Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 144

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

→

Archive 150

Should deletion tags go first?

I notice that AutoWikiBrowser puts new tags on top of CSD/PROD/AFD tags. Is there any standard that says that deletion tags should appear above maintenance tags? It seems logical to me, but I'm unable to find anything. Andrew³²⁷ 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Stylized non-trademark titles

Do we have a guideline or consensus about non-trademark names, like song and album titles, that use strange stylization? I can’t find anything, but my impulse would be to apply MOS:TM to any oddly styled titles and use the most standard-looking format in common usage. —Frungi (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY and WikiProject Film

Merely as a heads up, there is a discussion of MOS:IDENTITY and how it applies in film articles (beginning with The Matrix and see Talk discussion there also). I have repeatedly in that discussion referred people here, so I thought I should let regulars here know about the discussion there. It's at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Describing_transgendered_individuals. I may be entirely misunderstanding MOS:IDENTITY and its application, so any input, of course, welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Canadian dollar: "CAD" vs. "CAD$"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#CAD vs. CAD$ (version of 14:19, 21 August 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding sigular they

I came here looking for guidelines on this, but perhaps someone strongly against the "singular they" can help me out: I want to add a sentence to a wikipedia article but it seems awkward with singular they, but even weirder with 'him or her' or just 'her'. The sentence: "If rain falls vertically when an observer stands still then when the observer moves forward at constant velocity the rain will appear angled to them, requiring them to tilt their umbrella slightly towards their direction of motion." How would you phrase it? Ahalda (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've created a new section for this, as it's a bit different from the discussion above. I believe in epicene he, but here's an attempt to avoid that: "Rain that falls vertically will appear to a moving observer to be angled. Such observers may therefore feel the need to carry their umbrellas tilted slightly forward." --Stfg (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I modified it a bit to fit into the context, but this works quite nicely. Ahalda (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Stfg: you've mixed singular "a moving observer" with plural "such observers". Better to make both plural. "Such" is pointedly old-fashioned in this usage nowadays. "Rain that falls vertically appears to moving observers to be angled; they may therefore feel the need to carry their umbrellas tilted slightly forward." Tony (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, that's much better. (I didn't know that about "such".) --Stfg (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I find the "...appear to a moving observer to be angled" to be awkward. We don't really need to say whose umbrellas they are, either. I would suggest: "Rain that falls vertically appears to fall at an angle from the perspective of moving observers; they may therefore feel the need to carry umbrellas tilted slightly forward." —sroc 💬 09:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, better. Tony (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good. The version I've settled on is "Rain that falls vertically will appear angled to moving observers, and they will want to carry umbrellas tilted slightly forward in their direction of motion.". I kept 'will' and 'direction of motion' since the direction is important, and nearby I mention the observer 'starting to move'. Also, for enyone else reading, I found that wikipedia has a grammar help desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahalda (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be clearer to say: "...tilted slightly toward their direction of motion"? This would avoid the tautology of "forward" and "in their direction of motion". —sroc 💬 04:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I played with that too, and I think you're right. Ahalda (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar.—Wavelength (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Sroc on the angled rain bit. What does it mean for rain to be angled? Are the drops tetrahedral or something? I've got another thing bugging be too, though. Whilst "want to" would be better than "need" or "require" none of these are really accurate. Suppose the observer is wearing a raincoat, doesn't have an umbrella, is already drenched or doesn't mind getting wet. How can we talk of needs, requirements or even desires? I suggest we aim at something more objective. How about this? "Rain falling vertically relative to the ground falls at an angle relative to a moving observer. An umbrella is therefore most effective at keeping a pedestrian dry if it is tilted forward." Jimp 10:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Engvar and date format list

Is there, in Wikipedia, a list of countries with the appropriate date format and English variety described? If not, should there be? I would find such a list to be useful. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 07:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is Date format by country. --Boson (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

I have noticed an apparent inconsistency in spelling in this guideline. Mostly it uses American spelling:

color: 21 matches; colour: not found

favor: 1 match; favour: not found

center: 2 matches; centre: 1 match (an example of British English)

meter 2 matches; metre: not found

However there are two examples of millimetre.

As this appears to be inconsistent, I propose changing this spelling to "millimeter".

Does this raise any concern? Michael Glass (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. The MoS should use one variant of English consistently. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. - Per Darkfrog24. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have no problem with ordinary text using American spelling. However, the two instances of "millimetre" are in examples, and examples need not use the same variety of English as the MOS. Also, the single instance of "centre" is in a discussion of the difference between American and British English, so should remain as is. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Agreed about leaving centre which is given as an example of British English. (I noted that above.) I don't follow the logic of the second objection. 9 millimetre gap is as much an example as 9 millimeter gap so I can't see why it would not follow the style of the rest of the MOS.Michael Glass (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Yes, the centre should stay. Though I agree that there is no need for the millimetre examples to follow the rest of the text, I can't think of any good reason for them not to. Jimp 09:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Examples are either taken from existing articles, or are representative of what one might find in a hypothetical article. Since articles may use any national variety of English, examples may use any variety of English. The presence of non-American varieties of English in the MOS will serve as a reminder to new editors that several varieties are acceptable in articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Yes, the page should be consistent and since it's been predominantly US spelling forever (right?) that's what it should be. Jimp 09:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Propose changing millimetre to milliliter. Flows better. "Gap" can be whatever. But Support American English for consistency, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, August 23, 2013

(UTC)

There seems to be general support for my proposal (5 to 1 in support of the change). However, just to make sure, I'll go over the changes again. It means changing two instances of millimetre to millimeter and leaving centre as it is because it is given as an example of British English. As an added precaution I'll wait another 24 hours before making the change. This will give time for further comments, if it is thought necessary. Michael Glass (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Actor/actress

Is there any policy on whether to call females "actor" or "actress"? 86.160.83.10 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The distinction should be retained, because it also defines the types of roles that are typically played. Actors and actresses are not usually interchangeable when it comes to casting, which is why the Oscars have two separate categories. However, it is a convention to use "actors" in a collective sense. Betty Logan (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's not really a consensus on the matter, even outside of Wikipedia. I think the best thing to do if there is any confusion is to use what reliable sources would use to describe a given person or to start a discussion to get a consensus if there's a dispute about a given usage. One exception I can think of is that females who do voice acting; they are usually referred to by reliable sources as voice actors, probably because many females commonly do voices not just for female characters but also for many male characters (especially younger male characters such as Bart Simpson, Bobby Hill, Ash Ketchum, Timmy Turner, and so on). - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 05:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is a consensus on Wikipedia. All of our featured articles about actresses use the term "actress" in the lede when referring in the singular sense. We also make the distinction between "actors" and "actresses" at the category level. I would say a dozen or so FA reviews and the organizational structure of the project constitute a consensus in this case. There may be a legitimate argument for making an exception for voice performers who exclusively do male and female voiceover work, but it's an exception rather than the rule. Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any serious discussion of the use of "actor" vs. "actress" recently? I can't find one in a quick search. There's certainly a de facto consensus, but consensus can change and if there hasn't been an RfC on this issue recently, maybe there should be. If a woman self-identifies as an "actor" rather than an "actress", should we not respect this, as we do other self-identifications? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The word actor is not gender specific, and if reliable sources or the individual herself favoured the use of actor when referring to themselves, then there is no basis on Wikipedia to contradict that. There doesn't appear to be a consensus on this subject, as a consensus involves a discussion, that a given set of of articles use a term is not a consensus for usage of that term outside of the specific article being discussed, and certainly not one to justify use on other articles if reliable sources contradict that usage (though there may be a "de facto" consensus, such as it is). I'm not suggesting that we should go around changing actress to actor on any article, but I am saying that Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources, rather than a non-existent guideline on which is correct. Generally, however, reliable sources do use actress, so it's not really an issue for most articles, but if an individual expresses that they are an actor, it would be inappropriate to dismiss that just for the sake of matching a category or some other article about some other person. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 10:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As ever, I'd be wary of the "use reliable sources" in individual cases advice for this kind of thing. That's always pretty random and simply depends on the varying style guides of individual publications. If Mary Smith has been written about more often in the Guardian than in the Sun, it's likely you'll find her more often referred to as an actor than an actress and vice-versa. I'm not sure that tells us much of substance. Style choices like this are not an issue of "reliability" of sources in the same way that substantive content is. N-HH talk/edits 10:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and probably should have been more clear about that. I specifically meant what the individual used to refer to themselves, if such a thing was reported by reliable sources, rather than what the reliable sources chose to call the individual based on their own style guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 10:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. On that specific aspect, I agree. N-HH talk/edits 10:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the replies. I believe this to be a potentially contentious issue. I would like the MoS to include specific written guidance that can be a recourse in the event of disputes. From what I gather so far, women should be called after their own preference, where that is known. The preference of other sources (e.g. media sources) is not relevant, since they follow their own style guidelines which may differ from Wikipedia's. The term "voice actor" is preferred for both sexes. The term "actor" is preferred for women who primarily play male roles. Of course, this leaves a gaping hole in the case of women who are not voice actors and who play female roles, and who have not stated a preference, or whose preference is not known. What then? Do they default to "actress"? 86.160.213.112 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You have covered all the bases well. I think aside from the exceptions you list above (i.e. personal preference, voiceover work etc), the default wording for a woman who mostly portrays women should be "actress". Another exception I can think of is in the context of industry awards: all Best Actress oscar winners/nominees should be referred to as "actresses" in the context of those awards, while in the analogous category for the SAG awards they should be referred to as "female actors". I think we should develop a simple guideline so people don't have to keep asking or get into disputes over it, but it would better done over at the Film project. I have started a discussion at WT:FILM#"Actor" or "actress" for erm, actresses? if you would like to participate. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Language Log: "Manning's pronouns"

Language Log has a discussion at Language Log » Manning's pronouns.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I get a page that says “Your PHP installation appears to be missing the MySQL extension which is required by WordPress.“—Odysseus1479 00:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Google cache of the page.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dashes in compounds

The format of the article title "Fox–Fordyce disease" is discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Long dash travesty (version of 18:38, 24 August 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

shortcut template

Please add

{{shortcut|MOS:Blockquote}}

to the head of the "Block quotations" sub-section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I notice the page is not showing a padlock icon; could that be remedied as well?—Odysseus1479 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done both. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. MOS:Blockquote should now work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this page for 3 days to stop the flood of !voters coming in to !vote on the "survey" above. Please note that I personally have absolutely no opinion on the matter, and am not trying to "stifle" discussion; rather, I simply don't care which way the community decides, as I'll enforce (as an administrator and editor) whichever decision meets consensus. I apologize to the small number of IP editors who seem to be Wikipedia veterans and are contributing in good faith, but I see no other way to keep this discussion manageable. Any regular editors who want to leave a real message that is actually germane to the discussion can do so at User:Qwyrxian/MoS comments and I will endeavor to copy them over as needed. Note that I will ignore/delete any "votes" that I see there, as they have absolutely no value to our process. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a better section title?

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Within_Manual_of_Style ... needs "the". But it's just not clear what it refers to. Tony (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"See also" - Tony, I did a quick check of the edit history of the page and found that less than a year ago "Within Manual of Style" was a sub-section of "See also". It was moved on March 26, 2013 by User:Moxy, who, from the edit summary ("this is is the wrong place ...move down"), I believe thought that there was an error in the location of the "See also" section, not realizing that "Within Manual of Style" was a sub-section rather than an additional, separate section. The section header (and the links inside the section) make more sense as a sub-category of a "See also" section. 99.192.67.148 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I support restoring it to its previous level and position as a subsection of the section "See also".

—Wavelength (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you are referring to this revision at 07:33, 26 March 2013.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the one! 99.192.84.128 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I restored the layout at 23:29, 30 August 2013.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For want of a hyphen...

...the meaning was lost. Today I heard a news item on NPR talking about "criminal and national security matters", pronounced as if "criminal and national" modified security, instead of sounding like the intended "criminal and national-security matters". Quotes with this phrase from both Microsoft and Facebook now appear already in WP at PRISM (surveillance_program)#Post-PRISM transparency reports. The NPR news anchor was misled by the lack of hyphen (and sounded lame because of it, to those who could infer what was intended), as I expect many of our readers will be misled. Would it be OK to fix the styling/punctuation of quotes for this kind of problem? Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

From what little formal grammar education I received, one thing was that compound adjectives should be connected by a hyphen. National and security are both adjectives of matters, and so it should be national-security matters. Otherwise, "criminal and national security matters" implies criminal security-matters and national security-matters. It sounds like what was pronounced was read as "criminal- and national-security matters", expandable to criminal-security and national-security matters. Dicklyon's point seems to be covered by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens point 3, third dot point. No? I think Dicklyon's question would seem to be: Should we correct the hyphenation in quotes, or use "(sic)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my entirely inexpert judgment I think it'd be best to add a bracketed hyphen, even though that's kind of obnoxious. If we just put sic, it won't be clear what the error is; if we put "sic: national-security" that's even worse than using brackets. I don't happen to think that just adding the hyphen without brackets would be bad personally, because if they didn't use a hyphen they obviously meant to, but what I do know is that there is a lot of resistance among other editors to modifying quotes. AgnosticAphid talk 05:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, is it just me or is it also totally incorrect that Facebook puts a hyphen between security and related in "national security-related" in its statement? As though they are talking about nationwide safety concerns rather than terrorism. AgnosticAphid talk 05:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think a hyphen can be inserted into a quote when it was verbal quote mis-transcribed, even if by the speaker's official PA. If the quote is quoting a written source directly, better to slightly obnoxious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Two issues here. First, when transcribing an oral (not "verbal") source, you can do as you wish in terms of typography to make it as clear as possible in terms of the intended meaning. You can change the spelling variety from that of the speaker's unless it would jar with the readers in the context. Second, yes, I'd be inclined from the grammar of the intonation, as Dick picked it up, to hyphenate—even in AmEng. CMOS still wants hyphens to avoid misleading or ambiguous wording. Tony (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree about the general point that there is more flexibility when we are talking about transcription of genuinely spoken words that did not otherwise exist in written form (although I'd add that when press releases for example refer to Chief Executive Smith as saying "we are pleased to announce ..", be aware that he probably never actually spoke those words). But both the Facebook and Microsoft pieces referred to here are in writing. We really should not be adding or moving punctuation in such quotes, even if it's likely to have been punctuated in error, especially not based on what we think was "really" meant. And in these cases there aren't even necessarily errors – an unhyphenated reference to "national security" is fine, even when used as a compound adjective, as it's a standard phrase whose meaning is surely clear to the average reader; "national security-related" could arguably be mis-hyphenation, but in the context it could be a deliberate attempt to distinguish national issues from international issues. I'd just leave them alone. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • N-HH, sure. May I add, then, that a press release is in-house and is taken as approved by the person quoted; they're usually confabulated. Can I take it that the same greater degree of flexibility exists for translated texts? (Expecting you to say yes.) Tony (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as the cliché has it, translation is more art than science. That said, if one was quoting a specific, existing and noted translation I'd apply the same principle: don't fix the punctuation to suit one's preference or one's understanding of what was "really" meant. At the end of the day let's not forget that the application and positioning of much punctuation, especially hyphens and commas, is very subjective. We're often not "correcting" anything, we just imposing our own preferences over those of the quoted source; which of course renders it no longer a precisely accurate quote. N-HH talk/edits 09:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony. If you heard the sentence, Dickylon, just transcribe it yourself and cite the radio program as the source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Time magazine article on naming conventions

For those who are interested, Time magazine has recently published an article on naming conventions related to the Manning name change. It can be found at When Did Chelsea Manning Become Chelsea Manning? on their website. I'll note this was already mentioned, but seems to be buried in one of the discussions above and I thought others might be interested in reading it. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)}} Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.112 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Copied from User:Qwyrxian/MoS comments per 64.40.54.112's request. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Self reference to Wikipedia at Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage

I have removed the section on Wikipedia per WP:SUBJECT, but editors keep adding it back again. Would appreciate input at Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Wikipedia?. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY/WP:NOR/WP:SYN and retroactive use of new names

FYI, I have started a discussion here about whether or not using a person's new name when discussing periods of their life during which they were known by another name violates wp:Verifiability, wp:No original research and/or wp:Synthesis (as some have claimed). I am posting here because I have seen the question/argument come up often in discussions that otherwise centre on the MOS, so I imagine those who watch this page might have particular interest or experience in dealing with it. -sche (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Consistency section needs new shortcut

The section in the article Wikipedia:RETAIN#Consistency_within_articles features WP:CONSISTENCY which instead goes to an inactive archived article on the topic. Someone familiar with shortcut design is requested to please create a new shortcut. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the old shortcut and added two new shortcuts at 19:12, 30 August 2013.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits, reversion of edits, and re-reversion of edits to MOS:IDENTITY

Editors may have noticed an edit by GabrielF, a reversion by myself, and a re-reversion by GabrielF (see here). I don't wish to press the limits of the discretionary MOS sanctions – honestly, I can't believe I made the one reversion – so can we get an outside view on whether there is a consensus for this change and a reversion if warranted? There's a discussion above about this and I'll freely admit I'm the only person that chimed in who dissented, but it seems to be to be particularly unwise to make a change to this particular portion of the guideline in the middle of a super high profile and controversial requested move involving exactly the sentence whose deletion I reverted, especially given the low participation in the discussion above. Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 02:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I am not entirely familiar with the discretionary sanctions policy. My understanding is that it does not imply WP:1RR. However, I will self-revert if requested to do so by an administrator. As consensus does not require unanimity, I do not see why a single objection should prevent a change that is otherwise supported by all participants in a discussion. GabrielF (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there was a survey going on further up the page on the same very section, and that survey was going an entirely different direction (and was much more formal).Cam94509 (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguing with myself: I am completely wrong and have made a mistake, I thought the revision was broader than it was. Is it safe for me to re-revert my change, or would that cause trouble? Cam94509 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, the "above" discussion is here. AgnosticAphid talk 02:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The proposal was made four days ago. In those four days, a couple of dozen different editors have posted some comment or other in one section or another on this page. So it's not as if people have not had the opportunity to offer an opinion. As I read it, four people support the change. One does not. The rest don't really care. For any other editing change discussion on any other page a 4-1 result after 4 days would be a clear consensus to go ahead. I don' see why this should be any different. 99.192.93.163 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I endorse GabrielF's revision, since it seems that there was enough consensus to execute the proposed deletion of text. Most discussion participants seemed to agree with the spirit of the change, and the dissenting viewpoints were considered. However, as AgnosticAphid notes, the participation was small, so the consensus could easily change if the discussion continues. Edge3 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I also endorse it as the text was confusing and made little sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Shoot, I screwed up on this. Is it safe for me to rerevert my change? Cam94509 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Captions seems more informative than its sub-page WP:CAP

Thread retitled from "Section Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions seems to be more informative than sub-page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions regarding punctuation of captions.".

The section Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Captions seems to be more informative than the sub-page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions in that it better describes the punctuation when a caption contains both a sentence fragment and a full sentence, namely that each sentence and each sentence fragment should end with a period. Especially since WP:Captions redirects to the sub-page, should the sub-page be amended accordingly? --Boson (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the differences or caption matters generally, but the usual rule is that, yes, "In case of discrepancy, this page has precedence over its subpages and the Simplified Manual of Style." You could be bold and update the subpage and if someone objects take it from there, maybe. AgnosticAphid talk 14:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What if someone switches gender and/or names frequently?

several implausible hypotheticals posted by a single user; not a productive or useful discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thread retitled from "what if someone tries to claim different genders and/or names so often that it will confuse people, and be hard to keep up to date?". If you were a public figure and you announced you wanted to be addressed by a different name and gender everyday, should the Wikipedia editors alter your page to reflect your wish on a daily basses?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk • contribs) This is based on a misunderstanding of gender identity, and so isn't really a question that can be correctly answered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC) ok firstly the part about name change doesn't necessarily relate to gender issues. secondly it's my understanding that the idea is to give the person total right of choice on what gender they wish to be addressed as without anything official (like say a diagnoses of being transgender) required as proof. If that is the case then there’s nothing to stop a person doing what I said even if just to fuck with the site? That'd be an extraordinary situation and we'd have to get a consensus that the rules aren't helping. The manual of style is just here to solve obvious problems and avoid repetitive arguments, not create ironclad demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) you think it's helpfull to call someone by anyother name besides the one they're most well known for? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC) We cannot distort everything we do here just in case some bizarre hypothetical might theoretically happen. (See also WP:BEANS. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC) You're evading the question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC) What if an organization's WP:COMMONNAME is only ever written in a script Unicode has not encoded; what will we title the article? What if the WMF bans the English Wikipedia from using the word "the"; how will we express definiteness? Does this occur on any regular basis, or is this another unlikely boogeyman scenario? -sche (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC) we would write the title in the normal font because font isn’t an aspect of correct spelling, and ignore the law. can you answer my question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC) There is no reason to try and write policy or guidance to comply with a situation that does not actually happen. If it does happen, we can figure something out; and in the unlikely event they're deliberately trying to be confusing we can treat it accordingly. But clamouring to address this sort of speculative edge-case doesn't help discussions. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC) There doesn't have to be a policy for each and every possible event, it can be dealt with if it happens. --Space simian (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) What if a group speaks a foreign language and has a foreign-language autonym? formerly titled: "the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself" what about groups who don’t commonly speak English who’s word for them selves differs from the English language version of their collective group name? 0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, we have to go by what's available in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Use the name a person is most commonly known by, or their legal name, as the title of the page about them formerly titled: It makes the most sense to either title a person’s pages by the name the person is most commonly known by (unless the name was made up as an as insult to them), or their legal name in their primary country of residence It makes the most sense to either title a person’s pages by the name the person is most commonly known by (unless the name was made up as an as insult to them), or their legal name in their primary country of residence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk • contribs) You're posting this to the wrong talk page. Page titles are governed by WP:AT, not the MOS. You should post this topic on WT:AT, not here. 99.192.66.56 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

MOS:Identity

NO CONSENSUS TO ALTER MOS GUIDELINE:

The discussion and resulting survey was on the question of the MoS advice regarding MOS:IDENTITY, and if there was still community support for it - particularly in light of the media attention related to Bradley Manning's statement that they wish to be regarded as female. During the discussion there were references to the style guidelines of newspapers, and the advice given by relevant organisations, such as GLAAD: "Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition. It is usually best to report on transgender people's stories from the present day instead of narrating them from some point or multiple points in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns." and an email response to a query by a journalist, in which the NLGJA said: "“When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time". There are interesting points raised on both sides of this dispute. And what is also worth noting, is that the discussion took place in a respectful manner. Pertinent points raised on both sides relate to dealing with gender specific moments in a person's life; using quotes which include gender pronouns; and applying what reliable sources say. A number of those supporting the current wording, felt that as regards gender identity, the most appropriate source was the subject themselves. While there is no consensus to change the current wording, there may be room, as has been commented, for a separate discussion on how to deal with writing about gender specific past moments. Some pages which may be related or useful for that discussion: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Register#Gender-neutral_language. There was mention of the Wikipedia:No consensus essay stating that in regards to policies, a no consensus discussion should result in the section being removed. I was not aware that this was common practise. The usual WP:NOCONSENSUS outcome (except in certain BLP situations which would favour the wishes of the subject concerned) is to retain the status quo. In this case, though, even disregarding the IP votes, there is a distinct majority in support of keeping the MoS advice as written, which advises that the subject's declared current gender preference should apply "in references to any phase of that person's life." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

---

I think the Bradley Manning fiasco has pointed out a flaw in MOS:IDENTITY. If s/he had wanted to change his name to Jesus Christ, the current policy would allow a redirect. This needs serious revision. Toddst1 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would it "allow a redirect"? If there were more than one notable person called "Jesus Christ" (which there may be for all I know), then standard article title guidelines would apply – recognizability would clearly show the Christian use to be the main one, and then a hatnote would link to a single alternative use or a disambiguation page with a list of alternative uses. Where's the problem? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not with respect to Wikipedia's organization but its objectivity/neutrality. An article subject's subjective experience of him or herself cannot trump any and all contrary objective presentation if Wikipedia is to maintain the neutral point of view. The "Any person whose gender might be questioned..." bullet point should have the following limiter added after "...reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification": "unless that subjective self-identification is unlikely to objectively verified (that is, adopted by a neutral point of view) by legal approval and usage by reliable third party sources."--Brian Dell (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two different issues here. As I understand it, Toddst1's issue was about article titles and redirects to them. I contend that this isn't a problem. Balancing all five criteria at WP:AT will lead to as objectively determined a title as is possible.

You are talking about the use of pronouns and other words which have grammatical gender in English. I think most reasonable people would object to "legal approval" being involved – whose laws? "Reliable sources" (necessarily third party) are a different matter. However, since gender identity is a highly politicized issue, reliable sources are likely to differ. For example, The Guardian today uses "she" for Chelsea/Bradley Manning, and has changed quotations which had "he" in the original by using "[she]". But that's what you would expect of the UK's leading liberal/left newspaper. I doubt the US military will be quick to follow! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Under the current military policy? Don't hold your breath. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 10:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as a subject's expressed gender preference is verifiable (a reliable primary source is obviously fine for this) and unambiguous then Wikipedia should absolutely be following it in all cases. Where the expressed preference is not unambiguous we should absolutely follow it as best we can, noting the ambiguity. Just because other sources do not have as strong protections for living people does not mean that ours are wrong or that we should not follow them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? To avoid hurting feelings? It is non-factual, dishonest, and bad English. Clinton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing non-factual or dishonest about it. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A change is needed to this guideline. Gender identity should not be based on the person's identification, unless it is supported scientifically and legally. If she and he can be switched around by simply deciding so, then they don't really mean anything anymore. Anyone who says otherwise has a fundemental misunderstanding of pronouns in the English language. Other languages, such as Azerbaijani, have gender neutral nouns. English does not, so unless the English language changes, this guideline is neither neutral and objective, nor realistic. Gender is decided by role in reproduction, and in some extreme cases when gender is changed surgically. This is what gender should be based on. However, there should be a section in any relevant articles explaing that the person identifies differently. Sovetus (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can have complicated discussions, for example about the theoretical difference between sex and gender etc. Meanwhile, I'm not sure it's as simple as saying "whatever people identify as", even with BLP in mind; third-party views and sources do count and there can be a clear contradiction in some cases. At the risk of trivialising the issue – and yes I know the comparison is not exact by any means – if someone declares that they are "a Martian" or "a genius" we don't take that as read. N-HH talk/edits 12:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very much in agreement. Gender can have multiple meanings, one of which is actually based on biology. Wikipedia itself says this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender). I am arguing that Wikipedia should use the interpretation that gender is the same as sex, as this avoids confusion by being the simplest definition. If you are born with male parts and legal documents say you are male, then this is what it should be. Call a spade a spade. In cases where some people identify differently, in the article, this can be pointed out. It may even be the reason that person is famous. Most cases where people are really serious about it are actually using some method to biologically change their gender however, in these cases, it would be fine to change what we call them.Sovetus (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What if the spade really super cereal SWEARS it is a club in a spade's body? Clinton (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

N-HH, I appreciate that you acknowledged the comparison is inexact, but really it's worse than inexact. I'd encourage you to read 99.192.64.222's comment in the section above. Whether something is a martian or a spade is a objectively verifiable. Gender is not because it encompasses a biological component, which is admittedly verifiable, but also an identity component, which is not. That's the reason people have gender identity disorder; their biological sex doesn't match their identified gender. If wikipedia's article about geniuses was to say that being a genius is in part something that you can determine yourself based on your own identity, then we would need to seriously consider whether someone saying they're a genius should affect how their wikipedia article identified them. It's the same thing here and nobody's really provided much of a reasoned explanation why biological sex should necessarily triumph over identity in the gender context. AgnosticAphid talk 23:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I know it seems an uncommon habit among people commenting on talk pages, but I do usually at least try to skim-read most of the existing observations before throwing my own in, even on convoluted threads like this. Sometimes I wish people would do that more often (it would save people have to repeat themselves or re-explain everything 20 times over). Anyway, I did read their comment, and also understand the points they made already, as I suggested when I said there is a complicated debate to be had about sex and gender. As I said, my comparison was inexact, but was only made to highlight the general point about self-identification not necessarily being a trump card. And, indeed, that general principle can still apply even in this kind of case, even if it obviously does not apply in exactly the same way as in others. N-HH talk/edits 11:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We should vote on this, for consensus purposes. I reckon we should change the identity guideline so that biological and legal considerations take priority over personal choice for gender identity. Sovetus (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work by voting. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But it works by consensus. I have seen voting here before, but it was called a survey. Same format (bolded support or oppose). It's basically a gauge for consensus. Sovetus (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support As making gender based on personal decision voids the idea of gender. There may as well not be a difference between he and she if I can just change when I want to. Sovetus (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia already has a good rule for stuff like this... follow the sources. If the sources use "he" when talking about a person, so should Wikipedia. If sources use "she", so should Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is true. However a scenario can be imagined where someone surgically, legally, and personally changes their gender to identify as a different gender, but the sources use the original one, or if sources are mixed in their terminology. A rule needs to made made so that objectivity and neutrality can be achieved regarless of source error. Sources may also report that trees are in fact animals, but Wikipedia should not then change science and facts. Sovetus (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What if, as they almost certainly will in this sort of case, different sources use different terms or say different things? Simply saying "follow sources" often doesn't help much. N-HH talk/edits 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1's worry was about article titles. That is not a realistic worry because (1) Article titles are determined by a person's "common name", not simply whatever name they decide they want to use. (2) As Peter coxhead clearly points out, if Manning's "common name" actually became "Jesus Christ" then it would be easy enough to use that with an appropriate disambiguating parenthetical as an article title. (3) The worry that this would be "revisionist" is not a real worry. As I mentioned in a section above, Metta World Peace is the current name and the article title for a person who has lived most of his life with the name "Ron Artest". There is nothing "revisionist" about the title reflecting his new "common name" and the article refers to him as "Artest" when discussing his life before the name change. Name changes are not a problem.

As for the worry about gender, the folks objecting really don't get it. Sovetus talks about "personal choice for gender identity" and a how a person might "just change when [they] want to". That's not how gender works. Again, think of it like sexual orientation. Whether a person is gay, straight, or bisexual is not a "choice" and people cannot just change their sexuality when they want to. Furthermore, a person's sexual orientation is something that we take a person at their word about for the purposes of Wikipedia articles, not what any secondary sources say. So if a person says they are gay, their article counts them as gay. If they say they are straight, the article counts them as straight. Gender is the same. If a person says they are female by gender, then we count them as such. If they say they are male by gender, then we count them as such as well. The idea that loads of people might be flipping gender willy-nilly on a whim-of-the-moment is nonsense. The suggestion that we should be worried about it in the absence of it ever having happened this way shows a deep ignorance of gender identity. 99.192.69.149 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.222)

No. Being gay isn't a choice, and I agree, neither is being male or female. Being male for example is based on having male reproductive parts, and whether or not you're officially registered as a male. It's the same with species, or ethnicity. If you're Korean, officially you will be listed as Korean, however much a Korean might believe they are actually Russian. If you're a human, you cannot be called a frog because you change your thought on this. Being a man is not a choice, you are correct. Because you are born as a man, and stay as a man, biologically, unless you actually change this using surgery. As much as we should respect transgendered people, we should not call them someone different than they are, avoiding science and facts. I say we call a spade a spade.

It is true that some rules exists for some of these situations. But the guideline previous to my change I believe is not sufficient for an encyclopedia that is based on facts, and is objective, regardless of any of the other rules that sometimes apply instead of this one (they do not conflict either). Sovetus (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sovetus: "Being gay or not is by definition a choice." If you really believe this, then you don't understand human sexuality at all. No further discussion of the matter will be productive so long as you hold demonstrably false beliefs. Policy should not be based on fiction about human sexuality, but by fact. 99.192.69.149 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that facts should be used. Which is why I have edited the article to reflect science and law. Indeed, it says gender should be based on science and law. How much more factual can one get?

You are essentially saying "I'm right and you're wrong". Please give more support to your arguments than this.Sovetus (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologize. I meant to say that being gay or not is by definition is not a choice, but being male or female by definition is not a choice as well. I mistyped. I agree with your view on this issue completely. I have edited the statement in question.Sovetus (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, being male or female is not a choice. Manning did not choose to be female any more than you, Sovetus, chose your gender. I am delighted that we are in agreement on this point but I am having difficulties reconciling your eminently sensible statement with your support for this proposal. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If we were going to base gender on biology, would it mean we will make all wikipedia articles use neutral-gender names until we can have genetic tests published in verifiable sources? Sounds very practical. Vexorian (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, what was originally used before any declared change is fine. Sovetus (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I might add also that when people decide to change their gender, they say what they were before, and what they were changing to. You seem to think that we don't know anyone's gender. Take for example, Lionel Messi. Are you suggesting that we don't know his gender? When someone created his article, they knew what to write.Sovetus (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sovetus, first, thanks for the above correction note. Second, you are confusing biological sex with (non-biological) gender. Here are the words that Chelsea manning wrote explaining her transition: "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition." I added bold to the key phrase. Chelsea is going to change her sex now, but she has always been a "she", even in childhood. That has not changed. 99.192.69.149 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Necessary correction: The word "gender" does mean "state of being male or female, sex" and also means "gender role" and it also means "gender identity." Perhaps Sovetus needs to be clearer about which sense of gender is being used, but that does not mean that Sovetus is confused. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This might sound rude (and I really only mean to be clear, not rude), but if we are having a conversation about woodworking and someone kept pointing out that the word "stool" can also mean "feces" I would find it odd. This conversation is taking pace in a context where no one is talking about a person's gender role and where "gender" is being used as a contrast to "sex", so the meanings should be clear for the purposes of this conversation. But if they are not, check the opening lines of the page for transgender: "Transgender is the state of one's gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one's assigned sex (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex)." This is a conversation about how to refer to people who are transgender. If the words "sex" and "gender" need to be explained further, then the person who needs the explanation does not understand the parameters of the discussion. (And when I refer to Manning's "sex", I do not mean his experiences of sexual intercourse or am not archaically referring to his penis, both dictionary definitions of "sex". But that should be clear in the context right?) 99.192.69.149 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But if the word "stool" also meant "hammer" and "shelf," then pointing out that it had three meanings would be entirely relevant and necessary to a conversation about woodworking. "Gender" means "state of being male or female" and "gender role," and "gender identity," so if you say, "what really matters here is Manning's gender," then yes you have to say which definition you're using if you want to be understood. No it is not clear in context whether you mean Manning's self-concept as female or Manning's decision to follow the rules that society sets out for women rather than those set for men. Manning's gender-in-general, gender role and gender identity are all under discussion here. No, Sovetus is not necessarily confusing gender with sex. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sovetus, your position is contrary to widespread medical practice and the law of several countries including the UK. Loudly repeating your opinion doesn't make it true. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what are you referring to? I might add that loudly has no meaning in an online discussion context, and that you basically used an ad hominem type of argument. Sovetus (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OK... let's look at this from another angle. Gender identity is a Point Of View (POV)... and how we present a given POV in an article is governed (in part) by assessing Due Weight. So... the question that we need to ask is this: How much WEIGHT should we give the personal gender identification of the subject? The answer to that question is not something we can mandate in an MOS... because DUE WEIGHT depends many factors that are article specific. We will get a different answer in different articles. If the sources are mixed, then it is appropriate to give a fair amount weight to the subject's self-identification. If, on the other hand, the sources are fairly united, then giving a lot of weight to the subject's self-identification will be a case of giving UNDUE weight to a minority POV. In short, we have to take this on a case by case, article by article basis. We simply can't create an MOS style rule for it. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A MOS rule already exists. I guess you can argue for deleting it in another section. Here, we're arguing about changing it so that it's based on biology and legal documents, etc. rather than the person's statements alone. Sovetus (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I've found the core issue here: To quote Brian Dell, "An article subject's subjective experience of him or herself cannot trump any and all contrary objective presentation." True. However, there is no contrary objective presentation in this case. The fact that Manning used to wear suits is not objective proof that Manning has really been male the whole time. It has been argued that gender is based on human biology. I agree. However, human biology is not limited to the presence or absence of male genitalia. It includes genes and chromosomes, gene expression, blood chemistry, primary sexual anatomy and secondary sexual anatomy (including brain anatomy) and probably a bunch of other things that haven't been discovered yet. I would agree with Sovetus that scientific proof of a person's gender should trump what that person has to say about his or her gender, but right now, there is no scientific way of proving that a person is male or female in the sense that we mean here. Basing Wikipedia policy on concrete and observable evidence is great (we could use more of it, actually), but we are working in the absence of concrete and observable evidence. The only real question here is what we should use instead of scientific evidence for the basis of our policy. With at least a few of the people who've chimed in over the past few days, this is probably more about discomfort with the idea that human gender identity isn't always obvious than with ideas of evidence, honesty and verifiability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why do the legal documents matter? Why are people talking about scientific evidence? It isn't for us to decide. I concur with Blueboar's assessment that what really matters is due weight; let the reliable sources decide what to call someone, and then we can assess that. There should be no fixed rules for these cases beyond what is already in WP:NPOV, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My point of view is that the name and gender used should align with what the person presented at the time relevant to the text. In this case the individual performed acts as Bradley, was tried as Bradley, and was convicted as Bradley. All text covering this past era should use Bradley and he. Going forward, the individual in question may be referred to as Chelsea and she although even that is debatable given the restrictions put in place by the Army. I find it just as silly to talk about Chelsea Manning before this announcement as I would to talk about Muhammad Ali prior to 1964. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Manning describes her gender as based on feelings she's had "since childhood." Manning didn't change from male to female but rather discovered that she always was female or at least so close to it that a female gender identity is a better fit than a male one. Look at it this way: Say a country music singer refers to herself as having been born in Nashville. She's not lying. She writes a hit song "Born in Nashville." Years after her career is over, she digs up her birth certificate and finds out that she was born in Memphis. Oops. Any article about her should refer to her as having been born in Memphis, even when discussing periods during which she, her fans, and the authors of secondary sources believed that she had been born in Nashville. It should include a line or two explaining the mix-up so that her songs and references to her as a Nashville native make sense, but we don't have to keep perpetuating a mistake. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Khajidha: (1) You are confusing name with gender. Articles like the ones for Muhammad Ali and Metta World Peace make it clear that the name that should be used is the name at the time. So Ali is referred to as "Clay" for his early life, early career, Olympic win, and for when he first became world champion. World Peace is referred to as "Artest" through most of his article, since the name change is very recent. That is not the question here. The question is gender reference, which is entirely different.

(2) "...gender used should align with what the person presented at the time relevant to the text." So if a man decides to live part of his life merely pretending to be a woman, we should use female pronouns because of how he "presented" himself? That's silly. A person is the gender they are, regardless of their name and regardless of their biological sex. Using the correct gender pronoun is not a matter of how one "presents" themselves. 99.192.69.149 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, a person is the gender that they are because of their biological sex. In its general English sense, gender is biological sex. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

See my reply above. "Stool" is "feces", but hopefully not when you sit on it and not in the context of woodworking. We are discussing a people who are transgender and "Transgender is the state of one's gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one's assigned sex (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex)." You are confusing the issue by bringing in other definitions from other, irrelevant contexts. 99.192.69.149 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No I am not confusing the issue because these definitions are not irrelevant. Manning's gender, gender and gender have all come up in this discussion, by which I mean whether or not Manning is really a woman physically, what role Manning wishes to play in society and whether Manning feels him/herself to be a woman or a man on the inside, then no, none of these definitions are irrelevant. (Maybe the fact that it also means "to breed" and "type or kind" and the fact that it's the name of a grammatical category aren't relevant, but the senses in which it has been used are relevant.)

To almost everyone who isn't a social scientist, "gender" means "state of being male or female, sex." In context, it is not clear from your posts whether you mean "gender role" or "gender identity" when you say "gender." Yes, you need to say "role" or "identity" if you wish to be understood. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We should refer to a subject by the gender that the majority of reliable sources use for them. WP:RS is one of Wikipedia's core policies and should be reflected in the manual of style. --PiMaster3 ^talk 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am in agreement with this. We often argue that content needs to be verifiable in accordance with our policies, and that reliable sources be used to prove our edits. What makes this any different? Is there a reason for an exception being made here, so that we can state a person's identity without basing it on how it is described by reliable sources? Simply saying that "the subject requests to be identified as X" seems to be at odds with this. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The MOS' style guidance on the choice of pronouns for transgender individuals is based on reliable sources and in line with other style guides, including but not limited to the AP style manual. Choosing whether to use "he" or "she" in a given sentence is an issue of style, not content. Style issues are determined by the MOS, which in turn bases its style guidance on reliable sources. AgnosticAphid talk 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the proposal to revise the Identity guideline in accordance with Wikipedia's basic rules on verifiability and sourcing. I would also point out, as in the case of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, that if the article is not the person's biography, but instead records a historical event (the US v Manning case), that person's gender should be presented in the context that is consistent with how they were known during that time. To do otherwise creates factual inconsistencies and is a form of revisionism. Take into account, for example, the mistreatment that Manning suffered during imprisonment. This was, at the time, considered to be men (guards) abusing another man. Through revisionist eyes, however, this now becomes an issue of men abusing a woman. Though you might argue that it doesn't matter because either form of abuse is wrong, it can and does change the meaning for most readers. I can see no reason why such articles are subject to the same rules as those for biographies, as long as the gender discrepancy is factual - Manning at the time was Bradley and known to the public as a man. It is fine to mention that a person later changed their gender publicly, but this should not warrant retroactive editing of pronouns when discussing historical events. This will inevitably lead to confusion over issues like 'why was a woman incarcerated in a men's prison'? The encyclopedia should be clarifying what happened, not causing more confusion. 65.87.26.122 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The MOS is fine as it is. I find that many of the comments here reflect a lack of basic understanding of gender identity. If someone identifies themselves as a female and says that they've felt as though they were a female since birth – which is exactly what the soldier formerly known as Bradley Manning said – then who are we to say "Wrong! You have a penis, so you're a man!" (Assuming that we could somehow actually verify the genitalia of our BLP article subjects, which is obviously impossible in most situations.)

At any rate, the guidance in the MOS is well in line with other style guides, so it shouldn't be changed. You can read a news article about that here; the Washington Post notes that "The Associated Press’s widely used stylebook says reporters should use the name and pronouns preferred by a transgender person, even if the person has not changed his or her sexual identity yet. Thus, Manning would be referred to as “she” in AP articles." Even if some media sources continue to use he, the MOS is explicitly prescriptive and this sort of thing isn't and shouldn't be a popularity contest. Further reading is here. AgnosticAphid talk 18:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Postscript: the New York Times manual of style also agrees, and they even also used the phrase "The Soldier Formerly Known as Bradley Manning" (see here! AgnosticAphid talk 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's place to choose a particular point of view on this or any other issue, either for or against. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia is not for advocacy of any kind. The gender used in the text should reflect what the majority of reliable sources use. --PiMaster3 ^talk 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Alas, this statement is contrary to the entire point of having a manual of style, which is to make consistent styling decisions (based on rules that are reliably sourced from other established style guides). The styling used in individual articles is not determined by reliable sources; content is determined article-by-article by reliable sources but style is determined based on reliable sources via rules applicable to the entire 'pedia. If we are going to have consistency, which again is a major point of the MOS, we need to decide in advance about our style choices for transgender people, not make ad hoc decisions based on media sources that may or may not have made their choices deliberately. AgnosticAphid talk 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the topics mentioned in the manual of style deal with issues such as formatting, spelling, and grammar. MOS:Identity, specifically the section regarding gender, is the only section in the manual of style that advances a specific POV regarding an issue where there is controversy. --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PiMaster on this issue. A style guidline should have no real impact on the content, but the selection of pronouns does affect the meanings so it's a content issue as well as a style issue. Content is governed by WP:V, and policy trumps guidelines when there is a conflict. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It just seems to me like the MOS follows other style guides, and other style guides say to use the person's preferred gender, as I noted. Is there a style guide that says to disregard a person's self-described gender and to use instead the gender assigned to them at birth? If there is, then maybe we should change the MOS. But until then, I think it should stay. AgnosticAphid talk 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unique in that we also have "content" guides, called "policies". If a style guide alters the inherent meaning of a factual claim, then that may bring it into conflict with one of our content policies, which many editors believe to be the case here. In such cases we defer to our content policies over our styles guides. An infamous example of this was earlier this year over the capitalisation of Star Trek Into Darkness, where we put aside our style guide because it conflicted with our verifiability policy. Ultimately, policy trumps guidelines when the two are irreconcilable. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how deciding whether to use "he" or "she" in an article is a content issue. The text in question is only about the use of pronouns. We've recently been down a disharmonious road, several times, about how use of punctuation – even in article titles – is an issue of style and not content, even when (for instance) editors feel strongly about it or think that we are ignoring reliable sources and making up our own names to suit our internal dash rules. I think that here, too, the question of whether the text within articles says "he" or instead "she" is an issue of style and not content, even though people may feel strongly about it and even though reliable sources may choose to use different pronouns. AgnosticAphid talk 20:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not compiling our own content on Wikipedia, we are summarising what other people have said. When you replace words with other words that have fundamentally different meanings, you are no longer accurately conveying what the source originally said. If you use female pronouns to summarise a claim that uses male pronouns, then you are misrepresenting what the source says by implicitly suggesting it uses female pronouns as opposed to male ones. We as editors do not know if the author of the source would select the feminine pronoun in describing the subject, so it is misleading to ascribe such usage to something they have authored. We are a verifiable encyclopedia: we do not record facts, we summarise published, authored content. Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To the extent you are discussing the Manning issue in particular, I would refer you to this comment, which clearly establishes that "she" is being used by reliable sources. To the extent the issue is about what style guides say should be done about transgender individuals, I stand by my comment that style guides say to use the self-chosen pronoun. To the extent you're saying that we should make pronoun choices about transgender issues on an ad hoc basis rather than based on reliable sources' style guidance, I'll have to respectfully disagree and suggest that doing so would only lead to inconsistency and edit warring. AgnosticAphid talk 22:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Most major sources such as CNN, NBC, The Washington Times, Reuters, and BBC News all refer to Manning using male pronouns. There is clearly a dispute over this among various sources. The guidelines should be that the gender reflects what the majority of sources use, and is consistent throughout the article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 22:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You can cross NBC off your list. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well if large numbers of sources change the gender usage then the articles should reflect that, but they should not do that prior to the changes because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It should also be noted that there are sources, such a National Review, that are explicitly endorsing biological determinism in this area. --PiMaster3 ^talk 03:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

May I propose a compromise? Wikipedia keeps its MOS the way it is now, and everyone who wants it to change can go use Conservapedia instead. 131.191.112.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(This comment was mine; my cookie expired. Sorry.) Nongendered (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, emphasis on "anyone". Is there a reason why the above statement is bigoted towards individuals who are politically right-leaning? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The transgender community has existed for years, and the system in use is the one used by that community. If there was any confusion, they would be using something else, the system is tried and tested. The Manning article is locked, and at the momemnt could probably do with some clarification work. This does not mean the current system is wrong, it works fine on similar articles. In fact, there has been very little discussion on including other transgender articles here, they would all possibly be affected by these changes. Have relevant wikiprojects been contacted? -- Nbound (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Tried and tested by a non-neutral community. I hardly think it is non-biased or logical to base Wikipedia's handling of transexualism on the way they handle it amongst themselves. Clinton (talk)

This is all downright Orwellian. I plan on no longer using Wikipedia as a source of factual information. It is sad to see a great resource turned into a platform for advocacy; first the university system, then the media, now Wikipedia. At this point Encyclopedia Dramatica is on par as far as credibility goes with this website. Clinton (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

These statements dont contribute anything to the conversation. Its essentially a threat that you will leave if you dont get your way. If you want to leave and no longer contribute to wikipedia because you disagree with a tiny subset of its articles (which presumably before Manning had never affected your wikipedia use), thats your perogative. Theres absolutely no need to turn up the drama though. -- Nbound (talk)

I'm not 'threatening to leave,' I'm explaining that Wikipedia is no longer a neutral source of factual information, and such no longer useful for its intended purpose, if we let advocacy and doublespeak influence article wording. I've 'disagreed' with policy before when it is non-neutral, but this is the first time I've seen something on Wikipedia that was an outright falsehood and undeniably an advocacy position (with the exception of vandalism).

Please sign your posts. Clinton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An outright falsehood/advocacy position? The only reason this is even an issue is because some people have never been exposed to the transgender community in any great way before and they are uncomfortable with the longstanding status quo. The only way that this can be a falsehood is if you are confusing the term sex, and the term gender. There is little doubt as to Manning's sex, he is almost definitely a biological male (presumably he passed the military medicals!). He has self-identified as being of female gender. It is possible to be biologically male, and yet have a female gender -- thats the entire point of the term transsexual. Do we really need to delve into whether transsexuals are legitimate? -- Nbound (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification to Nbound's comment: It looks like NB means "If you are confusing the concept of biological sex with the concept of gender role or gender identity." The term "gender" has several definitions and one of them is "biological sex." [1] (NB, feel free to jump in if I've guessed your meaning wrong.)

The issue that NB describes—confusing one's genitalia with one's self-concept as male or female—is real, but let's not maintain that anyone is wrong or stupid for claiming that two words that mean the same thing mean the same thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are two different things. One is a biological term and the other is grammatical. Gender is the linguistic term to describe a characteristic of a noun. In the English language, biological male individuals are described with the masculine gender (no such thing as 'male' gender) and female individuals are described with the feminine gender. Gender is the linguistic way of communicating sex, like how 'Mustang' is a type of car and the name of that particular type of car. A human male can not be grammatically feminine (at least in proper English). Demanding to be treated that way is no different than the kids in high school who randomly decided they were going by a name like 'Dante' or 'Raven', the major difference being that for some reason the radical left has decided to declare failing to abide by somebody's ridiculous and ungrammatical request as a thought crime. You don't get to change the rules of a language to fit with your advocacy position. Clinton (talk)

Uh, Cjarbo2? Nbound is not making up the definition of "gender" in the sense of "gender identity." Here is a link to the American Heritage Dictionary: [2] And here's the OED US: [3]

The fact that this word has so many definitions and that they're so closely related is very confusing, but that's English. When I first heard an anthropologist say that gender was culturally defined, I thought she'd gotten so open-minded that her brains had fallen out. (Since she was crud at defining her terms, I didn't learn that she wasn't actually crazy until years later.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. You've won. Political correctness radicals have demolished everything in our society. I'll be in Russia if you need me. And don't forget: We have always been at war with Eastasia. Clinton (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC) ps, please sign your posts.

A little thought experiment that I'd be interested to hear your guys and dolls' take on: A bit further up, we have Manning's current statements on the issue ("I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female.", "[...] I feel, and have felt since childhood [...]" etc.). Now, let's say Manning tomorrow steps before a microphone and declares [s]he feels like being a man and actually has always felt that way, and that his/her lawyers had coaxed him/her into proclaiming the opposite to help in pleading for mitigating circumstances (yeah, the sentence is there, but there still is – and probably will be for years – the question of how much time [s]he will actually have to serve). Then, another day on, [s]he says what [s]he said the day before was a lie, brought about by the pressure from the outside world after his/her initial announcement, i.e., [s]he really does self-identify as a female. 24 hours on [s]he recants again, for [good enough] reason x. New day, same procedure. And on, and on, and on. Finally, after a week of changing protestations, [s]he steps up once more and declares that [s]he has a deep inner conviction on the matter, but that [s]he's not willing to share it with the public. Fast forward two years: Manning is in prison and hasn't spoken about that issue ever since. What does Wikipedia do? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

ROFL, how about we cross that bridge when we come to it. There is no need cover issues that have a negligible chance of occuring until they do (It would apply to many other things too that would be applicable to non transgender people - religion, name, etc.). About the only thing there thats got a chance thats greater than effectively zero, is the first lawyer thing (though its still not far off zero!). If that is the case then the article would go back to similar style as it has been up until recently, the transgender thing would get coverage within the article [there would likely be some interesting fallout from such revelations], but thats about it. -- Nbound (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Experiment #2: What do we do if a person denies being gay, but then one day announces "I'm really gay". Then, a week later, the person says "I was just kidding about that. I'm actually straight. I was just playing with the media." Then a month later he says "No, I wasn't kidding. I just decided I was happier in the closet, so I tried to take it back. But I'm really gay." And then ....

Experiment #3: People A & B are rumoured to be engaged to be married. They publicly deny it. Then they announce the really are engaged. Then they take it back saying "we were only kidding". Then they re-announce. Then....

What would we do? We would change the article each time there was a new public statement. That's what we'd do. Any questions? 99.192.54.21 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.69.149 & 99.192.64.222)

Ὁ οἶστρος's thought experiment: I would chalk it up to Manning cracking under the pressure. (Just because transwomen are real doesn't mean it's impossible for a man go crazy and think he's a woman when he's not.) I would have no problem with updating the Wikipedia article every day to reflect the latest news. If Manning or anyone continued to switch gender pronouns regularly, then I would support making an exception to MoS identity. What would probably happen would be that Manning would be evaluated by a doctor (if only to decide whether to put her in a women's prison or a men's) and the results would be published. I would support using the doc's assessment of whether or not Manning had gender dysmorphia or not in place of Manning's word in that case.

Experiment #2: I'd write a paragraph in the article about the subject's vacillation on the issue. Chaz Bono, then known as Chastity Bono, believed himself to be a lesbian for some time before realizing that he was trans. The article addresses this clearly.

Experiment #3: We update the article as the lastest news becomes available, as always. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Maybe we should cut to the chase. Does this guideline have the support of the wider community, or is it being pushed by a vocal minority? I am finding it really hard to gauge, since the same editors are popping up on either side of the fence. I would like to know how much support this guideline has. So here is the question: Do you support MOS:IDENTITY in its current form?. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against The overriding principle of Wikipedia is verifiability i.e. we summarise published claims. By altering the specific terminology used by a source I believe we are misrepresenting what the source actually says. If we write "[She] did this" as opposed to the source's "He did this", we are in fact attributing a statement to a source that the author did in fact not make, which violates a core principle of Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Further comments This Time article has come to my attention, and in it, the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association have the following recommendation: And when I asked the NLGJA by e-mail to clarify its policy on reporting about Manning’s past, a spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference too: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.” Their advice is inconsistent with MOS:IDENTITY but consistent with our Verifiability policy. Since most articles about Manning's life up to the gender transition will document it with the male pronoun, then using the male pronoun for that period will be consistent with the sources we use and the advice given by the NLGJA. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Betty, when otherwise reliable sources make mistakes about facts, we do not report those facts as facts once the mistake has been discovered. People who are transgender often lie about their gender for many years of their lives. It's an understandable lie, but it is a lie nonetheless which results in reliable sources getting it wrong. When a transgender person reveals their true gender, the error becomes known as so it can be corrected. That's all MOS:IDENTITY is advocating. 99.192.54.21 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.69.149 & 99.192.64.222)

This is a survey, not a discussion! Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• For We take what a person says about their sexual orientation as the only thing that satisfies the verifiability requirement. A hundred otherwise reliable sources can say differently and it does not trump what a person says about themselves on this issue. What a person says about their gender is no different, so articles should reflect the reality of a transgender person's gender. 99.192.54.21 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.69.149 & 99.192.64.222)
• For Because a person's true state of being male or female cannot currently be proven objectively, we should take that person's word for it, regardless of whether that person is cis or trans. All of our options are politically charged, and this one is the most polite. I also happen to like this policy. It is consistent with my (unconfirmed) belief that trans individuals are responding to rather than rebelling against the physical realities of their bodies. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• For -- Nbound (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• For It's astounding to me how many people believe that a person's gender, as a completely mental state, has any legitimate source other than the individual in question. It's the same case as sexual orientation, really. As much as people want to remain neutral, there is no way to vote on this issue that is not a political stance for or against trans* people. --TheScootz (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support – leaving the identity politics issue to one side, the MOS:IDENTITY guidance is in line with reliable sources. Other style guides say use the self-chosen pronoun; we should follow them. AgnosticAphid talk 07:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Against. WP should not retroactively follow the statements persons make about their identity. What counts is their verifiable behaviour. Did they sign forms as m/f, did they respond to a m/f name, did they visit the m/f restroom and so on. A change in reference should temporally be consistent with behaviour at that time. −Woodstone (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This statement has no basis in any reliable source or style guide. Wikipedia's style guidance is based on sources, not whimsy.AgnosticAphid talk 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

At issue is whether the sources should be independent of the subject and verifiable or not. I dare say it is less "whimisical" to call for the tangible evidence of multiple sources than just to accept the unverified or unverifiable testimony of a single source.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I do apologize for being curt. But what I was trying to say is, the MOS' guidance is based upon the style guidance in other reliable sources, like the AP style guide. It's not just based on what we think the best choice is personally. I don't believe any style guide that addresses the question of transgender pronouns says to do anything other than use the subject's preferred choice of pronoun. If you do care for my personal opinion, see the questions I posed in the following section in response to this same commenter.AgnosticAphid talk 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The only reliable source for a person's gender is that person, it is not possible for any other person or source to prove or disprove it. Once a person has made a verifiable statement about their gender identity it is Wikipedia's job to respect that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Against. We cannot know the internal gender of anyone. They might announce it is other than what we thought it was later on. Instead we report the verifiable gender - the gender they act according to, and in those unfortunate circumstances where different sexes have different rights, the gender whose rights they claim. The internal gender may or may not be fixed throughout life, but the verifiable gender, the social construct, definitely changes in many transgender people. We should follow the following principles:

• A well-written article should remain true even if it is not maintained. If someone doesn't edit a person's article after the transition is announced, it doesn't become all wrong.
• Wikipedia goes by verifiable sources, and should stick close to how they described the former events. The policy bit that Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions. is a concession to this, but not enough of one.
• The policy calls to avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time). The way to do that is to use the old pronouns! There are so many details that will seem out of whack if you talk about early childhood where a boy was a "sister", "he" went to the Normal School for Girls, etc.
• What I propose instead is:

(1) try not to switch genders within a paragraph unless you're specifically talking about it.

(2) Try to introduce to the reader the first use of the old pronoun ("Growing up as a boy, under the name Jacob, he attended St. Francis School for Boys")

(3) and of course, introduce the new pronoun in the context of covering sources about the transition itself.

Wnt (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• If someone says they identify as another gender, how is that not sufficient to know their internal gender? There are plenty of biographical facts that we take people at their word about. If we can reliably source someone saying they're Jewish, would we say, "no, the article can't reference their Judaism because we can't independently verify they've gone to temple recently"? AgnosticAphid talk 17:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against. This has to be revisited. If I
  • sound like a man
  • look like a man
  • act like a man
  • am legally deemed a man
  • am socially deemed a man
  • am referred to as a man by the media

but I "self-identify" as a woman, I and Wikipedia stand alone in the universe in deeming me a woman? This should be obviously incompatible with Wikipedia's "cornerstone" neutral point of view policy, which calls for finding and adopting the view represented by the disparate views' locus of gravity. It looks to me like a particular lobby has undue influence when adopting the POV of an article subject is deemed automatic and unconditional but only with regard to the subject's POV with respect to his or her sexuality/sexual identity. I understand the argument that sexual identity should not be channeled or mediated in any way by social "norms" or legal authority, but this is still a political argument. I suggest reviewing Wittgenstein's "beetle in the box" before asserting that what a person claims to exists meaningfully exists in terms of language if it is objectively unverifiable. The language we use in Wikipedia has to have as a referent some objective phenomena. This Manual of Style bullet point needs to be conditioned by some objective verification.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly a fair presentation of the issue. I can make long, bulleted lists, too! If I:

• identify myself as a woman
• announce to reliable sources that I am a woman
• have received coverage in reliable sources stating that I identify as a woman
• have felt since childhood that I was a woman, and announce to and receive coverage in reliable sources stating this
• have received coverage in reliable sources respecting my choices and identifying me as a woman, even when not directly addressing the gender change issue, pursuant to uniform best styling practices like the AP style manual;

But was assigned the gender of male at birth, should Wikipedia identify me as a woman based on my reliably sourced statement and also in accord with styling best practices? AgnosticAphid talk 17:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe my presentation of the issue is fairer than yours, since you are adding a condition, "received coverage in reliable sources respecting my choices and identifying me as a woman," that does not currently exist in the Wikipedia guideline at issue. You can argue all you want about how much the subject's choices OUGHT to be respected, but that's ultimately irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advancing a liberal social agenda. What matters is whether the subject's choices ARE respected. If the subject goes to court to compel others to respect his or her announcement and the court rules that there is some overriding public policy reason that requires a rejection of the subject's demand, if court decisions in that society are generally respected then the subject's gender remains objectively unchanged, regardless of how outrageous such a ruling might strike you.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

if court decisions in that society are generally respected then the subject's gender remains objectively unchanged – so if a court in one country rules that a person is male but a court in another country rules that the same person is female, their gender is objectively unchanged? Or is it objectively different in the two countries? The person's legal status is objectively different in the two countries, but this isn't what is at issue. I suggest you review your argument and consider whether it really makes sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If you insist that the person's legal status is not the issue I would say you are begging the question because whether considerations like that should be relevant or not is in fact the very issue. Wikipedia's content discussions do not or should not concern this or that metaphysical truth but what can be verified and what can't. I fail to see what's so nonsensical when there is a ready analogy to being married. Two people can say they are married but if there is a public policy reason for prohibiting the marriage (like bigamy) such that the legal system does not recognize the marriage and this legal verdict is in turn recognized by society, then however real the marriage is for the couple, they are not married as far as the rest of society is concerned. If another jurisdiction should happen to recognize the marriage, then they are married in that jurisdiction and Wikipedia would say they are married. Similar case here. I have no problem describing as female a biological male whose female gender has been recognized by any national legal system. I do have a problem with article subjects having total sovereignty over how their Wikipedia articles read when the view of the subject the subject wants us to adopt is disputed by every society in the world.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

the marriage analogy isn't very apt. Marriage is something that we define as not being present unless it is "official." If marriage was instead something based on someone's self-identification, then I think that people saying they're married would indeed mean they're married (if we could reliably source the statement). See also common-law marriage, which requires no formalities at all. Here, gender contains a self-identity component and a biological sex component. Is there a better source than the Individual for their self-identity? Is there a reason to prefer biological sex over gender identity when they don't match? I'd submit the answer to both questions is no. AgnosticAphid talk 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that marriage is different because it is not solely based on self-identification, a difference that's only a difference if gender IS solely based on self-identification, begs the question since whether or not gender is, in fact, solely based on self-identification is the very question at issue. It seems you are prepared to allow that gender may be at least partially based on biology. In fact the "non-self-identification" component is broader that that: it's everything that isn't based on subjective self-identification; that is, everything objective or everything the community can see/verify. This goes back to my original bullet points. If someone wants to say that a particular trans is only "common law" trans, that would of course reduce the importance of the objective "component" by removing the legal element, but note that even in the case of a common-law marriage, a couple has to seen to be living together to be deemed even common-law married. If a couple says they are married yet have never seen or communicated with each other and never will, they aren't married in any sense except the meaningless (for everyone who is not them) self-identification sense.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against. If a (properly notable) individual states that they feel they are of an inobvious gender, or that they have changed their mind about what gender they are, then that is a reason for Wikipedia to state that the individual feels that way. To state that this belief on their part effects an immutable alteration of reality such that the person always was of the particular gender, people who believed otherwise were always wrong, and reliable sources were always unreliable on this one point - is wrong. That does not mean that we should go out of our way to synthesize objections to the subject's self-perception, just that we should neutrally and accurately report the facts, including the fact that the subject's self-perception of gender differs from typical social perceptions of gender. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

168.12.253.66: To describe it as "they have changed their mind about what gender they are" is not what happens. What does happen is people "come to the realization that they always were a particular gender" or, as is very often the case, "always knew they were of a particular gender, but are publicly saying so for the first time now." There is no "immutable alteration of reality", just a realization that what we had thought all along was wrong. We can be wrong about facts, and in such cases they need correcting. Some people go for large parts of their lives lying about their sexual orientation or their gender or lots of things about their life history (eg; "My favourite muppet when I was a child was Kermit") and as a result those things can be misreported for years until the truth is revealed. While we might doubt someone who says "I was lying about my favourite muppet" (although even then there would have to be a good reason given for doubting it), dishonesty seems a highly implausible explanation for a person raised as male announcing "I am a woman, going to have hormone therapy, and going to have a sex change operation." 99.192.67.148 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

You say that it "is not what happens". In fact, we cannot know a person's internal thoughts, the chronology of those thoughts, or the degree to which an individual's own conflicting perceptions of themself (e.g., Manning reported previously that he was a gay man) are "right" or "wrong". What we can know about is basic social norms, and the content of reliable sources. We do agree that people lie in little things ("I really liked the meatloaf", say) all the time, and yet if some reliable source reported that a subject "liked the meatloaf", we would take that as the final word on the matter. We would not write our article around the fact that people who cannot bring themself to claim they really liked the meatloaf are often held in low social esteem. We surely would not base our standards for article content on a perceived need to right this great wrong. We would follow reliable sources. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second here. We take people at their word about whether or not they like meatloaf because we can't independently verify their internal thoughts. Though liking meatloaf is not as consequential of a self-decision as what gender you identify yourself as, is this not the same? If someone says they identify as female, how is that not sufficient to identify them as female? AgnosticAphid talk 17:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, before the sex change, the future transsexual probably filled out internet account profiles, drivers licenses, military enlistment forms, etc. all as the birth sex. They may even have deliberately dissembled to disclaim any "LGBT" persuasion to avoid unjust discrimination. We can't know their inner state of mind then. And really, when it comes to cases like the one that has us all talking here, we can't even be sure that their motivation for changing sex is really internal confidence that is what they are, as opposed to some other practical consideration. While we should indeed cite sources if the person says that "he always felt like a woman", that doesn't mean we should ignore the socially perceived "reality" of events. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• For - it's served us admirably - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• For. We don't demand third-party corroboration of someone's publically and sincerely disclosed gender, or any other internalized and purely personal manifestation of identity. When a public figure comes out as gay, for example, a reference to his own published announcement has always been sufficient sourcing here; we don't childishly refuse to refer to him as gay pending publication of photos of his penis up another man's ass. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Against Treatment of identity should be treated on a case by case basis depending on where the weight is amongst the reliable secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Against. My issue is not with accepting the individual's self-identification, but with applying it retroactively. I fully agree with Wnt's proposal on how to handle the change in gender and pronouns. To retroactively apply a change in gender makes it impossible to write comprehensible prose, and more importantly makes it impossible to truthfully represent the contents of reliable sources. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You set a very low bar for what people can comprehend. There is a difference between something being unfamiliar and it being incomprehensible. Using female pronouns for someone with a typically male name and who lived as a male is unfamiliar, but not hard to comprehend at all. It's especially not hard to comprehend when the context is reading an article that is specifically about a person who is transgender. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

The female pronouns are jarring, but you can get somewhat used to them. What really threw me for a loop was when the text called young Bradley a "sister" in prose about his childhood. She may be a woman now, but he was a little boy, so far as the world could see. Wnt (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against. Wikipedia should not be taking sides in the debate bewteen biological determinism and social constructionism. The gender used in biographical articles should reflect that used in the majority of reliable sources. In articles about historical events the gender should reflect what ever the gender was when the event took place. We should not be having historical revisionism on Wikipedia. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The only way for Wikipedia to avoid taking a position is to refuse to use any gendered pronouns and never mention a person's gender. Because to use gendered pronouns in an article about a transgender person - whatever the ones used - is to say something about whether a person's gender can change or not. To describe it as "historical revisionism" when we change the pronouns in an article after learning about a person being transgender is to assert a position on biological determinism vs. social constructionism. Also, if the reliable sources now use "she" when talking about Manning's childhood, then that would mean that Wikipedia should use "she" as well when talking about Manning's childhood. If the reliable sources used to use "he", but now don't, then that suggests that they are correcting an error they previously made. So too should Wikipedia. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I concur with Anon99. Using "he" throughout is taking the position that Manning was really male the whole time. Using "she" throughout is taking the position that Manning was really female the whole time. Switching from "he" to "she" takes the position that Manning was really male and then became really female. There is no graceful way to avoid taking some position or other. All three of these options force Wikipedia to take or appear to take some position. The second option is superior to the other two in that it is polite and they are not. Ordinarily, that wouldn't matter, but nothing else is tipping the scale. The sources are divided on the matter.

It would only be historical revisionism if the article failed to come out and say that Manning is an individual who's undergone gender transition. No one's arguing that it should claim that Manning always presented as female. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the example in the text. Changing "He gave birth to his first child" to "He became a parent for the first time" fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentance. It gives the reader the false impression that the subject was male at the time. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Two comments: (1) The sentence does not give the impression that ther person was male at the time. Women become parents by giving birth, so it is true that "Bill Clinton became a parent when his daughter was born" and also true that "Hillary Rodham Clinton became a parent when her daughter was born."

(2) The example used in MOS:IDENTITY is trying (I think) to point to a case where a person becoming a parent is the relevant fact and not the issue of whether the person gave birth. So in an article about an TV series it might say of an actor or actress that he or she "became more distracted on set after becoming a parent for the first time." In the context of the TV series article, it does not matter if the parent gave birth or not. When it does matter, articles can still report that information. MOS:IDENTITY does not prevent that. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• Support because if someone is a woman then they are a woman, just as if someone is a man then they are a man. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide someone's gender based on whether someone "looks", "sounds", "acts", etc. "like a man", and neither does anyone else. I don't even know what that means. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --24.181.4.15 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.181.4.15 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --96.32.148.60 (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 96.32.148.60 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --165.106.120.93 (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 165.106.120.93 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --76.99.108.24 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 76.99.108.24 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --108.80.205.57 (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 108.80.205.57 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --76.11.73.9 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 76.11.73.9 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --74.222.214.155 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 74.222.214.155 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --75.165.226.53 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 75.165.226.53 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Strong support - Wikipedia should refer to a person by that person's preferred gender as described in reliable sources. No such thing as "objective" gender exists; gender is a subjective concept (unlike biological sex), and what a particular gender "is" or "means" varies among individuals, among cultures, and across time. Without any objective baseline (and with reliable sources obviously conflicting where a person transitions from one gender to another), Wikipedia should defer to a person's own determination of their gender as described in reliable sources. To do otherwise would be to insert views on what Wikipedians think someone's gender "is", and Wikipedians' points of view on such matters are irrelevant for encyclopedic purposes and violate WP:NPOV. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --98.227.110.120 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 98.227.110.120 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --77.249.13.37 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 77.249.13.37 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --162.156.182.90 (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 162.156.182.90 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Not so simple – "person's latest expressed gender self-identification" might need to be tempered against extreme recentism, waiting to follow reliable sources, not lead them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless you are talking about someone you know personally who tells you about their gender self-identification, a person's expression of gender identification will only be known because it is presented in the media. If the National Enquirer reports that Tom Cruise has said that he is a woman, we should wait for a reliable source. But if it is reported by a reliable source, then there is no problem. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

You're missing the point. The issue comes up when different sources say different things. In the Manning case, certain sources used the male name and other sources used the female name. Typical Wikipedia policy is to go with the name most frequently used in reliable sources. (cf. WP:COMMONNAME) We don't typically wait for "a" reliable source, we use the term that the preponderance of sources use. By preferring the name that the subject uses, without considering what the preponderance of sources say, we seem to be carving out an exception to our general policy of waiting for reliable sources to establish a consensus. That exception to our general philosophy of sourcing is the crux of this issue and needs to be carefully considered.GabrielF (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is you who is missing the point. MOS:IDENTITY is not about what name to use, so the question for this survey has nothing to do with which name should be used. 99.192.78.111 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For if Wikipedia wants to be accurate, it must respect the person's pronouns regardless of which one they were assigned at birth. --190.72.227.60 (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 190.72.227.60 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --74.137.178.53 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 162.156.182.90 Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 74.137.178.53 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --132.161.241.23 (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 132.161.241.23 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --75.72.200.3 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 75.72.200.3 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --96.241.140.82 (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 96.241.140.82 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --50.129.244.50 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 50.129.244.50 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --76.84.20.72 (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 76.84.20.72 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --71.89.119.235 (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.89.119.235 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --184.18.36.43 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 184.18.36.43 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --70.112.20.71 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 70.112.20.71 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --70.19.190.91 (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 70.19.190.91 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --99.66.237.94 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 99.66.237.94 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --207.38.212.41 (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 207.38.212.41 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --207.118.40.72 (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 207.118.40.72 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --184.144.75.217 (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 184.144.75.217 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• For A person's sex is inconsequential, and most of the time there is no "proof" for a person's biological sex, which is why pronouns are ultimately always already used for a person's gender identity. To make this different in regards to a trans* person who used to use different pronouns and is known to be trans* makes no more sense that using neutral pronouns for every person who's biological sex has never been officially stated. -- MiakoSamuio (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes and an SPA.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --Skyleaf (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Skyleaf (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Skyleaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. For --108.34.38.33 (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 108.34.38.33 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For Respecting a person's gender is of utmost importance. --75.108.243.196 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 75.108.243.196 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --72.9.30.50 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 72.9.30.50 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --120.145.35.219 (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 120.145.35.219 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --71.59.232.125 (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.59.232.125 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --50.158.252.50 (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 50.158.252.50 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --174.117.135.242 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 174.117.135.242 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --68.59.48.133 (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 68.59.48.133 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --99.71.221.43 (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 99.71.221.43 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For How is this even an issue? If somebody (who is, afterall, the best source about themselves) says they want to be referred to a certain way, do it. Its one of the most basic levels of respect you can give to a human being, and not only that, but its one every human being deserves. --68.227.97.82 (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 68.227.97.82 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Comment please note that i have just removed thirty-two anonymous votes that were given as For with no other reason given, and all added in a very short time frame. i've also added the following text to the bottom of this section in an HTML comment: Please note that this is not an official survey, and its primary purpose is advancing the discussion. ~ Boomur [talk] 05:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• i've removed eight more such votes since this edit, the total count is now 40. ~ Boomur [talk] 06:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --99.65.184.93 (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 99.65.184.93 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --142.162.80.146 (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 142.162.80.146 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --50.139.71.153 (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 50.139.71.153 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --173.58.228.189 (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 173.58.228.189 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --108.92.163.76 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 108.92.163.76 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --150.253.88.47 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 150.253.88.47 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --69.127.157.64 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 69.127.157.64 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Strong support It is not whimsy to correctly gender an individual. Despite it's controversy, it is a fact that the individual's self identification is the only reliable source --184.76.120.163 (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 184.76.120.163 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --99.35.199.132 (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) For Suggesting that someone must reach an arbitrary standard of being their stated gender "enough" before they are afforded the basic human respect of having their gender identity treated as valid is insulting and ridiculous. --2601:B:8A00:235:91D2:E941:43B7:645 (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2601:B:8A00:235:91D2:E941:43B7:645 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --173.74.56.143 (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 173.74.56.143 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Support/For as the best option; recognizing that it's not perfect and is sometimes jarring, but is the most respectful to the person being referred to.SchreiberBike talk 06:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support/For This is a website dedicated to furthering understanding and human knowledge. It would be a shame then to see its her to fore open and freely spread content limited by a few small minded people.
• For the main points against seem to relate to biological essentialism, verifiability, and revisionism. the medical community in general rejects the essentialist view in part because many times it is impossible to correlate gender with any organic traits. but people for whom this is true will typically develop a gender identity (that may or may not be binary). thus if gender can not be definitively linked to sex then it stands that it must be independent. with regard to revisionism, i don't believe it is. there is a very strong social disincentive to being openly transgendered, so often a trans person will stay closeted. it doesn't mean that their gender has changed when they come out. it only means that they have decided to tell other people what their true identity is. this is no different that a person coming out as gay. a gay man may have had a wife and kids before coming out, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't always gay. so it's not revisionist to be consistent about referring to a person as their self identified gender when you talk about periods in their life before they came out. as for verifiability it seems to me that the only reliable source is the person in question. if they say they identify as female despite having been assigned male at birth then they must be taken at their word. i have a hard time believing anyone would pose as trans given how much more difficult it will invariable make their life. i believe the ap style guide is a good template to follow for this issue. --Coffee joe (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --24.41.50.38 (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 173.74.56.143 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For If you're a woman, you're a woman. If you're a man, you're a man. It's also your decision, so why should my gender identity invalidate yours? It doesn't. --108.200.39.20 (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 108.200.39.20 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --67.238.23.60 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 67.238.23.60 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Against  If the topic of an article sends an email to Wikipedia and says they want their gender updated, are we going to blindly follow the email?  No, of course not, that would be a BLP violation based on an unreliable source.  We follow the sources, and if they differ from what the person is reported to be saying, there is a reason.  I don't see how this would be an issue unless the media was using more than one gender, in which case we would have to neutrally report both points of view.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --71.53.176.31 (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.53.176.31 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --79.93.40.155 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 79.93.40.155 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Support the present wording of the MOS, noting the point made repeatedly above that it does involve following reliable sources (needed to establish self-identification). If it's the case and if it's notable, Wikipedia should report that sources differ in their pronoun use, but it should continue to use the present consistent style in its own articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --86.46.93.182 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 86.46.93.182 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --60.241.6.23 (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 60.241.6.23 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --50.134.14.146 (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 50.134.14.146 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For This is showing simple, basic respect for a person's gender identity. --122.107.234.137 (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 122.107.234.137 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

The subject's claims ought to be respected, sure, but what if they aren't? We are supposed to be passive observers here of what other players are doing, rightly or wrongly. As an aside to admins, why is that anonymous IPs are blocked from weighing in at Chelsea Manning but not here?--Brian Dell (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Dell: The issue should not be about "respect" at all, so 122.107.234.137's argument is weak. The issue should be accuracy. If no reliable source reports that a person thought to be a man has self-identified as a woman, then Wikipedia should stick with male pronouns. If the entire world's media is either disrespectful or just plain indifferent on the matter, then Wikipedia can and should do nothing. But so long as one reliable source reports that the person has self-identified as a woman, then Wikipedia has all it needs to recognize that fact. The only thing in that case that would (and should) block making the change is if most reliable sources explicitly said "It is not true that so-and-so has self-identified as a woman". That is, it is not enough for most reliable sources to continue to use "he". They have to deny that a self-identification took place for Wikipedia to take the position that such an event cannot be reliably sourced. Once it is clearly sourced that a self-identification event took place, the issue of which pronoun to use is a settled matter. 99.192.84.19 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Your comments concern Wikipedia stating whether a self-identification took place. That's not the issue here. The issue here when Wikipedia should describe someone as male or female (or perhaps something else). If reliable sources are not describing a subject as the gender the subject says he or she is, it is not Wikipedia's job to lament this lack of respect for the subject's wishes but to follow it, bound as we are by the neutral point of view.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --58.6.182.86 (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 58.6.182.86 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Support present wording. As Peter Cox says, we need reliable sources and we can present where notable different uses of the pronoun/any controversy. To the IPs, your !votes will be ignored if you aren't regular editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Their votes are entitled to as much weight as anyone else's, it's just that unadorned votes don't really advance the purpose of this it's-not-a-vote. AgnosticAphid talk 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For It would be logical that the best reference for an entry about an individual is that individual themselves --120.148.153.112 (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 120.148.153.112 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --75.118.34.211 (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 75.118.34.211 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --76.239.134.148 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 76.239.134.148 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --24.230.100.182 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.230.100.182 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --71.227.93.194 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.227.93.194 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --65.26.197.42 (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 65.26.197.42 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --69.180.103.31 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 69.180.103.31 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --174.94.40.182 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 174.94.40.182 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --69.68.156.100 (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 69.68.156.100 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --173.172.96.219 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 173.172.96.219 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --122.108.151.108 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 122.108.151.108 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --207.144.86.211 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 207.144.86.211 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --81.174.133.187 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 81.174.133.187 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --108.12.168.161 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 108.12.168.161 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For It is important to respect current identities and if those identities change so should our wording of names and pronouns. Trans* people deserve respect and respect entails utilizing the correct names and pronouns. Gender is fluid, things can change. As far as accuracy, if you are referring to someone with incorrect names and pronouns that is not accuracy. --216.36.11.108 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 216.36.11.108 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --80.223.210.110 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 80.223.210.110 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --176.25.211.186 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 176.25.211.186 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For People deserve respect, and respecting their gender identity is part of that. If someone sends an email saying they want their pronouns changed on a page, then that should be considered a reliable, not to mention primary source.--72.189.52.148 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 72.189.52.148 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --87.194.147.102 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 87.194.147.102 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --184.90.77.196 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 184.90.77.196 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --172.250.90.24 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 172.250.90.24 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --78.105.48.225 (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 78.105.48.225 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --92.90.17.209 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 92.90.17.209 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Against: If I decided to declare my gender as vegetable it wouldn't make it true nor would reporting such here be encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

wait, what? vegetable isn't a gender. this scenario is completely irrelevant to the discussion. if i have brown hair that's been dyed blond my whole life, it would be encyclopedic to report that my hair is naturally brown even if it happens to be blond at the time. but if i dye my hair pillow, then that means absolutely nothing because pillow is not a hair colour. ~ Boomur [talk] 18:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Toddst1's argument is a red herring. The argument as presented is: if I declare myself to be of category Z in a classification that doesn't admit category Z, that wouldn't make it true. Of course it wouldn't make it true, it's a nonstarter to begin with. I don't even know what your real argument is. Is it a claim that gender is immutable and cannot be changed? A more relevant argument would be that just because I declare myself to be of category B in a classification that admits category B, that doesn't make it true. With regards to that argument and gender specifically, that's up for debate in modern times. But that's not the argument you made and what you present here is quite specious. Transcendence (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

IP vote.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --71.232.130.179 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.232.130.179 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Against. We should not let the subject dictate Wikipedia's gender language; instead we should follow the general practice of encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers and books which hold a more measured response to such indications by the subject. These other publishers are cynical, more objective, less inclined to allow the subject the freedom to define his/her gender. This issue is similar to WP:COMMONNAME (which certainly applies to the Chelsea/Bradley Manning biography) in that Wikipedia follows common usage. Wikipedia should not take a leading role in initiating social change, otherwise we would allow new thought to be published and we would mark the WP:No original research policy as historical. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

IP vote and SPA.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --71.42.186.202 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.42.186.202 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For I believe favoring personal identity over physical attributes would ultimately put Wikipedia on the right side of history. Any other course of action would probably come back to bite Wikipedia in the future, and would definitely contribute to making trans folks feel and appear illegitimate in the interim. --Chriskarate (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC) — Chriskarate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Chriskarate (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Against There's a clear conflict between MOS:IDENTITY as written and other policies, such as WP:COMMONNAME. What do you do when the preponderance of sources use term A but the subject of the article uses term B? COMMONNAME suggests that you use term A: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." However, MOS:IDENTITY says: "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too." There's a bit of wiggle-room here in the phrase "When there is no dispute", but in practice (as in the recent Manning case) that clause has been ignored. Note that this conflict does not just involve individuals, but also groups. We use the title Arab citizens of Israel rather than Israeli Arabs. The latter term is more prevalent in English-language sources, but the former term is preferred by members of the group. We need to resolve this conflict. If we reach a consensus that we're going to accept self-identification even when it is used by a minority of sources, then we need to clearly state in the policy that we are carving out an exception to our general philosophy regarding the use of sources. However, I would argue that this is a significant deviation from common Wikipedia practice. Regardless, the policy needs to be clarified to acknowledge and (hopefully) resolve potential conflicts. GabrielF (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are confused. MOS:IDENTITY is not about what name to use, thus it cannot come into conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. Your entire rationale is irrelevant to the issue here, which is pronouns, not names. 99.192.78.111 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

The question being asked is "Do you support MOS:IDENTITY in its current form?" I believe that I answered that question. While the second bullet point in MOS:IDENTITY refers to pronouns and possessive adjectives, the first bullet point refers to terms of address. GabrielF (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) You should read MOS:IDENTITY again. The first bullet point of it essentially says that when the issue is what name to use, follow WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:AT. The second bullet point covers how to handle pronouns and adjectives. MOS:IDENTITY is clear in saying to look elsewhere for rules about names. 99.192.78.111 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)

Here is the text: "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too." That establishes a standard for how Wikipedia should consider names that goes beyond the policies you cited (not to mention COMMONNAME). It means that if there is a conflict between the term a person or group prefers and the term that the preponderance of sources use, then we go with the term that the person or group uses. That is certainly how it has been applied in practice. GabrielF (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the first five words of that? They are "When there is no dispute". The sentence is merely informing a reader that when a name is not in dispute it will most often be the one the person uses themselves. That is a true statement, not an instruction. You are still reading the point wrong. MOS:IDENTITY says that when names are in dispute that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:AT are the policies that settle it. MOS:IDENTITY does not offer any instruction on what name to use. 99.192.78.111 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)

As I said in my original post: "There's a bit of wiggle-room here in the phrase "When there is no dispute", but in practice (as in the recent Manning case) that clause has been ignored". I would also point out that the phrase "When there is no dispute" renders the entire policy meaningless, if everyone agrees on a given name then we just use our standard practices. The whole point of a manual of style is to provide guidance when there are at least two plausible alternatives. Either we delete the phrase "When there is no dispute" and allow MOS:IDENTITY to override other policies, or we delete everything in the first bullet point after the first sentence. GabrielF (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You still are reading it wrong, but eliminating the entire second sentence would not change the substance of the guideline at all, so I see no problem with that. Perhaps the sentence could be kept with some slight rewording to make it even more clear (even though I see not lack of clarity now) that the sentence is merely informative, not instructive. But removing it is fine, too. 99.192.78.111 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)

• Comment Wow, that's a lot of IP straight after one another. I wouldn't like to think they were meat puppets or anything.
• Mostly OK but I see problems with it First, one thing the Manning example is dealing with is what to call the Manning title. The MOS as is is confusingly stated by boils down to: refer to Wikipedia:Article titles if there is a dispute. Another thing the Manning article is dealing with is what to call Manning in the article. Again, the MOS is confusingly written by the guidance here is refer to policy on NPOV and reliable sources if there is a dispute. Lastly, the Manning article highlights a gap in the MOS when it comes to gender nouns, pronouns, etc. From my reading, it looks like the MOS is written from the perspective of someone who is "established" as a trans (i.e. has lived as their chosen gender for some time already before our article on them). This is plainly a good principle in my opinion. We don't want someone coming to the Penny Whetton and changing "she" to "he". Where it falls down is in an example like Manning where the article existed for some time and the subject has not been established in RS or our readers imaginations as "she" just yet. Worse, the first bullet point is that we should continue to call Manning by a male name until RS change over but guidance from the secod bullet point is that we should begin refering to Manning as "her" as soon as Manning has declare the desire to be called such. That needs to be tidied up. --RA (✍) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes and an SPA.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --209.179.28.175 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Because it's best to respect other people's choices about what they want to be called (and because people will more readily correct the pronouns they use for pets than for trans* people. Don't be jerks, dudes) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 209.179.28.175 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --66.25.60.220 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 66.25.60.220 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --154.20.4.32 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 154.20.4.32 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --65.118.91.205 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 65.118.91.205 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --24.24.229.107 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.24.229.107 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --70.251.131.104 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 70.251.131.104 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --172.250.75.11 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 172.250.75.11 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --89.139.14.177 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 89.139.14.177 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For Because the fact that 'hey, should we respect someone's identity?' is even a QUESTION is appalling. --Igpykin (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)— Igpykin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Igpykin (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --24.136.121.231 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.136.121.231 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For We are not 'meat puppets'; some of us have simply had to play defense in these lengthy, slogging journeys toward LGBT rights so many times that we hardly have anything more to say. The common refrains of 'but they haven't REALLY transitioned yet' and 'what if I wanted to identify as beige, would you still respect that?' are so played out, you have no idea. --75.132.1.7 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 75.132.1.7 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For as a trans* person, I go through a ton of hardship every day trying to convince people to adhere to my pronouns and agree with my gender. Just because I hadn't come to any self-realization, or come out yet, that doesn't mean that my gender was any less valid before I came out. People are arguing that it lacks integrity if we don't out trans people as being originally assigned a different gender, or that it'll be too confusing, but the fact is that the only gender that matters is the one that person chooses to go by. You're not being confusing because you're actually referring to the person by the correct gender, rather than a confusing false one. Treating trans* people anyway else is nothing short of arrogance and transphobia. --98.203.224.199 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 98.203.224.199 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --84.165.204.51 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 84.165.204.51 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --76.166.157.110 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 76.166.157.110 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• For As a trans* person, I want the same respect for my gender that cisgender people expect. Divulging my gender to others was not the moment I ceased to be a woman. Beginning to medically transition would not be the moment I ceased to be a woman. The completion of some surgery, or the completion of any paperwork is not the moment I would cease to be a woman. I was never a woman, and I would want Wikipedia to recognize that. There is no other quality that causes people to say "yes but before you told us you were x, you weren't really x!"--70.119.30.246 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 70.119.30.246 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

I disagree. I think the same reaction could occur in the event of any characteristic that is determined or influenced by self-identification. For example, if someone left a religion after many years or a lifetime of doubts over the tenets of that religion, it might be reasonable to describe the person as having been a member of the original religion at a time when they were attending that religion's services, even if they later declare that they no longer believed in the religion at that time. Or, for another example (this one specific and true), I personally feel that I have always been an engineer--that it is inherent to my identity. Still, I would not object if you felt it was not appropriate to refer to me as having been an engineer until such time as I enrolled in an engineering college, or declared an engineering major, or received an engineering degree, or took a job as an engineer. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

DavidK93: You are wrong about the religion example. You confuse belief with behaviour. Take the following story: A boy is born to devoutly Christian parents and is raised in a devoutly Christian community. He goes to church every Sunday of his childhood and prayer is part of his daily routine. When he is 12 he begins to doubt his faith and by 13 comes to fully and firmly be an atheist. But because of his parents and his community's beliefs he decides to continue to pretend to be Christian, thinking it is the path of least resistance. Even as an adult he continues to pretend to believe and attends church regularly. Finally, at age 30, he admits the truth to everyone. It would be true to say that he was a member of Church X for the first 30 years of his life, but false to say he was a Christian for the first 30 years of his life. He was only a Christian for the first 13 years and an atheist after, even though he told no one until he was 30. Unless there is good reason to think he is lying about when he lost faith, it would be false to continue to say he was a Christian at age 20 or 25.

As for the engineering story, I hardly know what to say. I know what it means to say a person has the training or qualifications of an engineer. I know what it means to say a person has the skills of an engineer. I know what it means to say a person routinely does the tasks of an engineer. I know what it means to say that a person is employed as an engineer. All of these could be different things one might mean by "I am an engineer", but none of them make any sense of the claim "I have always been an engineer, even before I had the training, qualifications, skills, before I performed the tasks or was employed as an engineer." I know what it means to have always wanted to be an engineer, but that is different from actually being one. So unless you are being metaphorical or poetic, to say "I have always been an engineer" does not even make sense as a claim, let alone being a claim that could be true or false. 99.192.52.26 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (-99.192....)

Actually, it is you who are confusing religion with belief; one can be described as part of a religion if one holds the beliefs of that religion, or if one is a member of the formal organization that represents that religion. Many self-proclaimed Catholics have been previously excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, while Rome counts in its rolls as Catholics many individuals who have completely lapsed from the faith.

With respect to professions, you have introduced an aspect I didn't mention, which is performing the tasks of a profession. Many professions are named after verbs that are considered representative of the profession. Thus, the word describing the profession can apply to someone who is considered qualified to perform that task professionally, but also to any person who performs that task at any level of skill or ability. In the case of engineering, this can refer to creating or improving a design, among other things. From a very young age, for example, I tested out different configurations of couch cushions to create an optimal fort. By virtue of this, I now self-identify as having been an engineer from the point at which I became cognizant of such a concept; but I don't object if someone else feels it is more sensible to describe me as having become an engineer at one of those later benchmarks.

What these examples have in common with gender-specific pronouns is the issue of semantics. Gender-specific pronouns can be construed as pertaining to any of the various definitions of gender, but also to sex; the common name for such pronouns notwithstanding, the ideas of "gender" and "sex" are still conflated in the minds of many people and I think many would object to the assertion that gender-specific pronouns do not describe the sex of an individual. It's very clear that there is one, particular interpretation of the use of gender-specific pronouns that a majority of transgender individuals consider to be polite, but the purpose of this survey and discussion is to determine which interpretation enables Wikipedia editors to create the best possible written communication. --DavidK93 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --67.243.177.80 (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 67.243.177.80 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For We don't need any more encouragement of misgendering, misnaming, and general transphobia.--209.251.128.78 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 209.251.128.78 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Against per Binksternet. I couldn't have put it better myself. WP shouldn't be a front-runner, ever. Yintan  21:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --24.141.3.130 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.141.3.130 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For Have respect for how people want themselves presented and for who they are. --2602:306:C574:370:BDB4:BCB:EF5A:98EB (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2602:306:C574:370:BDB4:BCB:EF5A:98EB (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --71.49.225.83 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.49.225.83 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --67.182.232.9 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 67.182.232.9 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --74.128.55.27 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 74.128.55.27 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --172.248.238.28 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 172.248.238.28 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --24.190.9.223 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.190.9.223 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --129.81.124.103 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 129.81.124.103 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --86.162.43.63 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 86.162.43.63 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --69.49.44.127 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 69.49.44.127 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Comment And now we're getting slews of "contributions" from people who are so far removed from any involvement in Wikipedia that they are placing their one-word "votes" at incorrect locations on the larger page. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Against obviously, while reminding everyone that the MoS is tightly controlled by a small group of editors and the "guidelines" they write are not binding in any remote way. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Changing a guideline to make another group of editors happy is not the right way to go, Wikipedia should not be taking POV stances and follow reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mass of IP votes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --108.183.185.194 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 108.183.185.194 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --98.164.231.21 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 98.164.231.21 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. For --128.62.65.141 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 128.62.65.141 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• I strongly support the retention of the contested portion of MOS:IDENTITY. Sources that we would ordinarily consider reliable are incredibly unreliable when it comes to trans people; they often contradict each other, they often contradict themselves, and occasionally they use made-up pronouns like "he-she" that do not fit an encyclopedic tone. Self-identification is one of the most reliable sources we have in cases such as this. (I oppose the guideline against sentences like, "He gave birth . . .," but that discussion is probably best left for another time.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

IP vote.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For --71.195.101.11 (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.195.101.11 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

NOTE To new editors coming here because they've heard about this at another site to "vote": I have disabled access to this page to editors who are not confirmed (that means, you have an account, have made 10 edits, and have been here for at least 4 days). I don't know what the other site said, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is not a vote that will be won by a majority. It's a discussion of our policies and guidelines, which will be decided by consensus, which is a measurement not of numbers, but of how compelling arguments are, how they match our own precedent, and how compatible they are with our other existing policies and guidelines. Please note that I personally have absolutely no opinion on the matter, and am not trying to "stifle" discussion; rather, I simply don't care which way the community decides, as I'll enforce (as an administrator and editor) whichever decision meets consensus. What I am stopping is the endless parade of "For" comments that have absolutely no value for our process and just make it more difficult for us to actually measure what the community wants. I apologize to the small number of IP editors who seem to be Wikipedia veterans and are contributing in good faith, but I see no other way to keep this discussion manageable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If any "regular" IP editors i.e. those with a recent edit history want to register their "vote", then they can post it on my talk page and I will add it to the survey for them (provided it is accompanied by a rationale). Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support, even if MOS:IDENTITY didn't exist, we would still respect the subject's chosen gender identity per the BLP policy. To do otherwise would be profoundly disrespectful to the subject of the article. Kaldari (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support using terms and name based on current self expression. Agree with the above that this is a BLP issue. Also, as I mentioned last time I commented in a similar discussion attempting to switch pronouns either by at some pseudo-random date or by using the most sources for any period in the subjects life are too easily gamed. PaleAqua (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Against. Do not destroy WP:V in favor of pointless advocacy and non-neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Respecting the basic human dignity of our article subjects is not "advocacy" or "non-neutrality". Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is a BLP issue, as transgender people are likely to be quite upset if they're misgendered in their Wikipedia articles, especially considering that intentional misgendering is commonly used as an attack on trans people. To those concerned about verifiability, a person's self-identification is the most reliable source of a person's gender anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all for self-identification. It may be hard to find pre-change identification of one's own sex. But if we can find it, let's use it, instead of some stupid guideline like the current one? Furthermore, to what extent do you think it constitutes self-identification with the continuous use of a gendered given name? Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Qualified support I support the concept in general, but not the present wording. The policy says, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns ... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary). Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)." Examples where this policy is questionable include the example of Peter Wherrett who lived most of his life as a male, who married and divorced three times, and had children and grandchildren. However, Wherrett lived as a woman named Pip for the final two years of life, and died of prostate cancer. In this particular case I think it would be right to use the feminine pronouns for Pip Wherrett and the masculine pronouns for Peter Whetrrett, rather than a slavish following of the policy. The same applies to {[Christine Jorgensen]] who described herself as having been a "frail, blond, introverted little boy who ran from fistfights and rough-and-tumble games". Should we suppress this quotation because some might find it logically impossible for that boy to become a woman? Then there's the famous author Jan Morris, who before transitioning to her identity as a woman, married a woman and had five children with her. Finally, there's Chelsea Manning . At one time Manning had identified to two friends in Oklahoma as a gay male. It is all very well to respect someone's choice of gender, but this shouldn't always require the rewriting of their life history as the present policy appears to demand. I think we need a more flexible policy on the issue of gender identity. Michael Glass (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support the existing policy in principle, for WP:BLP reasons, although I am amenable to some discussion whether we can word it more clearly. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose the current MOS and any attempt to revise the historical record only to appease a group of vocal individuals. Wikipedia is written for everyone, but if we cannot please everyone, we aim to protect the majority of people we do it for. In the long run, like 90 years from now, people might not know a trans subject enough to realize she was once physically a male anymore. Trying to cover it up will project this result into the far future and cause the truth to be obscured. Sources also exists in cases like Lana Wachowski that she was once Larry Wachowski. And per WP:V, and WP:NOR, those sourced facts stays.

MOS also contradicts itself. It forces our hands by creating a blanketing policy. It forces us to refer to a trans as a woman in any point of time, even when we are discussing the time period when her actions was done as a male, and her male identity was an integral part of the action, producing seemingly impossible text and ugly use of language it suggests us to avoid in the first place. It says "Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity." But at the same time, it forces us to call a person who was once physically cited as male a she.

To quote Betty Logan: "By altering the specific terminology used by a source I believe we are misrepresenting what the source actually says. If we write "[She] did this" as opposed to the source's "He did this", we are in fact attributing a statement to a source that the author did in fact not make, which violates a core principle of Wikipedia." Anthonydraco (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly for, for obvious reasons. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against for the same reasons as DavidK93. Even if we do respect a person's preference, this does not retroactively change the facts of the past. The specific example given in the MoS ("instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time") only avoids contradiction by avoiding the actual facts. What if it was a difficult birth which resulted in life-changing injuries for the mother or child? How could we possibly tell the reader that while following the current guideline? – Smyth\^talk 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support the current MOS:IDENTITY, which has served WP well over the years. I am concerned that many participants in this survey seem to have come here as a result of canvassing and/or media coverage of one particular article, and may have no interest in contributing further to this encyclopedia or in editing the articles MOS:IDENTITY covers. -sche (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• See here, and perhaps also here. Personally, I think that someone should either hat the IP votes or just delete the ones that have no explanation at all, like Boomur did before, but the latter seemed to have caused a bit of controversy. (I think? It was unclear to me if anyone actually objected to the removal of unexplained IP votes.) AgnosticAphid talk 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against, based on the Manning fiasco. Verifiability, commonname and commonsense are more than enough to handle this. Cavarrone 05:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• For I don't even know why this is under discussion. The current guideline is obviously suitable, and all attempts to argue otherwise seem to rest on tangential issues. For instance, it might make you feel weird to read "He gave birth to his first child," but there is no reason that phrase should be considered unacceptable. You immediately know what's going on there, and any confusion you express is feigned. --Sebatinsky (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against per User:Cavarrone and others. Jonhall (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• For. The policy is good as is. MOS:IDENTITY is actually a really good policy as is, and I see no particularly compelling reason to change it. Cam94509 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Against: If there is potential to cause controversy due to the way it is worded, a la the recent events, then it really isn't a good guideline, is it? It should be corrected so that it does not conflict with other existing policies. Otherwise, we end up having two truths - which one is the real one? Do we promote WP:V whilst neglecting "muh special feelings", or do we promote "muh special feelings" and neglect WP:V? --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think the basic idea is good, but the details might need a bit of work. I think the only correct way to look at gender is that it is something you only can decide for yourself. As long as there is verifiable evidence that a person identifies with a certain gender (a fact) it makes sense to change pronouns, that shouldn't generally conflict with the principles of verifiability at least. It is clear that many transgender feel they always have had a certain gender since birth, but are there no cases were individuals feel it is a change that happened later in life? If so maybe one should be careful not to do such people a disservice? The same can be said about names, at least the name used when we write about the person in the article, but names are a bit more complicated since I can think of scenarios where it would seem revisionist not to at least mention a previous name and other where mentioning a previous name would be a highly offensive breach of privacy. Maybe that will have to be decided on a case to case basis? What about cases where someone was famous a long time ago with one name and gender and then transition later in life when they are no longer famous and just want to be left alone? In that case it might be worth considering if the transition is notable? And while WP shouldn't "out" people I'm not sure why we should have to hide the fact that someone is transgender, their past or previous names either, that seems very wrong to me? --Space simian (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support per the reasons cited by Thryduulf. And we need to clarify that it applies to both pronouns and names/article titles, which are clearly linked. Per the Transgender Law Center, "it is extremely disrespectful to be called by a pronoun or name one does not chose for oneself. It invalidates ones identity and self-concept. This lack of validation and recognition can and often does lead to depression and suicide."[4] Josh Gorand (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support The English language does not have a set of pronouns for woman-born-as-man-who-identifies-as-female-but-is-sexually-male and it's reasonable to follow the suggestion to use the female set, even though it's "wrong" (using male would be equally "wrong" so we're stuck). Constructions like s/he or, god forbid, zhe, will just confuse our readers, and being inconsistent would be even more confusing. This is part of the style guide for a reason - it's there to give the articles consistency and readability. It would probably make sense to include an exhortation in the policy to avoid using pronouns when possible, but that's not critical. We have to be clear about which terms to use because failing to have a central standard will lead to ridiculous and repeated edit wars, but this isn't an endorsement of the trans community or of either sex or gender, it's just an editorial decision for consistency. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; guidelines must always be subordinated to WP:V; see also WP:RS. If reliable sources call someone biologically male who identifies as a woman "he" I think WP:V and WP:RS have to win. Red Slash 16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support; common practice in all reputable venues, as it has been for some time. This is 2013, not 1913. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I sympathize with trans people, but the pronoun used should reflect the person's stated self-identity at the time of the incidents referred to. In the case of Manning, "he" should be referred to as "he" when referencing events before the trial, and as "she" for events after her announced self-identification as female. To do otherwise would be wrong, and obviously wrong in some cases. "She fathered a child" and "he gave birth to a child" are both absurd statements, and would be unlikely to meet the style guide in the form I propose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the current wording of MOS:IDENTITY. I regard to article titles, although I support its spirit, it contradicts WP:RS (use reliable sources). If these reliable sources change their usage, Wikipedia can quickly so the same. Otherwise, it's borderline original research. In regard to usage within articles such as in the case of Private Manning, "he" should be referred to as "he" when referencing events before the trial, and as "she" for events after her announced self-identification as female as long as usage in other sources is mixed. Pronouns can also be avoided as much as possible. (Sometimes is wish this were Chinese.) —  AjaxSmack  00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It would be a disaster for Wikipedia to step backward in its treatment of transgender people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the current wording of MOS:IDENTITY There are real difficulties with the wording that have nothing to do with the status of transgender people. I believe the present wording is at the very least, too prescriptive. It prescribes a solution "that is simple, neat, and wrong." At the very least, the word generally needs to be added, because, though MOS:IDENTITY may be wonderful, it is not holy writ. Michael Glass (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the above survey

Since discussion is unwelcome in a survey (I didn't know. Mea culpa.) I'll put my comments here.

Betty: You seem to be worried that MOS:IDENTITY requires that we change pronouns in direct quotations, as that is the example you use. But that is not what MOS:IDENTITY says. It says the opposite. To quote it exactly, it says: "Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions." So the problem you raise is not a problem with MOS:IDENTITY as it stands. 99.192.54.21 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.69.149 & 99.192.64.222)

Agreed, quotes would be quoted verbatim, as per usual. Alternatively they could be paraphrased (and not presented as a quote). The same thing applies if Fred changes his name to Bob. Its explained in the article, and then either quoted as Fred. Or paraphrased in an alternative way so that the new name can be used, or instead, no name could be used. The exact determination being upto involved editors. If you had to include something from someone in regards to the name change itself for example, this would require consideration as to which version would be most easily understood. Generally we should avoid changing quotes where at all possible, and this is no different. You can be for MOS:IDENTITY and also have that view too :) -- Nbound (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Woodstone: If Wikipedia follows your suggestion, then in a case where a male who identifies as a man pretends to be a woman (by signing forms as a woman, using a name more typical of women and using the women's toilet, etc.) articles should use a female pronoun. It would also mean that people who reveal they they are homosexual, but who behaved like a heterosexual previously (Public statements, signing forms, marrying a person of the opposite sex, etc.) must be counted as heterosexual for the time when they were "in the closet". That would be absurd, but it is the consequence of counting "behaviour" as the basis for deciding on pronouns. 99.192.67.148 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I fail to see any absurdity in basing a description on observable and verifiable behaviour. How can one distinguish wether someone "pretends to be" or "is" of a particular gender? The used pronoun should designate the person as observed at the time being described. Anything else is unverifiable. Using (s)he does not imply what gender the subject is, just how (s)he is observed. −Woodstone (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered that gender includes a biological and a self-identification component? Is there any reliable source for a person's self-identification other than themselves? Is there a reason to choose biological sex over gender identity when they don't match if doing so is hurtful to the individual in question? AgnosticAphid talk 16:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The only reliable source is not what they say, but what they do. And that may change over time. −Woodstone (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If what they do is announce they identify as another gender, then wikipedia follows them in that. AgnosticAphid talk 16:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

WP should report that they announced it, and if the person from that moment on behaves in accordance with the announced gender, events from that moment on in the biography may be reported with the matching pronoun. Anything else is utterly confusing. −Woodstone (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we describe Ellen DeGeneres as "before she had the guts to come out publicly, she was straight"? No, of course not.

Why do people think Chelsea isn't being truthful? It's hard to come out publicly as gay, it's even harder to come out to the whole world as trans. You don't do it unless you really have to.

I am trans too. Just give us some basic respect please. Use the right name. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hirsutism, the issue of what name to use is not what is being discussed. It is pretty much settled that when talking about Manning's life prior to this week that "Bradley" is correct (just as articles do with any person who has changed their name for whatever reason they change their name) while for the most recent events "Chelsea" is correct. The discussion here is pronouns. If a pronoun is used, should the article say "he moved to Wales in 2001" or "she moved to Wales in 2001"? Her name was unquestionably "Bradley" when she moved to Wales, but the pronoun issue is separate. Also, Wikipedia's policies are based on accuracy, not about "respect". Hopefully getting it right is respectful, but for an encyclopedia accuracy has to trump other considerations. Arguing here that it's disrespectful to use "he" is a weak argument. Arguing that it is inaccurate is a strong argument. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

My take on the pronoun issue... first, explain in the opening paragraph that Manning has changed gender identity, and note when this occured. Draw a line at the date on which Manning declared the change... when describing events prior to that date use "he", and when describing events after that date use "she". This respects the change, but puts it in real world context that the reader can understand. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar: "...Manning has changed gender identity..." No, she hasn't. That's the whole point. She did not change gender, she just revealed what her true gender is. This is identical to a situation where a man who is gay but pretended to be straight announces that he is gay. Sexual orientation did not change with such an announcement. It was just revealed. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

File:Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg

File:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg

If this type of historical revisionism is not considered okay, why would altering this photo to make Yezhov look like a woman be any better?

Blueboar, that sounds like a good potential solution, when the majority of sources describe Manning as female. But it addresses the most important issue here, and that is maintaining historical accuracy. --PiMaster3 ^talk 03:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing that pictures should be altered. If you think they are, then you are just not paying attention. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I was trying to make a point about historical revisionism. Whether it's text based or image based it is still changing what happened. --PiMaster3 ^talk 04:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Absolutely no one is arguing that Manning presented as male for most of her life. If this were an article about a woman who dressed up as a man to fight in the U.S. Civil War, then we wouldn't be altering pictures of the women in their uniforms to make them look more feminine. But we wouldn't be referring to them as "he" either.

PiMaster3, no one is saying that the article shouldn't be factually accurate. It should say that Manning was raised male and lived as a man for most of her life to date. No one is contesting that that must be made absolutely clear. However Manning says that she was really female this whole time. The article must reflect that as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) PiMaster3: I know what point you thought you were making. My point was to tell you that you were making it very badly. No one thinks we should change the images in pictures. No one thinks, as you now say, we should "change what happened". Manning moved to Wales in 2001. That is a historical fact. The article should report it (if it's important). No one thinks events should be fabricated or changed. But at the time Manning moved to Wales, her sex was male and her gender female. To say "he moved to Wales" is to alter the history of what her gender was at the time. Wikipedia should not lie about her gender, even if she (quite understandably) did lie about it in the past. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)

99.192.84.128, you write, "No one thinks, [...], we should 'change what happened'." – but that's actually exactly what happens, if, e.g., one were to write stuff like "the military charged her with [...]". The military charged him/her as a man, as a he, and stating otherwise is changing what really happened, i.e., is revisionism in the sense of negationism. (PS: What's the meaning behind the "(99.192....)" at the end of your posts?) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

ὁ οἶστρος, you are mistaking matters of style for matters of substance. When someone says, "Max Webster? His music is great." They are not asserting the claim that Max Webster is a man, they are using a pronoun based on their (false) belief that Max Webster is a man. The error is one of style, not substance, which is why pronouns are governed by a style guide. Upon the realization that Max Webster is a band, the person will quickly switch to saying "Their music is great." So with Manning, the military actually did charge a woman with [...], they and the source reporting the arrest just incorrectly believed that Manning was a man at the time. To say "they charged her" is correct.

The tag at the end of my signature is to indicate that I am the same person who has made the other comments on this page that are signed by IP addresses beginning with "99.192". I have a dynamic IP address, so it has changed many times over the course of the discussion here and I use that tag to make it clear to participants that I am not different people or one person trying to present myself as different people. But should someone erroneously refer to two of my comments together as if they are from different people and talk about what "they" have argued, I will point out the error so that the pronoun can be corrected :-) 99.192.84.19 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Where sexuality is concerned, you don't have to keep referring to it apart from what sources say, or in a way that the sources aren't talking about. You can say "he married a woman" without specifically addressing what sexuality that makes him. Just stick to the sources and you'll be fine. Wnt (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is anyone else concerned about the large number of ips turning up and treating this like a vote? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned ... yet.... The number of them has been a slow trickle so far and the removal of the ones without any content with a note about how many have been removed as "Boomur" has done seems fine. Plus the template you added is good as well. But if you are worried about the volume increasing, it might be worthwhile to close off the "survey" section. It is the fact that it looked like a vote was going on that brought the newcomers out of the woodwork and so ending the survey should eliminate the incentive to keep coming unless they have something more to add. 99.192.84.19 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• it seems like someone posted a link to this discussion somewhere that is likely to have a lot of readers with a clear sympathy toward transgender issues. Was it posted by an editor or just someone who noticed it? Who knows? (If I had to guess, I'd say not an editor, because any canvassing editor with half a brain would have told their IP friends to at least say something vaguely incomprehensible like "for per BLP, RS and V".) Anyway, it's easy enough to disregard people who have nothing to say. AgnosticAphid talk 15:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I've added an editnotice, which reads:

• • ATTENTION: If you are coming to express an opinion on a topic of discussion, please include a rationale that addresses Wikipedia policy, or your opinion may be ignored.

• • If anyone objects, feel free to amend or remove it: {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style}} - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I'd just note that if the community discussion over at Chelsea Manning should close in favour of a move back to Bradley Manning, if this discussion closes in favour of the status quo, Wikipedia would have a glaring internal inconsistency. I supported the status quo over there (keeping Chelsea Manning) while opposing it here because there was at least SOME support for assigning a female gender to Manning beyond JUST Manning's request (there's a photo circulating of Manning presenting as a woman, at least one major news media outlet promptly switched to feminine pronouns, etc). It's one thing for Wikipedia to get some attention in the media for being somewhat more progressive than the "average" media outlet in the Manning case and another thing to be way out in left field which I believe is going to eventually happen if a subject's self-identification can trump absolutely anything and everything to the contrary. Push the envelope too far on this and eventually there will be a case where an automatic move citing this style manual is reverted by community consensus after a review of the case specifics and I would think that would be more of a defeat for the LGBT agenda than adopting an approach that is mindful of the possibility of overreach.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Betty Logan (talk · contribs) may have just trashed the above survey - they've been removing detailed comments with rationale from logged in editors, under the guise of removing "SPA" comments, in a manner that wasn't possible to roll back. Betty, please repair what you have done - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Will you provide some evidence to back up your claim please? The only votes I removed by "logged in" editors (by this I presume you mean registered accounts?) were accounts that had only made comments exclusively in this survey. If I removed a comment by a non-SPA account by mistake then please point it out to me and I will restore it, but I find your accusation in extreme poor faith. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have double checked this. The only two registered editors I removed from the survey were Skyleaf and Chriskarate from what I can see, and both accounts registered today. If I am overlooking someone then I assure you it is a mistake and not a "guise", and will happily correct it if brought to my attention. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, having substantial comment means they should be heard as well - IPs are after all allowed to edit Wikipedia. Please mark them rather than deleting them. It's a survey, not a vote. (I certainly wouldn't assume that most of them disagreeing with you had anything to do with it.) Removing comments is fundamentally bad form - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, please quit the bad faith accusations. I could just as easily point out you are only objecting because they are supporting your stance. In a survey posed to assess community support, I do not agree that canvassed SPA votes have any place in this discussion, since SPAs not familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are not in a position to offer policy based rationales. Either they are removed, or I suppose we impose semi-protection, which would prohibit the IPs who can inform the debate. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I see my survey vote was removed. Yes Betty Logan, my account was created quite recently, but that was mainly because I wanted to tie a more tangible name to my position than just a plain IP address. I made sure to look over the MOS:IDENTITY guidelines and the discussions involved with it before giving my position for the survey. Is there something else I need to do to be considered more "valid" in this? If so, let me know, as I would like my voice to be heard on the issue as well. Skyleaf (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest re-registering your vote anonymously if you are a regular IP editor, since I did not remove IPs with an editing history. I only removed your vote becasue it appeared to be canvassed and a SPA, which I think you would concede is a reasonable assumption on my part. Regular IP editors are a part of the Wikipedia community too, so I have no objection to including their votes. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't been a contributor for a few years. I've been thinking of getting back into it again, but unfortunately I have no idea what, if any, record I can point towards to show said past contributions. I can see your point though. Considering my lack of accessible history, what would you suggest? Perhaps make some contributions elsewhere and come back? Skyleaf (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it was not a good course of action to remove these contributions. It's plain this survey has been compromised by meat puppets - and that would be obvious to anyone closing it or drawing conclusions from it. But removing the !votes will only contribute to a feeling of hostility. This whole thing is turning into a right fiasco. Best to avoid action like removing comments so as to keep things calm. I've opened a thread at ANI on the incident here. --RA (✍) 21:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: in the interest of transparency, I would like to assume responsibility for the complete invalidation of this survey by anonymous users. I posted about the survey on a (quite unpopular) blog of mine in an attempt to notify a small number of my Wikipedian and GSM advocate buddies about the issue because I thought they would bring something to the discussion. Instead, the post got shared out the wazoo and attracted tons of non-Wikipedia users, because I did a bad job clarifying the style and intention of the survey. I did not anticipate that so many people would see the message at all. I've attempted to reduce the influx through followup posts asking that people stop voting, but they do not seem to be reaching the same audience. I apologise for my mistakes, and I had no intention of large-scale canvassing; however, this has gone out of my control. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help assuage this. I'm terribly embarrassed, and I understand if punitive actions need to be taken. ~ Boomur [talk] 22:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This survey has not been "completely invalidated" by anonymous users; such users have every right to participate in the survey, even if it's among their first experiences on Wikipedia. That said, generally pure "votes" are discounted when determining whether consensus exists, so any post simply saying "for" or "against" without including any rationale (as some users are posting) will likely be ignored by a closing admin. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

right, i realise that, i was just perhaps exaggerating a little. anyway, sorry again for the inconvenience. ~ Boomur [talk] 23:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Time has a thoughtful article on the "should we use 'he' to refer to past events?" question. Honestly, I'm a bit conflicted on this issue. AgnosticAphid talk 23:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory guidance?

Let's take a hypothetical article on someone called "Daniel Bradding".

Bradding is the subject of many news reports. He is known to the world as being male and hasn't made any public announcements to the contrary.

• Our article is at Daniel Bradding. [Struck out because it was distracting from the point]
• Bradding is referred to as "Daniel" in the article
• Bradding is referred to as "he"

Apparently out of the blue, and catching many news agencies unaware, Bradding through a lawyer declares a preference to be called "Shelly" and referred to as "she".

OK, tell me if I'm wrong here but:

• The first bullet point of the MOS says, "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article."
• The second bullet point of the MOS says, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman'), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."

Now, in the case of Bradding, which is hypothetical, RS continue to call Bradding "Daniel" and any reasonable reading of Wikipedia:Article titles puts the article at Daniel Bradding. However, Bradding's "latest expressed gender self-identification" is clearly as a female. So, the guidance would appear to provide that:

• Our article remains at Daniel Bradding. [Struck out because it was distracting from the point]
• Bradding is referred to as "Daniel" in the article
• BUT the article is changed so that Bradding be referred to as "she"

i.e. the pronouns shift immediately when self-identification does BUT proper nouns and article titles only shift when usage by others changes.

Is that a contradiction?

--RA (✍) 19:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

this is an interesting point, and i think that this would be a solid guideline to follow — at least, in the sense that that's essentially what the current MOS dictates. in the hypothetical situation, it is respectful of and accurate to Bradding's personal identity, but still accounts for the fact that her name change is not yet recognised in RS. obviously, the fact that Bradding prefers the name Shelley would be noted in the article, and since references to her first name would be scarce, the name change would have little bearing on the content of the article. ~ Boomur [talk] 19:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a contradiction. A person's name is a separate issue from their gender, so there are separate policies to cover how each is dealt with. If a person's desire to change their name happens to coincide with announcing that they are not the gender people thought they were, then it might seem odd to you that one switch immediately and not the other. But as they are different questions, they have different answers. 99.192.78.111 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I think the biggest confusion, which I see again and again and again, is this: THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE PERSON'S NAME! Rather, the topic of the article is (usually) a person, and the title of the article is chosen to help the reader understand who that person is, so when they arrive at the article, they look at the top, see a big name in bold, and say "Yup, I'm at the right place". The person's name and what their friends and parents call them could be completely different (see Deadmau5 for example) from the article title. So, practice with me: Article title is NOT the person's name. Otherwise, I agree with RA completely - we should probably switch pronouns immediately, (if the declaration is not just a whim and we have a sense this is serious, obviously), but wait to switch the article title until reliable sources come around.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, Obiwankenobi! and this is what I have been thinking over the whole fiasco over manning. The article, using "she", but the article title being the common name, and simply having the lead mentioning that she identifies herself as Chelsea. Except that is not how it is right now. But I digress, this is off topic. I think the way the manual of style is fine, to have the pronouns in the article to be chosen by their personal preference, but to have the title be the common name. (reminds me of this on google trends, which has bradley manning being a little over 900% more searched than chelsea manning in searches made today) sorry doing it again... but it is hard to not comment about it seeing as ips are banned on that article's talk page :p (and good thing, look at all those non-commenting ip voters here)75.73.114.111 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I've stated that elsewhere too. The title of the article is not always name of the subject. Anyone working in Ireland-related articles over the past few years will be very conscious of that. --RA (✍) 14:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, I'm not suggesting anything that people can agree with me over, I'm asking a question: is the MOS contradictory. Following the letter of the MOS would currently have us call the subject of the "Daniel Braddings" article "Daniel" (a name indicating a male) but refer to the subject as "she" (a pronoun indicating a female). Personally, I think that may cause confusion for the reader - but I'm asking what others think. --RA (✍) 14:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, NO, I don't think this is a problem - if people can get over what we noted above - the article title is to help the reader be sure they're at the right place. Once in the article, you can then call the person whatever you want (and use whatever pronouns are appropriate) - the in-text usage doesn't have to conform to the title. Cat Stevens is instructive - the way in which Stevens is named changes over the course of the article - during his later years he is referred to as Yusuf Islam in the running text.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes. The point I'm making is not about the article title. It's that the MOS as it currently stands directs us to call the person (in the body article) the name they reject (Daniel) but us the pronoun they identify with (she). It's inconsistent. --RA (✍) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• As someone else pointed out to me in another discussion, we do have these articles: George Sand, Michael Michele. They have sentences like, "George Sand, however, was notable by her absence." I think that the pronoun question is independent of the name question even if they may be informed by similar considerations. AgnosticAphid talk 17:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've copied this from my talk because it may help clarify the contradiction I mean:

RA, since the MOS talk page has restricted access right now, I thought I would reply to you here. On that page you wrote:

Just to be clear here, I'm not suggesting anything that people can agree with me over, I'm asking a question: is the MOS contradictory. Following the letter of the MOS would currently have us call the subject of the "Daniel Braddings" article "Daniel" (a name indicating a male) but refer to the subject as "she" (a pronoun indicating a female). Personally, I think that may cause confusion for the reader - but I'm asking what others think. --RA (✍) 14:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A name that is typically male and a female pronoun might confuse a reader, but only for a moment. There are already examples of people who have names that are not typical of their gender (that have nothing to do with being transgender) to provide examples. Both Michael Learned and Noah Cyrus are females with names typical of males. So to see "Michael" (not "Michelle") and "she" together looks odd, but once you know that this is really her name and her gender it is not a problem. This momentary unfamiliarity often happens with names from other languages ("Jean" is a common French male name which looks odd to read with "he"; "Valeri" is a common Russian male name which sounds odd to say with "he"), but again is easy to adjust to. It is also possible that, like Michael and Noah, parents of a girl could choose to name their daughter "Daniel", but the fact that it might momentarily confuse a reader is no reason to use "he". Anyone who is confused for more than moment in the tansgender case, but not in any other cases of atypical name-pronoun combinations probably has a problem with people being transgender, as that is the only difference. 99.192.94.34 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Of course there are names that are used to represent both men and women (Francis, Robin, etc.) and some of these are unusual (Michael). That's not what I'm getting at. The contradiction with the "Bradding" example is that we would use the name the subject was given at birth (Daniel) but eschew the corresponding pronoun (he). And we would eschew the name the subject chose when they identified as a woman (Shirley) but use the corresponding pronoun (she). It's muddled.

If we respect the persons gender identity then we should use their female name (Shirley) and their chosen pronoun (she). If we don't respect the persons chosen gender identity then we should use their birth name (Daniel) and the corresponding pronoun (he). We do neither. We muddle the two.

My 2¢ is that the MOS is a blunt instrument for some cases (particularly people in transition). We need a more nuanced and sensitive approach. --RA (✍) 18:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Does that make any clearer the contradiction I'm referring to? --RA (✍) 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a contradiction. Let's forget about the identity politics aspect of this – which i definitely have views about, but nevermind – and solely concern ourselves with what the most accurate Wikipedia article would be. I'd submit that it's simply not accurate to use a male pronoun w/r/t someone who identifies themselves as female because I'd also submit that self-identification is the best and most reliable way of determining gender. Whereas, at least arguably, the choice of name question is informed by other, more objective, considerations, like how widely is the name used and so on. At any rate, though the motivations for adoption of MOS:IDENTITY certainly might have some relevance in an RM like the Manning one going on right now, overall the substantive choice of title is not really something the MOS would ordinarily cover, because it's supposed to promote consistency among all articles, not really list rules about name choices in reliable sources and so on. I think the MOS would only cover the name choice if there was going to be a rule "ALWAYS or NEVER use the transgender person's chosen name," which I am not sure would necessarily be appropriate. So I dont necessarily think that the "rules" in these two situations necessarily even need to be consistent with each other, assuming they aren't already. Finally, you might think it's awkward to have a she article about Daniel, but really, is it actually that confusing? And if it was so confusing then surely people would have been confused by our existing Ms. Michael articles, which I see no evidence of. AgnosticAphid talk 15:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A less hypothetical example

On his talk page Jimbo Wales pointed out that Margaret Thatcher is referred to fairly extensively as "Roberts" in the parts of the article about her early life. Wnt (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Effect of outcome on Wikipedia users and WMF Nondiscrimination Policy

An issue that has not been adequately explored is how changing the style manual to disregard a person's gender identity or expression will effect Wikipedia's own users and potential users and whether that effect will violate WMF policy. The Wikimedia Foundation has seven policies that apply to Wikipedia (and all WMF projects) and, per WP:CONEXCEPT and WMF policy, WMF decisions supersede Wikipedia policies and consensuses. One of these WMF policies, the Non Discrimination Policy, addresses this issue, stating as follows (emphasis added):

WMF Non Discrimination Policy

This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies.

The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer.

This WMF policy is implicated here because although the decision not to refer to a person in Wikipedia articles by that person's gender identity (as verified in reliable sources) is an editorial decision, that decision will have the broader effect of discriminating against current or prospective users based on their gender. Specifically, the decision will be virtually certain to create a chilling effect that will deter transgender, intersex, and genderqueer persons from contributing to Wikipedia, both now and in the future. This is not merely a speculative allegation; many such persons have posted on Wikipedia in the past several days (either here or on Talk:Chelsea Manning) expressing their feelings of deep personal offense to the idea of Wikipedia not referring to a person by that person's gender identity. And such a decision will indisputably discriminate on the basis of gender: cis individuals, who have gender identities that satisfy cultural expectations, will be unaffected by the decision because Wikipedia will continue to portray cis individuals with terminology reflective of their gender identities, while persons whose genders do not conform to cultural expectations will be portrayed on Wikipedia with terminology not reflective of their gender identities. Disparate treatment of minorities like this clearly has the effect of singling out, demeaning, and likely psychologically injuring persons in the minority group, and if nothing else, it will certainly make such persons feel disrespected by Wikipedia and unwelcome as current or future users (irrespective of whether that effect is intended).

I recognize that some opposing editors may respond to this by stating that a decision to respect nontraditional gender identities on Wikipedia may have a similar discriminatory effects against them, to which I point out that such editors are not encompassed by the Non Discrimination Policy (and that it is nonsensical to elevate a position that discriminates against a minority group to equivalency with protections for that minority group). I also suspect that some editors may point out that Wikipedia includes all types of content that may be considered offensive to persons protected by the Non Discrimination Policy, such as articles on fascism and the Ku Klux Klan. The difference here, however, is that such content is merely descriptive, whereas refusing to refer to someone by their own gender identity is, or at least appears to be, prescriptive—denoting Wikipedia's judgment that a person's own gender identity is incorrect when it does not satisfy cultural expectations. Unlike the mere presentation of descriptive information, a community judgment about how to refer to members of a minority group will naturally chill the participation of that minority group's members in the community—which is exactly what the Non Discrimination Policy means to prevent.

In summary, refusing to portray a person by that person's gender identity "erodes" (if not "ignores") Wikimedia's Non Discrimination Policy by discriminating against current or potential users on the basis of gender, specifically by creating a chilling effect that will demean and thus deter transgender, intersex, and genderqueer persons from using or participating in this Wikimedia project. Given that WMF policies supersede Wikipedia policies and consensuses, this discussion should be preempted in favor of maintaining the current practice, which exists in harmony with the Non Discrimination Policy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend that you discuss the matter with the WMF. As it is their policy, it is up to the WMF to determine whether it is applicable in this case. My understanding, however, is that WMF involvement in editorial decisions on Wikipedia is minimal (for instance implementing rare court orders to suppress certain materials) and that the community would very much oppose an effort by the foundation to dictate how we write about certain topics.GabrielF (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

With no comment (due to topic ban enjoinment) on the page move itself, some of the comments regarding trans issues, including some in this thread made by administrators, definitely violate the NDP (and incidentally, BLP is Foundation-mandated policy too). Sceptre ^(talk) 12:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC

GabrielF - I recognize that getting WMF involved directly would likely prompt the ire of Wikipedians, which is why I have posted it here at this time. Certainly, WMF expects that Wikipedia will abide by WMF policies and that Wikipedia has the capacity to self-enforce them. It is my hope that by pointing out this policy, editors supporting the change to the MOS will reconsider their position, and that a closing admin will seriously take the policy into account. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to "As it is their policy, it is up to the WMF to determine whether it is applicable in this case.", the policy specifically states "It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." However, how it would actually be applied here, if it actually is applicable at all is a good question. Transcendence (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

refusing to refer to someone by their own gender identity is inherently prescriptive and denotes Wikipedia's judgment that a person's own gender identity is incorrect – no. Reflecting reliable sources is not inherently prescriptive, nor does it denote a judgement, either in relation to gender identity or in relation to any other matter. If as a matter of style we decide to make use of pronouns reflecting a person's latest reliably reported gender identity (which I favour), this style does not denote Wikipedia's judgment that that person's gender identity is "correct" (whatever that means) but that it is "correctly reported" which is very different. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Choosing to rely on reliable sources that use gender pronouns inconsistent with a person's identity, instead of choosing to rely on reliable sources that use gender pronouns consistent with a person's identity, is a prescriptive judgment that the former sources "correctly" depict a person's gender despite that person's own gender identity. This constitutes gender discrimination for the reasons outlined above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The WMF's discrimination policy doesn't exist so one group of people can ram their preference through the Manual of Style over objections, no. We don't give people free reign over what to call themselves on Wikipedia, because if we did everyone (for instance) in India would have, according to us, been kshatriya's and brahmans for thousands of years and there wouldn't have been a single shudra; more than one person in that topic area has tried to chill discussions in the same way you are, and it's not going to work any better here. This section of the MoS shouldn't be dictated solely by what advocacy groups demand, it should take the same variety of sources into account that every other section of the MoS does. Trying to find a solution other than our current one regarding MOS:IDENTITY is not gender discrimination by any reasonable, or indeed even mildly unreasonable, stretch. Beyond that, I'm entirely with GabrielF on this issue, so there's no reason to repeat all that he's said above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusing others of creating a chilling effect by simply introducing the NDP to this discussion is hysterical. Under your reasoning, I could say that you making the allegation that I am "chilling" the discussion is likewise "chilling" me from participating in it. Please educate yourself on the meaning of that term. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured that I'm not hysterical about this (god knows, with the article work I've been doing the last 8+ months my perspective on many things in my life has been seriously refocused), I'm pointing out that attempting to bring the WMF's anti-discrimination policy into this is entirely unnecessary. San Francisco/Greenwich Village (the latter of which I have been to on many occasions, lest you think I'm somehow ignorant) is not and cannot speak for the world, nor can a few advocacy groups, however noble their cause. What they might see as hate speech is, in this context, a perfectly legitimate debate here, and people are going to be a little uncomfortable commenting if they're afraid the WMF could summarily block them for violating a foundation principle. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Prototime above. Wikipedia does not "choose" to rely on one set of reliable sources rather than another. It does not make judgements of this kind. In line with WP:NPOV, it reports on judgements made in all reliable sources. Style is a different matter. Wikipedia is entitled to have its own agreed style, as is any other publication. But the choice of style does not mean that Wikipedia is making a judgement as to the correctness of a person's gender identity. Current guidelines are that if reliable source(s) attest that a person's self-identification is now, say, female, then female gender pronouns are used throughout (a position which, I repeat, I support). An alternative is that male gender pronouns would be used in describing events before the time of transition/self-identification and female ones after. Neither choice means that Wikipedia is making a judgement as to the person's "correct" gender. If it did so it would seriously violate its founding principles. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that I am arguing that the effect of disregarding sources that use a person's own gender identity is prescriptive. Even if unintended, the perception of stylizing gender pronouns in opposition to how a person identifies appears judgmental. I assume the decision to do so would be based on how some particular reliable sources stylize the pronouns, but regardless of the reasons for the decision, the appearance is prescriptive and the broader chilling effect on Wikipedia users is the same. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary of survey

Since new comments on the above survey have petered out, I've tried to count the number of editors in support of each option, as I understand them:

• Follow the subject's latest self-identification consistently for all phases in their life. (current guideline) – 22

• Follow the usage of reliable sources, whatever it may be. – 12

• Follow the way the subject presented themselves at each phase in their life, changing terminology as necessary. – 7

• Follow the subject's latest self-identification consistently for all phases in their life, but only after reliable sources start to do so. – 1

• Follow the subject's physical sex at birth. – 1

• Against current guideline; no clear alternative suggested. – 2

• Total supporting some change in the guideline. – 23

• The other option I was expecting to see was "Follow the subject's latest preference, whether it is for a consistent life-long gender, or a different gender at different phases of their life." But nobody supported that, apparently because of a belief that nobody expresses the latter preference.

– Smyth\^talk 21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So that's how it falls out when we vote with people, a roughly even split for keep vs. change with a plurality on keep. Would anyone care to sum up the arguments and evidence offered in favor of either side? I think a few people cited newspapers and style guides as sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to unpack these questions:

• Does the current guidance to use self-chosen pronouns going forward from the gender announcement have consensus support? I'd say yes. The AP and NYT style guides both recommend doing so & I'm not aware of any style guide that suggests otherwise. Some people are uncomfortable with this based on policies like WP:V but to me gender seems like a perfectly appropriate thing to reliably source from individuals' own statements, like sexual orientation is. Personally I never read a satisfactory response from someone who disagrees about that exact point.
• Does the current guidance to use the self-chosen pronoun retroactively have consensus support? I don't think there's currently a consensus either way on this question. It raises complex questions of gender (e.g., what gender was Manning when she was a kid? How do we know?) and established style guides are ambiguous, although the one journalists association recommends not changing past gender (but idk if they're who we should base the rule on) and Manning may have expressed support for that view, too (to the extent any one individual's thoughts are relevant; User:SlimVirgin got a statement from her attorney but it's not crystal clear). I think we need to have a separate discussion exploring this more thoroughly.
• Does the first part of MOS:IDENTITY need to be changed? It's more about titles than pronouns, which is a little weird for the MOS to begin with. Plus it's about as clear as molasses with the "if there is no dispute" qualification; see the suggested change discussion below. Here, I think it'd be best to wait until the WT:AT discussion about transgender titles concludes before we make a change.

Just my thoughts. AgnosticAphid talk 01:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you summed it up pretty well. In truth it is really the second bullet point this survey is addressing. No-one has really put up an argument against the first sentence, but there clearly isn't a consensus for the second sentence ("This applies in references to any phase of that person's life."), either on Wikipedia or in the wider media. As the Time article observes, the AP guidelines don't really differentiate between past and present tense, but when asked to clarify their guidance the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association (which the New York Times has agreed to defer to) recommends "using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time." Therefore I think the second sentence of the bullet point is over-stepping the mark. We should clarify that so it reads like "This applies in references to the current phase of that person's life; there is no consensus in the media or on Wikipedia whether current names and gender preference pronouns should be applied retrospectively to a point before a person was publicly identified in that capacity". If we apply that change, which I think would be a fair reflection of the points brought up in the survey, the last sentence "Nevertheless, avoid confusing..." becomes incongruous and should be dropped. Betty Logan (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with your thoughts. I think the sentence you wrote could be a little more clearly expressed but I can't seem to come up with more straightforward alternative. Saying there is no consensus about past pronoun choice seems to be a fair reflection of the discussion I've seen above. Every time this comes up it seems to be super controversial, so it's a bit unfortunate not to be able to settle it now one way or the other, but I guess that's how it is. AgnosticAphid talk 02:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it will be truly settled one way or the other until the AP style explicitly addresses tense; once that happens (which I think it will at some point) then Wikipedia will just go with the flow. Until then we are in the same boat as other publications, trying to work out how best to approach it. No-one seems to have a major issue with present tense references so we can set that in stone, but given the split between editors I don't really see a consensus either way in terms of retrospective application. Betty Logan (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that a "no concensus either way" result means that the status quo prevails, but I was not sure so I checked. For the benefit of others who might not know, Wikipedia:No consensus is pretty clear that on matters of policy and guidelines, "If the discussion is about a section already in the policy, that section should be removed." 99.192.93.163 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Wikipedia:No consensus is neither a policy nor a guideline, but that seems like a good principle. If we can't reach consensus in a particular area, and there is no clear direction from higher-level policies such as BLP, we'll just have to do without any guideline for that area. Of course, I think it would be better to have some guideline for this situation, to avoid the same arguments happening every time (or at least centralize them here rather than on individual article pages), but feelings are strong enough that there does not seem to be much chance of agreement being reached. – Smyth\^talk 13:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be logical to remove the section, but perhaps the reference to "all phases", since that's the contentious part. This would probably lead to extended drama on TAFKACM, though, so maybe some caution should be exercised. But I think the principle is sound. Formerip (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What is TAFKACM? – Smyth\^talk 14:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. The Article Formerly Know As Chelsea Manning. Formerip (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone else is interested, I've found that the current guideline was introduced in September/October 2007, and relevant discussion can be found in talk page archives 92 and 93. Before that, MoS said to "refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves", and was silent on the question of retroactivity. The current guideline originally came with the qualification "unless this usage is overridden by that person's own express preference"; I have not investigated when and why that was removed. – Smyth\^talk 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is pure arrogance for this style guideline to assume that every individual wants the preferred pronoun to be used retroactively. While that may be the case for the majority, it is certainly not universal.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, we (as in editors from both sides of the debate) seem to be interpreting the survey in the same way: the problematic aspect of the guideline is that there is no consensus in regards to retrospective application. I am going to update the guideline to reflect this and see what happens. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the alteration to the MOS. If anyone feels I have not accurately captured the sentiments of the survey or the conclusions above, or expressed them as clearly as possible please feel free to correct/clarify. Betty Logan (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that you have not accurately capture the sentiments of the survey or the conclusions above. 1. About half of the non-IP participants like this policy and want to keep it. 2. Almost all of the IP particpants said they liked this policy and wanted to keep it. 3. Many of those who oppose it seem to be speaking from a place that involves discomfort with the idea of transgender people in general rather than the idea of proper use of English. Changing the guideline is premature.

This isn't required by any of Wikipedia's rules, but I suggest that the wording be worked out on the talk page before it is placed in the guideline itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that only half the regular participants want to keep the wording implies that isn't a consensus (compounded by the other conclusion comments above), so the contested wording should be removed as per Wikipedia:No consensus. As for the one-off IP votes, they were canvassed from an off-site forum, and ordinarily would not carry any weight in a guideline debate. However, I am not an impartial editor so if you wish I can place a request for an uninvolved admin to review the conclusions here, but unless they take the remarkable action of permitting the canvassed votes to count then I don't think the result will be different. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The question, then, is whether consensus comes down to a vote, whether a plurality counts as lack of consensus and whether lack of consensus for one wording automatically means consensus for a different wording. I do not object to an impartial admin, but I'm not confident that we need one yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's make it simpler: Do you think that there is a consensus to keep it as is? It seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus one way of another, and unless someone can explain why they think there is a consensus, that is pretty much settled. Your worry about whether or not there is a consensus for "a different wording" is a bit misleading, since the "different wording" is simply a report that "there is no consensus". I don't think a committee of writers is needed to craft a sentence that says that. 99.192.72.160 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I think strength of opinion is a factor, since if roughly half of the editor base don't support the guideline is it reasonable to expect them to beholden to it? Secondly, we haven't really changed the wording, we've effectively just retracted a dictum. We are not saying that retrospective alterations cannot take place, we have have just removed the mandate that they must. For example, if a biography of Manning's life was published which used female pronouns throughout, then that presents a compelling reason for us to do so too; the WP:V based opposition would at least dissipate because we would then have a choice of sources. We don't want to chuck the baby out with the bath water here, which is why I prefer retracting the part that is controversial. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the WP:V opposition doesn't make any sense. If we have a reliable source that says that the person in question identifies a certain way, and would like to be referred to by a particular pronoun, there's no part of WP:V that says we need a particular source to cite word for word. We only need it to be verifiable the person *wants* to referred to a certain way. The WP:V opposition can't be addressed, because it doesn't make any sense in the first place. Cam94509 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the survey, many editors disagree with that. Each claim about a person should be referenced by a source, so it is debatable if changing the terminology alters the context and thus misrepresents what the source is actually saying. You are free to agree or disagree with those arguments of course, but this isn't really the place for it, there is a discussion above for debating the relative merits of the arguments put forward. This is just a summary of the arguments put forward, and all I am saying is that future publications about a subjects life might make the WP:V arguments (which you may or may not agree with) a moot point, so the guideline should at least be worded to anticipate such developments. Betty Logan (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"WP:V arguments (which you may or may not agree with) a moot point"... The problem is that you can't make a baseless argument a moot point. To be honest, I'm not sure we should treat this as no consensus, as many IP votes for the policy have been collapsed, even those who offered a rational, but no IP votes against the policy have been collapsed. In my humble opinion, we have a consensus to maintain the current policy, although I wouldn't be averse to seeing a PARTICULAR proposal (even the one you proposed) discussed and voted on. Cam94509 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

1. If the MoS is to be changed, that change should take place after the discussion here is done. It should stay as it is until then. 2. If there is a lack of consensus for the guideline, then the rule says the guideline should be removed, not replaced. We would need an independent consensus to add any new text, even if it seems as though some new text would be necessary.

3. If we're voting by number of people, then we have a tie if we count only registered users and a strong majority for keeping the guideline if we count everyone. If we're voting by quality of arguments, then the current guideline should remain because the case for using the same pronoun throughout the article has been made more convincingly than the case for switching back and forth. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked an admin to review the survey and present their findings. I think pretty much all the arguments have been laid out, we just need the survey reviewing and closing. Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem altogether unreasonable. Cam94509 (talk) 05:09, 1 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.