when written from a jealous male, son, "Bradley Manning" point of view. Manning certainly felt conflicted by it and expressed it. We're robbing history by the wholesale rewrite and shortchanging feelings of abandonment/replacement that Manning has already expresed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note on the below: I use the t-word a couple of times, which has previously caused fireworks on the Workshop page, so I'll define it precisely: by transphobic I mean, having a systematically negative view of trans people, not necessarily a fearful or outright hateful one.

• • DH I don't have a systematically negative view of transgender people. My opinion is strictly style. For example: "she was living as gay man" vs. "he was living as a gay man." Technically, she would never consider herself a gay man post-transition so I find it stylistically difficult to reconcile request to refer to her past as "she", "her", "female", etc when it conflicts with a statement even when making the distinction "lived as" vs. "was". After her release, we would never make the statement "she lived as a man in the Leavenworth Detention Facility" after coming out even if that condition is foisted on her because saying "lived as" would be offensive after her statement. Why it isn't offensive before the personal statement, IMO, is stratified acceptance of her identity throughout her life. Rather than wade in and try to make a distinction, it is just stylistically easier to use gender/preference she identified with at the time according to NLGJA guidelines. She is living as a woman in Leavenworth despite not having anything that would be female and the respect gieven is post-statement and "living as" is conditioned on that statement alone, not her conditions or her outward appearance. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Relax, as I'm sure you realised further down the comment, I'm not saying you're a transphobe, I was defining the word ahead of use to describe hypotheticals.
• On the gay man thing: she would not consider herself to have been a gay man, but she would consider herself to have presented as one. Again, the statement you cite says the latter, not the former.
• I agree it's stylistically easier, but I don't think we should set that concern above respect.
• Re: the NLGJA, are you aware that e.g. GLAAD guidelines recommend the opposite, that you report on the past from the present and use current identity, whilst the AP stylebook says use-present-pronoun without qualification or clarification?

• Figuring out whether she's straightforwardly TS or genderfluid isn't easy for her or for us: agreed.
  • Actually transgender, not transexual. And it's moot point as she identifies as transgender, specifically transwoman. She won't know and a doctor won't know until she lives as a woman for a few years if she is genderfluid or how far she wishes to take her treatment relieve the dysphoria. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

• I've heard TS to mean "a (subtype of) TG person that identifies as a classical binary gender," but this is by the by.

• Rewriting "she lived as gay man" -> "she lived as a straight transwoman": nobody is asking for this degree of rewrite. However I think you're right when you say the pronoun is offensive, whilst "lived as a gay man" is not: the pronoun suggests we're adopting the view that she was a man as opposed to the statement which says she was presenting as a man. Further to the reasons I've already suggested we should avoid is/was a man statements, this sort of statement is a standard weapon used against trans people, whose identities are routinely undermined and dismissed by people whose attitudes range from the outright hateful to the blithely indifferent. So to a degree it's a matter of avoiding toxic language, even if it's technically accurate, similar to how the term "gender bender" is technically accurate -- they do indeed flex the idea of gender! -- but it should be avoided for its pejorative association.
  • I agree that the style should be past tense and can be written respectfully without implying she was male. Keeping the gender the same on pronouns without making a declaration is tricky. I think present identity is important to respect and present tense should reflect the gender identified. I find it difficult to make cohesive statements when using she/son/man/female in the same sentence with different implications on tense and relationships all referring to the same person. We don't have gender neutral terms/we haven't used gender neutral terms. As above, the term "she is/was living as" would have different connotations pre and post declaration. When she is released, we would not use the term "she was living as a male soldier" in Leavenworth (at least I hope not) but we are okay with it before with "she was living as a gay man". I find it more agreeable to use the pronouns that reflect their gender identity at the time. At the time, pre-Chelsea announcement, she identified using male pronouns, "Bradley" and "gay man." Stylistically, I think it's more readable and understandable to keep historical accounts in a historical voice rather than switch. I think it's more respectful than what really happened with search/replace and the sentences that exist in the article. The goal should be to not be transphobic, not "appear to be not transophobic." To me, so little care has gone into the rewrite, the rush seems to be to avoid an appearance of transphobia rather than carefully addresing how transgender issues affected her life and treating her as an individual with specific diagnoses and specific life experiences unique to her. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• "written respectfully without implying she was male": here's the nub of the issue -- saying he, he, he is a great way to imply she was male.
• "Living as a male soldier" would be wrong because she wasn't -- at the time, she (will have been) openly trans, but it is likely the military will have paid little if any attention to that status.
• "I find it more agreeable...": as above, I'm arguing to put respect above agreeable text.
• "I think it's more respectful...": On what grounds? Certainly don't pretend she never transitioned, but can you seriously imagine a trans person being offended because you were too polite talking about their pre-transition life? By contrast the opposite, being offended because you weren't polite enough, seems likely.
• Rushed rewrite: agreed. The article needs incremental improvement.

• "I think it would be too negative to portray her as deceptive at that time": I think a reader that identified not having come out as trans as a deception has a pretty transphobic mindset to begin with. I've no doubt some readers would make that leap, but they seem like the kind of readers that think she and all trans people are repugnant aberrations regardless.
  • Agreed. This is the conundrum and is why I prefer using the identity at the time to describe historical identity. It comes back to "She was living as a gay man." It implies that she was living differently than her identity at the time and that she always knew she was a woman. Her attempts to fit in to alleviate the dysphoria through various lifestyle choices should not be discounted. There are certainly transgender people that don't have dysphoria or have managed it with various lifestyle accommodations. It doesn't make them less transgender. Genderfluid people are an example of people that reduce dysphoria through lifestyle. This is the main driving force behind changing Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria. The treatment is focused on alleviating the dysphoria, not treating the identity. identity can change and evolve as we have seen. Writing historical aspects as a function of current identity, rather than dysphoria, I believe, is ill-advised so we should use the identity at the time. We should note things about that time that still contributed to dysphoria. No dysphoria means no treatment necessary/no disorder and actually allows transgender people to live as transgender without being diagnosed with a disorder. Manning has lots of choices in treatment ahead. It will be her personal choice as to what she needs to alleviate dysphoria.

• "It implies that she was living differently than her identity at the time and that she always knew she was a woman". Typically for TG people this is literally the case. Their identity might have evolved to some degree, but they commonly report having known in some sense or another for a long time, and the idea that she was living contrary to that internal identity is also likely literally true.
• "Her attempts to fit in to alleviate the dysphoria through various lifestyle choices should not be discounted". Indeed... but what edit to the text would possibly do that? You'd have to delete basically all the factual content in the section about gender identity. Therefore I don't think it's a realistic prospect.
• The rest: yes, again, don't excise mention that she had GD, or that she transitioned, but I'm not at all convinced saying "she" would have that affect when her path towards transition is clearly documented.

• "...without some form of slight to her, her partners, her honesty": Similarly the idea that it would be a slight to her partner -- shock horror, he slept with a trans person! -- this seems like something he should get over. I acknowledge this is an asymmetry: I'm arguing we should spare CM's feelings (and those of trans readers and editors) by deferring to her, but should it turn out her partner is sufficiently transphobic to be offended that we suggest he slept with a trans woman, we should ignore that. My basis is that trans people are a widely persecuted group and I think Wiki has an ethical responsibility not to join in on the collective trans stompdown as little as possible; by contrast people who think having been with a trans person is a stain on your character is not a persecuted group; in fact it's probably the majority.
  • This is more than just this article and is why I want to keep past references consistent. If we base MOS on this case, there are other people to consider. I think the wife/mother aspect to be a stronger reason as that "transphobic" word comes out when it's considered jsut a sexual relationship ("slept with" and relationship is quite different but you dismissed the relationship aspect - it's easy to dismiss when we know in hindsight one of the parties was in transition). A hypothetical husband/father that comes out mid-life as transgender, wife divorces him, etc, etc. The mother or children don't have to be transphobic to treat their father as male and take issue with accounts that he somehow wasn't during the entire period where they were married and assuming the father role. We simply don't know. Having a style that is respectful but tense/identity accurate for historical events means we don't have to know. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to dismiss with "slept with," it was supposed to be a byword. Even so, is it pejorative to have been in a relationship with a trans person?
• The hypothetical husband: I expect the children's view of their father will be quite complicated. In that case I'd favour using "their father" to describe the relationship between the two, but "she/her" to refer to that person. I think it would be transphobic to say that their father is really a man or still a man or similar, much more so than to continue to use the term describing the role she played. In any case, the case you describe is much harder to handle than the Manning case, and shouldn't prevent us from acting properly in this easier situation.

• The jealous male thing at the end: I think this is a bit of a reach -- even if the reader had failed to clock that young Chelsea was Bradley and living as male at the time, would they have such a hard time understanding a child jealous of their sibling regardless of gender?
  • I don't know. I know we identified the other child as a son. This seemed to be significant to Manning the younger. Manning's relationship with his father was never characterized as anything different than father/son and troubled at the end. The father was the motivating factor in getting Manning to enlist as that was the route the father went I believe. I don't know if gender was important so that is a motivating factor to use the historical identity. Changing historical identity to current identity seems to inject it where it may not have been relevant. Lives and relationships are complex enough. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds to me like she had a bad time with her father is the key takeaway here. I don't see a big difference between genderflipping that sentence or keeping it as-is, apart from the ever-present desire to avoid the she-was-male implication.

• Finally going back a couple of posts, I'd like to press you on a specific point: I suggested that using the BM title is harmful because it conveys an anti-trans impression to our trans readers and editors; you replied simply saying you prefer the BM title because it's COMMON in the sense of WP:COMMONNAME. Do you agree that the title conveys an anti-trans impression to readers and editors? If so, why do you weight WP:CN over that concern? If not, why not?

Chris Smowton (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• • I think I'd prefer a disambiguation page as there are more than one article related to the topic. I see "Bradley Manning" as a topic, more than a biography, and the BLP article of that name is a biography of the main subject. BM as a topic or reference is not going away. Mainstream press pay lip service to adopting "Chelsea Manning" but there will always be that little qualifying paragraph describing who Chelsea Manning is. I consider the current name of the article to be neutral if the topic is covered intelligently and pro-trans/anti-trans shouldn't play a role. If the article rejected "Chelsea" or wrote present tense or future tense as anything but female, I think it should be corrected. The intent is certainly not to be offensive. It's a difficult topic to understand "neutral" when there are many inputs. GID now GD is a DSM condition. Some in the trans community would prefer that it not be, whence the fight between DSM-IV and DSM-V. Some consider any label that it's a disorder at all as being anti-trans. Some medical groups won't recognize the DSM-V criteria yet. These are all real debates going on today with varying expert opinions as well as strong feelings. It was even suggested that some of the LGBT advocacy groups was anti-trans in the MOS discussions. A disambiguation page would be my first choice pointing to a CM named bio-page (with "Bradley E. Manning" listed in the opening sentence as it currently is). The second is that BM is more widely known and common with the entire population but I believe the interest is in the topic why he is notable, not the person herself. For that reason, if we aren't going to create a topic disambiguation page for BM, the article should be named BM. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oooh, we so very nearly agree on this bit. Only on the last step do we differ. I'll press you once more on this (at the risk of impersonating Jeremy Paxman) since I feel you dodged the thrust of my question a bit: do you see that if we take the latter step, giving the bio the definitive name Bradley Manning, we look like transphobes much more than if we use your preferred/proposed disambig page? Consider a hypothetical trans or just sympathetic reader approaching your disambig page via a Wikilink. When it says "Disambig! Did you mean Chelsea, or this record of a trial that uses the legal identifier Bradley?" that conveys the impression that we are clued up on trans matters and prepared to extend them the courtesy of using their chosen identity. On the other hand when it says "Bradley Manning (redirected from Chelsea Manning)" that says "You typed Chelsea, but you really meant Bradley, which is this person's proper title." That makes us look much less tolerant than the first case. It is for this reason that I advocate flipping the name/redirect around, to yield the message "You typed Bradley, but this person is now named Chelsea," much more closely matching the message you convey with your disambig page.
• Further, note that it matters not a jot that WP:COMMONNAME exists and is the real reason the title got chosen; because most readers aren't clued up on Wiki policy, they're liable to read our titling choice as making a statement about a definitive identifier, however benign our intent. We should pick the title that conveys the minimally aggressive implications.
• The whole third-indent: Chris Smowton (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Smowton: It's hard for me to say. I don't have enough insight on the issue. I've read transexual accounts of post-SRS females that resent what they consider a hijacking of their identity (I suspect it's derogatory terms, but they call them "MIDs" and dispute their self-identified gender altogether if they are not on a path that ultimtely leads to surgery). This is specifically issues with MTF "transwomen" as I haven't heard the same concerns with "transmen." I've read accounts of transgender and gay journalists that dislike that Manning has become an LGBT icon especially those that are far removed from coming out. They seem to feel his use of transgender and LGBT identification to justify some of his actions when they themselves have had to fight the stigma of "mentally unstable" and are rather put off by the identification of Manning with them. Within the gay/lesbian/transexual/transgender/transvestite spectrum of people there seems to be lots of internal squabbles. I've read accounts of fights about whether the term should be "transgender" or "transgendered" or whether a post-SRS woman should even be called "transgender" (that don't consider themselves anything but female and there is no longer a "transition"). I've read criticism of persons that historically would have been in the transvestite/fetish arena 10 years ago are now in the "transgender" arena and women that have lived as girls/woman since puberty and have had surgery and treatment don't like the automatic inclusion of middle-aged men just stating their new identity (is the difference between a straight drag queen and lesbian transwoman a statement by them? How do post-SRS woman and women as a whole feel about people that used to present as men dictating who they should accept as a woman? ). They express feelings that once again, male domination is now taking away their identity. These are people that no longer consider themselves trans, they are women and they are suspicious of this new level of inclusion without any type of qualification. I don't know how to discount anyones views or rule that inclusive is better than exclusive. I can understand the idea that someone that has known since birth they are women, start medical treatment at puberty and have SRS as soon as possible are suspicious of adult men that come out as trans. I can also understand that there will be legitimate transgender experiences later in life. I can say unequivocally, from what I've seen, that every trans-person believes their own experience should be accepted without question just "because" but they don't necessarily support others that make the same claim to being trans. Here's "Notes from the T-side" that's a blog of a post-SRS woman that blogs quite a bit on transexual/transgender issues [2]. And her view on Manning [3]. Here's another [4]. Here's and LGBT writer (James Kirchik) on Manning: [5][6]. And another general commentary [7] There is hardly a homogenous view of "transgender" in the community let alone the view of Manning. The blog "Notes from the T-side" is more of how I think I would feel but I can't impose that view but I also don't see how it can be discounted either. Her concerns appear heartfelt and real but also very sharply pointed at the direction of the movement. She feels there is great harm in allowing simply self-identification. It's almost as if the LGB community and the T community are now just coming to the same page but out of convenience rather than conviction and some feel they lost an identity (post-SRS women vs. transgender women that have only outwardly changed their appearance - i.e. what the above blogger calls MIDs) One of the stories in the blog is middle age man that came out as a lesbian transfemale in middle age and joined Democratic female organization ( and the biggest opponent was a lesbian member. That these views exist within the LGBT community seems to support a myriad of potential representations of the article. Without WP:CRYSTAL I'm not really comfortable with saying who will be offended. Because of that, WP:COMMONAME would be more favorable than trying to divine offense. I am still not understanding Manning's lawyers' use of feminine pronouns in the pardon petition. I can understand the legal name (I find it a weak excuse, but it's stronger than the pronouns). I think that makes the use of time specific pronouns matching the presented gender stronger as well. --DHeyward (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Smowton: Another example I came across that is more of the middle-age transition complicationsJoy Ladin[8]. I didn't know about this story until today but it is my example of married, kids, transition, divorce, etc. She wrote a book as did the ex-wife. I haven't got to the ex-wife's view. It was not a happy divorce. --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the wife's view: [9] --DHeyward (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Cis

Taking this here cos it's probably off topic at the workshop. Sorry for crowding your talk page somewhat, if you're not interested in discussing the matter further let me know and I'll butt out.

With that said, I remain baffled by your position on cis. You said you don't fit into my binary view of gender, but I'm honestly not claiming there are two gender identities -- gender is an incomprehensibly varied space, and all I mean by cis is having the "typical" or "default" position of happily identifying your birth sex and your gender. By trans* I mean anything but cis, whilst specific flavours of trans identity are smaller groupings. For example, I'm a cis man, in that I am biologically male and identify as male, but I don't think by saying that I am confining my gender identity that much, I'm just saying I don't want to assert a gender identity that diverges from my biological state.

I remain unclear if you're saying that you are trans* or if you're saying you are neither trans* nor cis. If the former then apologies for calling you otherwise :) If the latter then I'm somewhat confused because there's no space left in the venn diagram! It reads as if you're saying that you are not cis and not not-cis. So please elaborate a bit, as it's clear we must be talking at cross purposes! Chris Smowton (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Smowton: cis is a created term. I simply reject the label as its intent (or rather usurpation) is to create an outgroup.

• (cs)Which one? Is it outgrouping the majority with "default" gender, or trans people, or post-trans people, or...?
  • (dh) I think of it as two simultaneous things as the term is being used today. Note, that it's my perception that the prevalance is mostly focused at woman, not men, so I will use the female terms. As people that use the term today, "trans woman" and "woman" created a problem of two different kinds of women. An ingroup of "woman" and an "outgroup" of "trans woman" existed prior. This created natural barriers for "trans women" to drive and be part of feminist struggles that viewed "trans women" issues as not feminist ones (this still exists to some extent). So they (activist trans women) basically removed "woman" as the category and made "woman" the superset of "trans woman" and "cis woman". Now they are all "women" using the same logical Venn diagram you used. "Women who are trans" and "Women who are not trans" (i.e. cis). "cis women" became the priviled class that were excluding "trans women" and it became easier to mainstream "tran women" issues into the traditional feminist movements. You parroted what they say so it's been pretty effective as a tool to extend POV.

Homosexual and heterosexual as word constructs whose Venn diagram is logically all space but I'm not sure I could put everyone in one or the other. If I created gender categories called "female" and "not female", it's a Venn diagram that's complete space yet there would still be persons that would say "neither of those" (whether they are labeling themselves or others).

• (cs) Agreed so far... genderqueer people for example.

In fact that's one of the reasons why "cis" was created. They are rejecting that the construct of "female" and "not female" can be created that way.

• (cs) ...but here you've lost me. Firstly who is "they"? Are you saying trans people created the term, or...? Do you mean they are literally rejecting a black and white female/not-female division, or is this an analogy for trans/not-trans?
  • (dh) It's explained by trans woman activists as the belief that female/not-female view inherently excluded "trans woman" because the "cis normative" view of society didn't have a spot for trans women in a female/not female view of the world. Invariably, feminists would place pre-operative "trans women" in the "not women" as it contains a large number people that still had penises and were attracted to women (i.e. trans lesbians, cross dressers, etc). Feminists viewed that group as men posing women to get some favor or dictate feminist objectives. Over decades, this has changed with cis/trans woman labels becoming more mainstream. Now we have "trans woman" that have no intention of SRS surgery that are attracted to women with functioning penises that present themselves as women. Wachowski example comes to mind (I don't think Manning is in this group, BTW). This rift exists today though smaller.

I suspect that a lot of the comparison's to animals or vegetables are because of constructs that seem to cover all space, but don't in real life. All humans are either "female" or "not female" so if we use that type of construct, we end up with "its" and "dogs" and all sorts of pejoratives when either the person or society says "neither" to a complete universal set.

• (dh)I don't follow the connection. It seems like you're saying that people react badly to people they can't classify in a binary fashion as either a woman or not? But I'm lost on the link from binary classification to transphobia: surely that is a distate at difference or unusualness rather than at defiance of a binary per se?
  • (dh) If you are out of Venn space, where do you go? If I ask you - Lana Wachowski: Is she a woman or not?, you say A woman because gender is self-expressed. If you asked certain feminists, they may not have included her as "trans woman" is not "woman" so she's "not woman". Now, with two groups historically discriminated groups arguing about membership, society just says "neither" but Venn space of "Human Being" is completely defined by "woman/not woman" so we end up with incredible levels of exclusion because people have given up trying to fit them in the Venn space of people. Whence, the horrifically hurtful slurs (for all pre-SRS, post-SRS, non-SRS trans women) and that leave them out of the "Human Being" Venn space through exclusion by feminists and society. "cis woman" and "trans woman" labels creates that space in the "woman" side by keeping "cis" and "trans" woman as separate sub-groups that define "woman" instead of the "cis normative" definition of woman. Make sense?

The book on all this comes out next month except it will be arguing for a particular view using cis/trans lexicons to make the case that trans women issues are feminist issues as well as trans* issues are LGB issues. That view is from a certain POV.

• (cs) What book? Is this a metaphor for the arbcom decision or an actual book?
  • (dh) Next book by Serano about exclusion by LGB and Feminist movements with regards to trans women. Called "Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive" - there will be massive influx of cited passages after it's released I'm sure.

There are other POV's, especially from certain post-SRS women, that no longer say "trans woman" and certainly don't say "cis woman." They simply say "woman" or possibly "post-SRS woman." Trans might not be offensive to them but they are post-transition and want to be known only as women. For them, trans and cis aren't antonyms like they are used in chemistry, trans is a term in time. They are born, they transition, they become their gender. They don't "become" cis as it would be used in chemistry since we define "cis" as "at birth" identity and they aren't "trans," they are post-transition or post-SRS and just women. Yanking them back to "trans" when they've already dropped it, is not particularly fair to them.

• Fair enough, I hadn't thought of that before.
  • It seems to be not small. There seems to be quite a bit of resentment but momentum is large.

I mentioned autogynephilia in DSM-5 but it's all wrapped up in the same argument of whether trans* inclusive and trans* exclusive means. Julia Serano's viewpoint is on being inclusive and using terms like "trans woman" and "cis woman" to define all of "woman" space and therefore all of "feminist" space and that "trans woman" issues are feminist issues by a lexical Venn diagram (and excluding them with language is a form of "cis normative" views). She doesn't have a post-transition category, people are trans for life. She is inclusive as she doesn't recognize DSM-5 distinctions of paraphelia's vs dysphoria's and that leaves a rather large, inclusive group.

• Hmm, so you're saying she's using cis/trans to paint a two-class world in order to compel post-SRS people into taking the trans whip, as it were? Or am I lost again?
  • No, I don't think Serano considers any difference between pre/post-SRS trans women. For her, they are "trans*". I don't think she has any malice and in fact would gladly remove post/pre-SRS "trans women" differences as that is inclusive. I don't even know if Serano is post-SRS or not but she considers herself trans and gladly welcomes post-SRS women as "trans." Her goal seems to be to penetrate the feminist and LGB communities with parallel languages implying similar experience and numbers. The resentment is the other way. Post-SRS heterosexual woman don't quite subscribe all the way to functioning trans woman that have no intention of having SRS. Some post-SRS (and again, not all) don't understand it because they generally wanted to lose their penis as soon as they could and can't relate. Even if they do it later in life, they do it. The "trans lesbian" group that keep their penis and the gay man that stays intact after coming out as "trans woman" and maintain relationships with gay men (or men that want relationships with women that still have their penis) are rather large subgroups of the trans* community in terms of activism. The activist groups advocated for "cis" and "trans" and thereby including all self-identified woman into one of those two categories. This is also why cis/trans viewpoints like Serano don't like autogynephilia as a disorder because it possibly labels self-described woman as "men" with a diagnosable paraphilia unrelated to gender dysphoria disorders ultimately treated with SRS. That would basically exclude them as women and they would rejoin the hetero or gay male space as "cross dressers" or "she-males." Some post-SRS view this push as "men defining feminist agenda" and just another frustrating legacy of men defining women (or less politely "Men in Dresses" defining what it means to be women by pushing for social and legal protections that have nothing to do with being women). It goes so far as saying "cis privilege" (along with "hetero privilege" for intact trans lesbian) puts the perceived victimizer as "cis-privileged women" and the victims as "trans women." Again, the Wachowski case is similar to what irks those post-SRS women and feminist groups (and I use Wachowski as a possible example as I know a lot of the story but not all). Lana lived as man and became wealthy and succesful before she started publicly being a cross-dresser and later coming out as a woman. Her female wife divorced him as the wife didn't want to be married to cross-dresser (at the time). Lana later married another "cis woman" without getting SRS. It's hard for a post-SRS woman and even feminists that aren't trans, to see how Lana could ever be considered deprived since she lived as a man for the first 40 years or so of her life. Prior to announcing she was a woman, she was what feminists called "hetero normative" privileged male with a cis female wife and a sizable bank account. You can imagine that they might not relate their own experience to hers or even identify with her victim status. I can't discount how Lana feels and respect her decision but at the same time I also the concern by others.

"cis gender" and "cis privilege" are similar terms to those by LGB groups, therefore by a lexical Venn diagram they are exactly comparable with the hope that the same arguments can be made. That's a POV conditioned on mainstreaming those lexical constructs as reflections of society so people join in that view. But like post-SRS women that say they are post-transition and are simply "women", those lexical constructs are not meaningful to them and not helpful to them. It yanks them back to their birth gender and simply isn't who they identify as. There are neither trans women or cis women but they are women. Julia Serano's view is reflected rather largely in WP space as it's an activist view but not the only view. --DHeyward (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• (cs)Okay, I think I follow this last bit, though just to check, you're saying Serano wants a two class "cis or trans*" situation and that post-SRS "women without qualification" may not sign up to that?
  • (dh) Serano is one of many as it is a dominant view. But yes, some post-SRS females and some feminists don't subscribe to the cis/trans labeling even though (as shown above) it appears to be a complete Venn set. They basically don't agree with the activism goals and the definitions that imply what makes up a "woman" and being post-SRS, they already dropped the trans label and would resent being outed as one (some that transitioned very early and lived as women, identified as women for practically all their adult lives, faced violence and threats when they were outed as being post-SRS women but transsexual at birth as they tried to participate in feminist cicrles. They don't want to be a sub-class of women again as they have already lived that and it was awful). --DHeyward (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• (cs) If that's the case, what do you call a born-X-identifies-as-X?
  • (dh) I think they call them "men" or "women." It's the same term they use to describe themselves after their transition with SRS.
• (cs) Oooh, one more question: if trans* is a contested term like this, is there a good word that includes both trans people and post-SRS people, or is that thinking about it backwards?
  • (dh)From what I've seen, I think they prefer "woman, born transexual at birth, came out and transitioned with SRS at age X" if they are sharing that information. They may or may not be offended by a trans label but I think they distinguish more between cross dresser and transsexual rather then an all-encompassing "trans*" label as they've spent a lot of emotion and time building themselves into their female identity.
• I hope my interjections don't sound sarcastic -- I think I've about half understood, but I remain sincerely lost in places, and I'd appreciate it if you'd humour me a bit longer so I can understand the rest :)' Chris Smowton (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm an outsider looking in. I understand the arguments but it's rather a clinical view. I've already stated my views on Manning article (prefer "Bradley Manning" be a dab to all the related articles and the bio be "Chelsea Manning." I think historical pronouns for historical passages outside the bio be used (e.g. the trial article be written with "he" and "Bradley"). Inside the bio, present tense she and no "he" or "Bradley" anywhere except direct quotes. --DHeyward (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another interesting take on "cis" http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/list-of-cisgender-privileges/. As I read this definition, "cis" would include the "passing" post-SRS group. I don't know how widespread that view is. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Natalie Reed

Sorry to butt in, but your conversation above reminded me of the essayist Natalie Reed's piece on "Harry Benjamin Syndrome Syndrome" (http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/04/02/harry-benjamin-syndrome-syndrome/) - describing those who transition and then reject the label trans. Reed casts this as a form of internalised transphobia. She is verbose, but that article at least is worth a read. 7daysahead (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@7daysahead: That's it, too! I hadn't seen that one. Admittedley she's from a "cis/trans" "Big Tent T" perspective that is the prevalent view here but she make important point that is often lost: it's a political identity to umbrella those very different groups. She does leave out the feminist side except the "One Simply does not walk into trans-Feminism" - Mordor reference. Some feminists groups (cis gender) that also has opposed inclusion. I think Serano's next book is about that part too. I haven't read her first book but the amount of references to it in WP suggest it's a predominant view in Trans* articles on WP and I suspect a large influx of new references.

I read mostly the feminist concerns from post-SRS women that espouse the April Fools passage, though not as angry and more detail as they are attached to it emotionally. I think it's an easier point to make for them as they characterize the non-HBS trans* people as priviliged vs. being priviliged women that are "passable." It's the sausage factory of LGBT/Feminist politics (pardon the pun, but I mean it as the "you don't want to see how it's made" phrase).

The political part that she nailed in her article is why I don't want to identify as I am not trans and not female but if you start accepting labels, you get absorbed into the POV and I can see both points. Autogynephilia, which she discounts in the blog (as does Serano and certainly a large group of trans* individuals) is still in the DSM-V. I am not qualified to evaluate it and it seems both sides have a point so rather than judge it, just understand what it is, why some approve, why some do not.

A curiosity question: Which do you think is more frustrating for the big tent trans woman community: the struggle to be accepted by the mainstream LGB and femminist activist groups? Or society as a whole? - I could see either as one is a group that is smaller but should be more accepting while the other is overall society that's largely cruel but detached (I realize it's like asking a teenager whether they need to be accepted by their family, friends or high school). Serano's new book will hit those subjects so I suspect the struggle will be outlined but I am not sure how far out of her own trans space she will venture. Thanks for the link. --DHeyward (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I would choose "society as a whole", since the State dictates how the police will treat me and my pension rights, the culture determines whether I'll be attacked on the street etc., while the LGB part of the community determines only who will view me as a potential romantic partner. But I take your point that it's an odd question. 7daysahead (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit notice on the Silk Road page

You said, "Sources don't say allegedly. Being the owner and being "Dread Pirate Roberts" is not a crime. Use allegedly to describe crimes, not people. Also, no longer sealed it executed."

But one of the two sources (citation #33) is an article explicitly titled "FBI claims largest Bitcoin seizure after arrest of alleged Silk Road founder" (emphasis mine), so I don't really understand your edit comment. Dsrguru (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dsrguru: There's lot's of sources that make various links of Ulbrecht to Dread Pirate Roberts, DPR, Silk Road, and a number of other handles. Silk Road is allegedly a marketplace for illegal substances. Ulbrecht allegedly profited from those sales. Sources have characterized Ulbrecht's connection to the online ID's in various ways including what you stated above. Using "allegedly" everywhere though is silly. We could even say that it was Ulbrecht that was allegedly arrested but that would be extreme. It depends on where the allegation of criminal activity stems and in this case I can see separating out identity from crime. I can also see trying to separate Ulbrecht from "Dread Pirate Roberts" but I wouldn't use the term "allegedly." I would more likely just use "called by the FBI" or similar language. Save "alleged" for the criminal accusation because in the end, they are alleging Ulbrecht committed crimes, not "Dread Pirate Roberts." The linking of the names is not the criminal accusation, the arrest and criminal complaint against Ulbrecht is. It's an interpretation of WP:ALLEGED. --DHeyward (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree using "alleged" for everything is extreme, even for some of the charges yet to be tried, since it's objective fact, for instance, that the Silk Road was indeed used for drug trafficking. However, there are two main points that are very much just allegations at this time (which is proved by the presence of online commenters who dispute both points), and those are (1) whether DPR committed murder for hire (or attempted to) and (2) whether Ulbrecht is in fact DPR. Are you disagreeing that #2 is a serious contention or are you saying simply that the word "alleged" is typically used in Wikipedia articles only for the specific class of allegations that are phrased as actual counts? Dsrguru (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dsrguru: I've seen both of your examples listed in sources, so there's no use in edit warring over it. I changed it out of convention and someone added it back but I won't revert. It's not a big deal. Technically, allegations are referring to criminal activity so I would be inclined to write anything that's a criminal accusation as "alleged". To use your example I would phrase anything linking Ulbrecht to Silk Road/DPR/etc as simply "called" or "identified." You would be incorrect, though to say that the FBI is alleging DPR committed murder for hire. They are alleging Ulbrecht committed murder for hire and that Ulbrecht allegedly ran an illegal trafficking website (or however they phrased it). Too many alleged de-references misses the point of who/what is being charged criminally. They are alleging Ulbrecht committed all those crimes and they are stating he is known as those people. Stating an identity isn't a criminal charge and is not listed under the charges, so I would not say they are "alleging" it. They are calling him that.

I would write it as "The FBI identified Ulbrecht as the owner of the Silk Road online marketplace and the user "Dread Pirate Roberts." The FBI alleged that Ulbrecht committed a number of crimes including murder for hire and profitting from an illegal enterprise." Or something similar. I would use the term "identified" or "called" to describe the connection to different usernames/websites, etc, as that is not a criminal allegation and state clearly who is making the identification (i.e. it's the FBI). I would use "alleged" to convey the criminal aspects. I would not say "Silk Road" is used for drug trafficking, I would say it "is alleged that Ulbrecht used Silk Road for drug trafficking" or "alleged that Silk Road was used for drug trafficking." I'm not tied to any version though. The problem with using "alleged" to tie identities or associations is that the identity/association may be true, but that person is innocent of the crime. If they proved that Ulbrecht is DPR, that's not a crime so when we use "alleged" we imply some sort of guilt if the connection is proven. In fact, it's not until they find Ulbrecht guilty of a crime. So that's my take on why I would use alleged only to describe the criminal charges against Ulbrecht, not associations or alternate IDs. --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, we should only list charges relative to the human defendent, not any pseudonymic identities. I now agree. I guess I feel there's value, maybe more so as informal outside observers than as encyclopedia editors, in having a way to express the distinction between the accusations of Ulbrecht that are truly just allegations and the accusations that are essentially fact about the Silk Road or DPR, but where the main point of contention is whether or not Ulbrecht is in fact the guy who ran the Silk Road. But I agree now that this model of expressing court cases is not nearly objective enough to use as a Wikipedia-wide system. Dsrguru (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)