Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request: Difference between revisions
→Comments: r |
Josh Gorand (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 569: | Line 569: | ||
::::::::Josh, I don't want to open up old (while nonetheless quite relevant!) debates, but you continue to willfully misrepresent what you did and said, and I'm trying to make the case that you step away from editing this particular guideline due to being too INVOLVED - indeed your behavior is one of the inspirations for this guideline existing in the first place. As for your assertion that "I have made no personal attacks whatsover", I'm sorry but the only way to describe that is 100% high-grade wikilawyering bullshit. "Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harrassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, to refer to someone who self-identifies as a woman, by insisting on using their former name with which they no longer identifies." - you used this statement (and many others) to refer to EVERYONE who refers to Manning as Bradley - this was not just an attack on ppl who compared her to a dog. (Here's another one: "Referring to her as "he" is a BLP violation and gross sexual harrassment" - so the simple use of a pronoun "he" by many editors in the discussion was in your mind gross sexual harrassment) How you can imagine that this doesn't constitute a personal attack is beyond my comprehension. You didn't personally attack one person, you personally attacked EVERYONE who supported keeping the title at Bradley - even if they were doing so for reasons not motivated by "transphobic hate" and "sexual harassment" - you even accused them of "libel", which is a tort! So please, spare me. Read [[WP:NPA]] and try to really understand what qualifies as a personal attack. |
::::::::Josh, I don't want to open up old (while nonetheless quite relevant!) debates, but you continue to willfully misrepresent what you did and said, and I'm trying to make the case that you step away from editing this particular guideline due to being too INVOLVED - indeed your behavior is one of the inspirations for this guideline existing in the first place. As for your assertion that "I have made no personal attacks whatsover", I'm sorry but the only way to describe that is 100% high-grade wikilawyering bullshit. "Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harrassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, to refer to someone who self-identifies as a woman, by insisting on using their former name with which they no longer identifies." - you used this statement (and many others) to refer to EVERYONE who refers to Manning as Bradley - this was not just an attack on ppl who compared her to a dog. (Here's another one: "Referring to her as "he" is a BLP violation and gross sexual harrassment" - so the simple use of a pronoun "he" by many editors in the discussion was in your mind gross sexual harrassment) How you can imagine that this doesn't constitute a personal attack is beyond my comprehension. You didn't personally attack one person, you personally attacked EVERYONE who supported keeping the title at Bradley - even if they were doing so for reasons not motivated by "transphobic hate" and "sexual harassment" - you even accused them of "libel", which is a tort! So please, spare me. Read [[WP:NPA]] and try to really understand what qualifies as a personal attack. |
||
::::::::I'm not trying to open up an old debate, I'm trying to get a consensus wording that both sides are happy with in order to make it clear that the sort of statements you (and others from BOTH sides) were making during the course of the discussion are not acceptable behavior, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't opine further on the wording at this point and let others help tweak it further.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
::::::::I'm not trying to open up an old debate, I'm trying to get a consensus wording that both sides are happy with in order to make it clear that the sort of statements you (and others from BOTH sides) were making during the course of the discussion are not acceptable behavior, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't opine further on the wording at this point and let others help tweak it further.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Apparently you admit to writing that particular sub section as a way to criticise me and promote your own disputed account of the last debate, and I'm not going to tolerate that. If you want to do that, sign it as your own personal comment. You are not the right person to accuse others of personal attacks; even your above comment includes plenty of those directed at me. [[User:Josh Gorand|Josh Gorand]] ([[User talk:Josh Gorand|talk]]) 22:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::(ec) Elaqueate, yes, there was "commentary that could be reasonably interpreted as transphobic". I don't have a good sense of when, or how much, but clearly there was some. |
::::::(ec) Elaqueate, yes, there was "commentary that could be reasonably interpreted as transphobic". I don't have a good sense of when, or how much, but clearly there was some. |
||
::::::And I've (call me a slowpoke) finally figured out why we've been talking past each other all this time. Here's the sequence: |
::::::And I've (call me a slowpoke) finally figured out why we've been talking past each other all this time. Here's the sequence: |
||
Revision as of 22:03, 9 September 2013
For now, this page is intended for those debating a move from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning." Editors are welcome to contribute relevant sources and participating in discussion of them. Please do not yet use this page to debate the move per se.
Please use this page only for evidence on the name change, not on pronoun usage.
Please do not comment within the list of sources, but in the comments sub-section within each section.
Evidence
Relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines
|
|---|
|
Below is a listing of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that may be relevant to this discussion. They are sorted in alphabetic order by page title, then by section title, so as to remain neutral. Please include the direct quote(s) in the policy or guideline pertaining to the naming issue.
|
Comments (about citing the above policies and guidelines)
| Resolved issues |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is anyone still making the argument that using either "Bradley" or "Chelsea" doesn't show "regard for the subject's privacy", given that the person in question is famous under both names and both names will be listed in the first sentence of the lead? If not, can we remove mention of that aspect of WP:BLP as irrelevant to this move request? -sche (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
An editor insists on added an unsubstantiated claim that WP:N applies to the move discussion. If that editor feels the person is not notable, he is free to nominate the article for deletion; this venue is not for discussing the notability of the person, but which article title to use. I've read WP:N carefully, and I don't see the alleged quote or any portion of it that pertains to the naming issue. The above section is not for debate or personal views or interpretations, only for citing policy and guidelines. Comments belong in the comments section. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Relevant material from the five pillars:
Having quoted from the pillars, suitable material can also be cited from CIV and IAR. EdChem (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Evidence from reliable news sources on what names they use
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning and Bradley Manning.
Note: Links should show use after August 22, when the announcement was made. It is trivially obvious that sources before the announcement will use Bradley; that is not of interest here.
Statements by news agencies on their policy to address Manning as Chelsea
- New York Times: (27 August 2013)
- Associated Press: (27 August 2013)
- NPR: (23 August 2013)
- TIME (magazine): (27 August 2013): "As for TIME, a story on Manning’s announcement made its intentions clear within the first sentence: 'Chelsea Manning first announced to the world...'"
- CBC.ca: (editor's note added on September 6th): "Our initial coverage of the sentencing and reaction has acknowledged that Bradley Manning chose to live publicly as a man when charged and prosecuted, but now wants to be referred to as a woman. The next phase of coverage will refer to Chelsea Manning, with all appropriate feminine pronouns, while acknowledging the past identity of Bradley Manning when relevant."
Statements by news agencies on their policy to address Manning as Bradley
News agencies using Chelsea Manning
News agencies using Bradley Manning
News agencies which haven't clearly chosen one name over the other
- AFP: [44] 6 Sep. (uses Bradley Manning, though AFP has also made statement that they will use Chelsea)
Evidence from reliable non-news sources on what names they use
Chelsea
- Encyclopædia Britannica: [45] lede: "Chelsea Manning, original name Bradley Edward Manning", article title: "Chelsea Manning" (switched from Bradley on Sep 5). Uses "Bradley" in second paragraph.
- The Passion of Bradley Manning: The Story Behind the Wikileaks Whistleblower was written before Manning came out, but the author states on page 135 "When and if Bradley Manning clearly and publicly articulates a wish to be known otherwise, this author, who is listening attentively, will address him or her however he or she wishes.", so I think we can chalk that one up for Chelsea.
- 'Initial report of gender expression, TODAY show', statement by Chelsea E. Manning, August 22, 2013. "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. [...] I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name...".
- Lawyers for Manning: "PVT Manning wants supporters to acknowledge and respect her gender identity as she proceeds into the post-trial state of her life" Statements by Manning's Lawyer, David Coombs
Bradley
- "While PVT Manning wants supporters to acknowledge and respect her gender identity as she proceeds into the post-trial state of her life, she also expects that the name Bradley Manning and the male pronoun will continue to be used in certain instances. These instances include any reference to the trial, in legal documents, in communication with the government, in the current petition to the White House calling for clemency, and on the envelope of letters written to her by supporters. She also expects that many old photos and graphics will remain in use for the time being." Statements by Manning's Lawyer, David Coombs
- Lawyers for Manning using name "Bradley" in 9/3/2013 cover letter to the President. Pardon request cover letter for Pvt. Manning.
Sources specifically discussing media usage
- Why is it so hard to call Chelsea Manning 'She'?, New York (magazine), 22 August 2013
- Who is still calling Chelsea Manning 'he'?, MSNBC, 27 August 2013
- To She or Not to She? Media Outlets Struggle to Pick a Pronoun for Chelsea Manning: The New York Times announced its decision to refer Manning in the feminine, so who are the holdouts?, TIME (magazine), 27 August 2013
- “Chelsea” is winning, TIME (magazine), 28 August 2013
- AP calls Bradley Manning a ‘she’ and liberal media fall in line with PC agenda, Washington Times, 29 August 2013
- Op-ed: What Is Fox News's Problem With Chelsea Manning?, Advocate, 4 September 2013
- What Does Chelsea Manning’s Gender Have to Do With You?, Reason, 4 September 2013
- Mainstream Media Fails on Coverage of Chelsea Manning's Transition, Truthout, 8 September 2013
Sources specifically discussing the title of the Wikipedia article
Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people
Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people
|
|---|
|
This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question.
Some editors have expressed a concern that the following source is not reliable, while other editors consider it to be reliable:
|
Comments (on the above sources only)
| Comments (on the above sources only) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources which haven't reported on Manning since the announcement
Comments on entries
Collapsing long sections
A couple of notes on news headlines and name usage
|
Washington Times as a source
In the "Statements by news agencies about how Manning will be addressed" section, an article in the Unification Church's publication The Washington Times[49] is cited favouring Bradley. Interestingly, that source, which contains rather extreme and abusive language (referring to Manning's gender transition as an "absurd request", and further slurs about "illegals"), nevertheless notes that the AP Stylebook recommends using Chelsea and feminine pronouns and that most media "fall in line with PC agenda"(!). While we can note the opinions of the Unification Church, I doubt whether the Washington Times qualifies as a reliable source in this context on par with the other news sources cited (like AP), due to its lack of neutrality and its extreme views. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The New York Times also has extreme views; just to the far left. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Lawyer's statement
In the above section on "reliable non-news sources on what name to use", a statement by Manning's lawyer is cited as if it supports the name Bradley as the "name to use." This is misleading, even incorrect, as the lawyer is only commenting that Manning expects the old name "will continue to be used in certain instances", which is something different entirely. She expects what any reasonable person would expect given her fame, but has made a clear request on "what name to use." Josh Gorand (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I've removed it. It is clearly not "Evidence from reliable non-news sources on what name to use". The lawyer did use "Bradley" due to legal obligation or pressure that does not apply to Wikipedia, but the lawyer and Manning are clear that "Chelsea" is the name to use. -sche (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The name of the section was misleading. It was never about which name to use (as in advice), but rather which name they do use (as in objective reporting of fact). As in the name of the previous section, "Evidence from reliable news sources on what names they use." I renamed the section on non-news sources to be consistent with the previous section, and re-added the statements. The lawyer's statements reflect how certain sources refer to Manning. Whether they want Manning to be referred to that way is another question. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- This interpretation leads to a ridiculous outcome. ALL sources use the names Chelsea and ALL sources use the name Bradley. If it has no sense of which one is used most significantly, than any source can be placed in both sections. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bare usage is a distinction of no distinction. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, please recall that this evidence is not going to be accepted without comment by those !voting. They will do their own searches, and they will look at the sources themselves. In this case, the fact that we have clear statements from the lawyer on when the term Bradley is expected to be used is a useful piece to add to the discussion and the best header is under "Bradley" for now. The presence of something under a given header doesn't mean that source never uses the other term.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- "If it has no sense of which one is used most significantly" I believe this is referring to the Britannica issue, which is separate from the lawyer issue.
- With regards to the lawyer issue, the lawyer has used both (saying she prefers Chelsea/she but admitting that Bradley/he will be used in some cases, and using Bradley/he in correspondence such as the pardon letter). So the jury's very much out on which term the lawyer prefers, since the lawyer uses both. In that sense it's a huge editorial judgment on our part to say which the lawyer prefers. So saying which terms the lawyer does use is the most neutral and objective way to approach this. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- The lawyer, uses and prefers Chelsea and has made it explicit that a few areas such as legal paperwork are special cases. You have to ignore all appearances on television, all other direct public communications to judge the legal paperwork as the only evidence of what was said and done. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, we go by what reliable sources on the whole and do not pay attention only to one usage or the other. It seems clear that the lawyer uses both, so we can indicate as such. Please do not remove statements from the Bradley section when they are directly from the lawyer. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- By this standard, at this point from since just after the announcement, all media sources mention both names, some cautiously, some enthusiastically, some with derision but both names mentioned, and in non-announcement stories, too. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, we go by what reliable sources on the whole and do not pay attention only to one usage or the other. It seems clear that the lawyer uses both, so we can indicate as such. Please do not remove statements from the Bradley section when they are directly from the lawyer. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- The lawyer, uses and prefers Chelsea and has made it explicit that a few areas such as legal paperwork are special cases. You have to ignore all appearances on television, all other direct public communications to judge the legal paperwork as the only evidence of what was said and done. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bare usage is a distinction of no distinction. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- This interpretation leads to a ridiculous outcome. ALL sources use the names Chelsea and ALL sources use the name Bradley. If it has no sense of which one is used most significantly, than any source can be placed in both sections. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- The name of the section was misleading. It was never about which name to use (as in advice), but rather which name they do use (as in objective reporting of fact). As in the name of the previous section, "Evidence from reliable news sources on what names they use." I renamed the section on non-news sources to be consistent with the previous section, and re-added the statements. The lawyer's statements reflect how certain sources refer to Manning. Whether they want Manning to be referred to that way is another question. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
| For reference, this was the bit I (-sche) (re)moved: |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Reuters slideshow
I am putting a comment here because I feel people are adding things with undue consideration. This slideshow contains 18 pre-announcement pictures. It is most likely from July. I know that, in good faith, no user would add it if they noticed that. The Reuters articles use Chelsea as the first and primary reference. That is how we have been dividing all of the other sources. If they change usage we can place them in Camp Bradley, but it is not useful to treat this like the deciding Florida election.
"slideshow titled with Bradley even though female pronouns sometimes used" - - - At no point are female pronouns used for Manning, nor is the name Chelsea, nor is any picture post July. This appears to be a sloppy and inaccurate misreading, and I would not like to think that Obi_Wan is deliberately putting in false sources. I'm sure he will confirm his honest error.
- It does look as though the slideshow is an old one - you can see this past version from July 30. I support removing the slideshow. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I misread it, sorry. However, I do think we should still discuss Reuters - their phrasing is very cautious, and they've studiously avoided the name in the title - and in fact that one story that came out was revised multiple times to change the language, so they're clearly still trying to figure out their "house" style. I think it's a bit early to put them into the Chelsea camp, especially since they're a major news agency - we should wait for something more definitive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I previously avoided moving it even though I think your earlier reasoning was weak (no clear pronoun usage either way, which you should recognize as immaterial to name usage, and lack of a personal name in references after first mention, which is, of course, industry standard). To respond to this comment,
- All of these articles have "cautious" phrasing. No one is pretending they aren't attempting to strike the right tone and balance against familiarity and the need to inform. (You should be sensitive to this.)
- News headlines are not "titles", they have different editorial concerns, including concise use of words. Many of the most enthusiastic Chelsea adopters have headlines that say "Manning" alone. I would invite you to survey Reuters headlines specifically. It is uncommon for them to use a personal name in any of their hard news headlines. You are using the fact that they made their most common usage choice as evidence they are acting strangely.
- As you say, they can revise wire stories at the source, often multiple times. In this case that extra editorial oversight kept "Chelsea" as the first mention throughout. (If it switched back and forth over the course of the day Chelsea/Bradley/Chelsea style, I would agree that there was confusion, but in this case editors looked at it and kept it, and kept it) Are you suggesting they missed it or that they didn't know what they decided to settle on?
- You point out that they are a major news agency. You are correct, but that simply means they are far more likely to have been intensely sensitive about every word that was placed. Thirty words at Reuters are given more attention than many other papers give their second and third pages. When they make an error on an attribution issue it is a magnitude level difference in bother and grief and potential liability. It is simply more likely they are committed to their attribution usage than that they were fuzzily trying something out. Sample Reuters guidelines.
- I am happy at this point to leave it off the board, as their usage is their usage whether it is recognized by Wikipedia or not, but it's really out of deference to discourse. I do not speculate on their future use, but I'm also not the one treating Reuters as being sloppy with their words. I think the words they use are a definitive source for the words they currently use. Let's leave it off for now, since it obviously doesn't go into Bradley and I don't think it's unclear. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I previously avoided moving it even though I think your earlier reasoning was weak (no clear pronoun usage either way, which you should recognize as immaterial to name usage, and lack of a personal name in references after first mention, which is, of course, industry standard). To respond to this comment,
- I misread it, sorry. However, I do think we should still discuss Reuters - their phrasing is very cautious, and they've studiously avoided the name in the title - and in fact that one story that came out was revised multiple times to change the language, so they're clearly still trying to figure out their "house" style. I think it's a bit early to put them into the Chelsea camp, especially since they're a major news agency - we should wait for something more definitive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an area for comments that are not directly related to the evidence. For example, comments that you might want to use during the actual move request. Please keep your comments hatnoted / collapsed, both to keep the page small and because this is not the area to engage in debate or discussion about what to call the article. Please do not respond to anyone's comment. This is not a discussion area.
| Comment regarding the treatment of Manning as transgender |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(On General LGBT sources as references for identification in this specific case) I hatted my long winded explanation which may be read by un-hatting. Example, the Leveson Inquiry recounts how trans people can feel intense emotional pain by being referred to by previous name. It is equally important though, not to associate criminality and instability to GID for people other than Manning. Sources that simply reflect the perspective of the subject w/o the perspective of the group risk being stereotypical. As an example, Osama bin Laden identified as Islamic and Arabic. It would be extremely offensive to portray his notable acts stemming from Islam or Arabian identification. Manning used GID as justification in court for assaulting a senior female enlisted person, releasing classified information and for emotional instability. Just like there are guides for generally describing followers of Islam, it may be disparaging to the group go overboard when describing a follower that committed crimes they attributed to that religion. Whence, making GID the central topic for Manning overlooks the crimes that made her notable. Any source should be tailored directly at Manning and not a general source for GID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) --03:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's also worth considering that GID in this case was used as a mitigating factor to explain emotional instability, assaulting a senior female enlisted person, and disclosing classified information. Manning has expressed a desire to live as a woman and be referred to as Chelsea. However, I find the evidence lacking that she lived as a woman for any length of time (and possibly this explains emotional distress/instability as she wasn't allowed to in the Army). It is an odd choice to join the military where DADT was accepted but certainly not transgender lifestyles. My concern is recognizing Manning as a woman may do a great injustice and disservice to transwoman that have actually had therapy, surgery, etc and have lived as a woman. Manning's GID was used to explain away criminal behavior. GID is perhaps one of the few LGBT expressions of sexuality that are treated medically. Because of that (GID treatment by medical professionals, use as a mitigating factor fro criminal behavior), I think the bar for making the gender claim is higher than other self-identifying sexualities where it is no longer considered disorder. Imagine in the past where homosexuality was considered a disorder and a pedophile used that to mitigate a molestation charge yet there was no evidence or slight evidence that the pedophile had any adult same-sex relationships. That person would be using the old DSM medical diagnoses to mitigate his crime but inexorably he is tying pedophilia to homosexuality and stigmatizing being gay. I think every gay male person has to overcome the pedophile stereotype because of that. Certainly if someone today claimed to be gay and that's the reason for pedophilia, the LGBT community would want more evidence than just a self-declaration of being gay to be recognized as such and certainly make sure that pedophilia and homosexuality are not related. I don't think anyone would be clamoring to identify a pedophile as gay as they were leaving the courthouse after being convicted. Imagine the press release "I am not a pedophile, I'm a gay pedophile. Please refer to me that way from now on." Manning's crimes aren't sexual in nature but he is blaming gender dysphoria for criminal behavior and to mitigate any punishment he may receive because of it. He is not doing the LGBT community any favors. As an example of the difference, we have a local High School teacher that was born with male genitalia. At some point, she recognized she was female, she sought out the appropriate medical help, started hormone therapy, legally changed her name for social security and drivers license and over a school summer she returned to the classroom as a woman. I have no idea what hormone therapy she did or whether she had surgery but it is immaterial. She is a woman. That person went through a personal transformation that was difficult on friends, family, co-workers, etc, but she is the person that has leapt more hurdles than Manning and her self-identity carries much more weight, IMO, than Manning and she is entitled to be called a woman simply based on how she lives and wishes to be called. She managed to teach high school as a man without fighting superiors, emotional instability and criminal behavior. I understand the desire to be accepting since this is exactly the story of the teacher above. Her decision shows how transgender people are conflicted and acceptance of their personal decisions and medical decisions made with medical professionals should be accepted without question or derision. The teacher had no other motive than to live as she wished to live. Manning, however, has not shown this. Manning used it as a tool in a criminal trial. It may turn out that Manning is female and just as conflicted as the teacher and would go through all the same processes to live how she wants to live. But it demeans the teacher and others with GID to simply accept Manning's account of how his GID led him to commit crimes and be emotionally unstable. Manning is not a GID poster child with virtually no history of living as a woman and I still haven't seen an actual account of a diagnosis for GID (the Army classified it as a working adjustment disorder but mentioned gender identity as a possible contributing factor). Because of the disservice that it does to transgender persons to associate GID with the emotional instability, untrustworthy behavior and violence exhibited by Manning, I think the bar is higher than just self-identity. I would much prefer to wait until he is a) treated and diagnosed, b) lives as a woman and c) shows that those actions have overcome the items she attributed to being "Bradley." I am neither qualified nor inclined to rush to a judgement on Manning's psychological gender. But I think there needs to be time and space before Manning's criminal actions stigmatize persons with GID. Accepting that Manning's behavior is explained by GID is to deny opportunity for others with GID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
|
Discussion of start date
Discussion of start date
|
|---|
|
I feel that October is too tense for everyone, especially those who was displeased with the results of prior requests. First administrative backlashes, then move to Bradley per discussion, and failed attempt to move to "Private Manning" (a porno would use this name someday)? The article is undergoing changes, and it's treating the subject as a transgendered female. But I bet editors are troubled at what to do with this article, and things won't calm down at the end of the month. --George Ho (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we'll be an unnecessary week late if we wait to start discussion until 30 September. We if start 23 September, the discussion can be closed 30-days after last month's discussion was closed. I think this is a more reasonable step, if we wait to start the discussion until 30 September, then the actual close with be 37 days. Opinions?--v/r - TP 16:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Propose move for October 3, 2013
| Propose move for October 3, 2013 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute I feel the move discussion should begin when the arbitration case closes, while I know a bunch of editors are eager to start the move discussion sooner, I feel that this way we will have a more accurate result. It is better to wait and get a firmer result (maybe that will even establish something if something like this happens again) than it is to rush and have people go on just what is based above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion should be centralised to the VP or somewhere. There's no point in having it somewhere pagewatched by a handful of editors with strongly-held views about it. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
|
Revised discussion guidelines
Respect other editors and stay on topic
Wikipedia has editors from all over the world, raised in different societies and with different cultural norms, so please assume good faith and accept that different people may have different views from you on this subject. This discussion centers around the title of the article currently located at Bradley Manning. Please comment only on the best choice of title of the article per policy; please refrain from making other types of comments. For example, your personal opinions about transgenderism - whether pro or con - are not germane to this discussion, and such off-topic comments may be closed or ignored.
Avoiding offensive language
Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy also applies on talk pages, so please familiarize yourself with it. To avoid what some perceive as transphobia[1] during this discussion and to ensure there is a welcoming environment for editors of all kinds, please consider adhering to the following guidelines:
- Do not use the following words, which are considered offensive: 'transvestite,' 'she-male,' 'he-she,' 'it,' 'trannie,' 'tranny,' and 'shim.'
- Avoid comparing Manning to anything such as an animal (e.g. "if I wake up one morning and decide I'm a dog, that doesn't make me one.")
- Do not share your opinion that Manning is not a "woman" until she has had surgery, or hormone treatment, or a legal name change. This is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex.
- Do not make comments about what sort of genitals Manning has, which is irrelevant to the title of the article and none of our business.
- Do not state that Manning's "real" name is Bradley. You can share your thoughts on what Manning's "legal" name is, but recall that, per WP:AT and WP:OFFICIALNAME, there is no obligation for biographies to use the legal names of their subjects as their titles.
- The question of what pronouns to use for Manning is contentious, and current usage in sources is mixed. Nonetheless, the best way to avoid offense is to use 'she' when referring to Manning in the present tense.[2] In any case, the move request is not a discussion on the use of pronouns in the article.
- Keep in mind that Manning was diagnosed with gender identity disorder by a clinical psychologist in 2010, so the gender and name change is not a whim nor is Manning's diagnosis a legal tactic.
- Do not make speculative remarks about the future (e.g. Manning might change her mind next week/year). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
How to respond to offensive language
Please remember that the policy No personal attacks applies to this discussion. If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page that you find their language inappropriate, or reporting their comment at WP:ANI if it is egregiously offensive. We're all learning here, and a more open approach (e.g. "You said this, it made me feel this way, can you consider rewording it") may yield more dividends than simply accusing someone of transphobia because they crossed a line they may not have been aware of. Stating "your comment was wrong" or "you are transphobic" polarizes the discussion and is likely to make other contributors less willing to understand your view.
Resources to learn about transgender people
- http://www.glaad.org/transgender
- http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
- http://lgbtcenter.ucdavis.edu/lgbt-education/assets/words-that-are-transphobic-and-why
Notes
- ^ Transphobia is defined as "A reaction of fear, loathing, and discriminatory treatment of people whose identity or gender presentation (or perceived gender or gender identity) does not “match,” in the societally accepted way, the sex they were assigned at birth." @ Words That are Transphobic and Why
- ^ Use of female pronouns for Manning is recommended by the Manual of Style. The National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association suggests the use of 'he' for the writing of historical events and 'she' for the present tense, here and here, while 'she' is recommended by many other organizations such as GLAAD for all phases of Manning's life. The AP stylebook states "Transgender: Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly."
Comments
Given the various accusations and counter accusations of transphobia that flew around last time, I think it would be useful if we put together a short, consensus-based "commenting" guide, that outlined the sort of comments one should avoid that have a tendency to offend trans* people. I've taken a stab above but please edit away at will. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The "Avoiding accusing people of transphobia" seems basically to be expressing the opinion of some editors in regard to the last debate and there is no agreement on that. If something is indeed transphobic (eg. comparisons of trans people to dogs), there is no rule against using that term to describe it (just like there's no rule against saying that eg. a talk page containing dozens of comparisons of Jews to rats contains anti-semitic commentary), and many editors have agreed that term was appropriate in relation to some of commentary in the last discussion, that even some on the opposing side recognised as hate speech. Also, the former comments pointing this out were not directed at or an attempt to engage with specific users, but mostly meta discussion of the overall contents of the page, the overall problem of such hate speech and how such comments shouldn't be given any weight in the final decision. The suggestion to instead engage directly with each user comparing trans people to dogs by dropping them "civil note(s) on their talk page(s)" misses the point and could be seen as offensive to many people reading some of the comments in question. If the page doesn't get filled with hate speech or we are sure such commentary is removed/discounted, there will be no need to point out any such commentary and why it's unacceptable and shouldn't be given any weight. It's not reasonable to demand that we engage directly with each user making such comments, which would have required a lot of work in the last debate. Josh Gorand (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Josh Gorand, I view the accusations of transphobia as being just as unproductive as the transphobic comments. Both are flatly unacceptable and neither is a civil way to approach the discussion. Just as I will absolutely not tolerate seemingly transphobic comments, I will absolutely not tolerate further uncivil accusations of transphobia. That's why we're specifying it in the discussion etiquette guide. The etiquette guide was made primarily out of concern for transgender editors (not the other way around) and I'm shocked to see it misinterpreted as an attack on editors who are sensitive about this topic. I remind you once again that accusations of transphobia, when phrased bluntly and without good faith, are unproductive and actually steer people away from your camp. I feel much less inclined to support a given group when that group engages in battlegrounding behavior over the good faith efforts of other contributors. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any "accusations" of transphobia. I'm aware of many editors, many of whom very experienced and a number of whom administrators, who have pointed out the unquestionable fact that the last debate contained such commentary. Examples of unacceptable commentary that many users have called out include "he is clearly mentally unstable", "he is definitely male", "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog", (Manning's gender announcement is a) "one-day circus freak show", "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog", "This guy is "Bradley Manning", a man and a male, both sex and gender. Period. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know", "Bradley was clearly in a state of psychosis when he decided he was Chelsea" and "There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning"". If you think these comments are "good faith efforts", I don't believe any further comments from me are necessary. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Josh Gorand, the point is that transphobia is an inherently subjective label; what some view as transphobic others will view differently. I strongly suggest not using the word "transphobia," because that is a loaded term with many implications and can be taken as a personal attack. Again, you may view certain comments as objectively transphobic, but no one likes to be told they are transphobic. There are so many more delicate ways of phrasing one's concerns than to call another editor transphobic. Hopefully you agree. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any "accusations" of transphobia. I'm aware of many editors, many of whom very experienced and a number of whom administrators, who have pointed out the unquestionable fact that the last debate contained such commentary. Examples of unacceptable commentary that many users have called out include "he is clearly mentally unstable", "he is definitely male", "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog", (Manning's gender announcement is a) "one-day circus freak show", "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog", "This guy is "Bradley Manning", a man and a male, both sex and gender. Period. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know", "Bradley was clearly in a state of psychosis when he decided he was Chelsea" and "There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning"". If you think these comments are "good faith efforts", I don't believe any further comments from me are necessary. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Josh Gorand, I view the accusations of transphobia as being just as unproductive as the transphobic comments. Both are flatly unacceptable and neither is a civil way to approach the discussion. Just as I will absolutely not tolerate seemingly transphobic comments, I will absolutely not tolerate further uncivil accusations of transphobia. That's why we're specifying it in the discussion etiquette guide. The etiquette guide was made primarily out of concern for transgender editors (not the other way around) and I'm shocked to see it misinterpreted as an attack on editors who are sensitive about this topic. I remind you once again that accusations of transphobia, when phrased bluntly and without good faith, are unproductive and actually steer people away from your camp. I feel much less inclined to support a given group when that group engages in battlegrounding behavior over the good faith efforts of other contributors. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- many editors disagreed Josh, so much so that they voted as a strong majority to have you topic banned from the move discussion (though the move discussion ended before the discussion was closed, so the topic ban was never realized). In any case, no one is demanding or obliging anyone to do anything - these are guidelines and suggestions, people should feel free to do whatever they want, but if a neutral admin or arb judges that they've crossed a line they must suffer the consequences. The purpose of the section below is to give a pathway that is likely to led to better results than shouting "transphobia" - because when you do that, those on your side cheer and those on the other side shut down. I'd suggest another option is to do nothing. You dont have to correct every wrong, and the closing admins certainly know what !votes should be discounted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, I have never been topic banned, and continuing to bring up a failed attempt (by editors who had themselves written things like this: [52]; see especially the last sentences about the BLP subject) in unrelated discussions is not really an acceptable or civil technique to use in a debate. I don't object to you writing a signed comment in the next RM where you can say whatever you want, but an unsigned "guide" needs to be worded neutrally, not seemingly passing judgement on editors for having (rightly) called out unacceptable commentary in a former debate. We need some more general and more neutral wording along the lines of what Guettarda suggested below. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the guide needs to be worded neutrally, so let's work on it. But we there were strong critiques by dozens of editors of the overuse of the word transphobia, hate speech, sexual harassment, and many other extremely strong terms which were applied broadly. Even on your own talk page, editors who supported you asked you to stop the ad hominem attacks. So stop being so righteous and consider that it's possible, maybe, that you went to far. We need to draft language that makes it clear that such behavior by you or anyone else is not welcome - the discussion at RM should focus on the policy issues around the move, and leave the policing to the admins and arbitrators, who will be watching closely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, I have never been topic banned, and continuing to bring up a failed attempt (by editors who had themselves written things like this: [52]; see especially the last sentences about the BLP subject) in unrelated discussions is not really an acceptable or civil technique to use in a debate. I don't object to you writing a signed comment in the next RM where you can say whatever you want, but an unsigned "guide" needs to be worded neutrally, not seemingly passing judgement on editors for having (rightly) called out unacceptable commentary in a former debate. We need some more general and more neutral wording along the lines of what Guettarda suggested below. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The arbcomm sanctions probably cover this. Kirill was very clear:[[53]]
While there are no plans to restrict use of Manning's birth name on the case pages—if only because it will be impractical to discuss the location of the article otherwise—we will have a very low tolerance for any inappropriate conduct. Any specific concerns should be communicated to the clerks or directly to myself or AGK.
- That said, I think the phrasing of that section is less than artful, since in essence it says "if you're the victim of harassment you need to drop them a civil note". Something like: "Labelling people, rather than their actions, is rarely productive. Simply inform people that their choice of language is inappropriate and, if they persist, report their actions to Kirill, AGK or one of the clerks active in the arbitration case". Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- "if you're the victim of harassment you need to drop them a civil note" - I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous way to describe this. What it says is, if you feel personally offended because somebody called her Bradley instead of Chelsea, or said "he" instead of "she", instead of labelling them a bigoted transphobe, engage them in civil discussion. Your re-wording above is basically equivalent, since you are (a) telling them to inform that this language you find inappropriate - which I think is best handled on their talk and not cluttering the move and (b) note that extreme cases should be reported to ANI or the clerks. I think we're closer than you think - mine just gives more explanation for why engagement vs name-calling is more productive. We could make that a general principle of course, which applies to both sides.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that you think my phrasing "ridiculous" is rather telling. It suggests that you've either not read the experiences of trans people, or that you've dismiss them as quantitatively different from "normal" people.
If you are a trans person, seeing Manning's identity denied, seeing her compared to dogs, seeing the hateful way people response to the idea of difference is victimisation. Trans people have lived that hate, that threat of violence, that denial of their existence, all that and more. It isn't necessarily less traumatic just because it's aimed at another person. I'm not trans, but this is obvious to me. If you're going to take a leading role structuring this debate, you have a moral responsibility to take a moment to educate yourself about the life experience of trans people. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have read the experiences of trans people, and I do not dismiss them as different - we're all human, and we can all be hurt. However, stating that my phrase: "If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider dropping them a civil note on their talk page." is equivalent to "if you're the victim of harassment you need to drop them a civil note" is indeed ridiculous - you're taking a much more general statement about "X is offended by Z" and pushing to the extreme end of the spectrum and saying "X is a victim of sexual harassment", and then turning "consider" into "NEED TO" - so your rephrasing was quite poor indeed and totally misrepresented what I was trying to say. Anything below I'd like to represent consensus, so let's just try to move forward and come up with some language we can all agree with. I just added a new section on respect, and tweaked the language below further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that you think my phrasing "ridiculous" is rather telling. It suggests that you've either not read the experiences of trans people, or that you've dismiss them as quantitatively different from "normal" people.
- "if you're the victim of harassment you need to drop them a civil note" - I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous way to describe this. What it says is, if you feel personally offended because somebody called her Bradley instead of Chelsea, or said "he" instead of "she", instead of labelling them a bigoted transphobe, engage them in civil discussion. Your re-wording above is basically equivalent, since you are (a) telling them to inform that this language you find inappropriate - which I think is best handled on their talk and not cluttering the move and (b) note that extreme cases should be reported to ANI or the clerks. I think we're closer than you think - mine just gives more explanation for why engagement vs name-calling is more productive. We could make that a general principle of course, which applies to both sides.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- An anti-harassment policy that consists of "ask the person disrupting the conversation and triggering you to stop" is actively counterproductive. That requires trans editors to open themselves up to abuse and will lead those who are politely told to stop being transphobic to cry loudly harassment. It will lead to exactly the same style of conversation as before: a wildfire of anger. Report to admins is the only realistic route. 7daysahead (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- 7daysahead, this is NOT an anti-harassment policy - these are a set of suggested guidelines for how to behave during the conversation - you'll notice the guidelines for editors on how to discuss in a non-transphobic way are 3X the size of the guidelines for the other side. Listen, why don't you do this - take a look at the last conversation, and see how well blanket accusations of "transphobia" and "hate speech" went for the trans* advocates. Was discussion tempered? Did people apologize? In short, ask yourself, DID IT WORK? Was it successful in putting an end to the comments? The answer is, no. If you want to report everyone using the word "he" to the admins, go for it, I can't stop you, and then you will learn for yourself how well that works.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- The only thing an admin can do in this context that an editor cannot do is blocking. Threats of blocking somebody who in good faith makes a remark that can be considered transphobic are a non-starter, as it isn't likely that a block will follow. In that case rather than de-escalating you would be aggravating the situation. Assuming for a moment that our editors are not deliberately being an asshat, this should work. If it escalates from there, and editors are actively and deliberately being asshats, escalation to AN/I can then still always be sought.
It is also worth noting that with a subject as contentious as this, as sorry as I am about the contentiousness, and as much as I think this shouldn't be, people will have opinions that others are offended by on both sides. I for one would be seriously offended to be called a transphobe, and I also find many of the examples at the arbcom case extremely offensive, even if I know that many of them have been made in good faith. It is almost impossible to assume that in the upcoming discussion, I will not feel offended in any way by people who aren't out to offend me. That's my problem though, and I'm going to have to live with that. My way forward will be dialog, not block buttons. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- An anti-harassment policy that consists of "ask the person disrupting the conversation and triggering you to stop" is actively counterproductive. That requires trans editors to open themselves up to abuse and will lead those who are politely told to stop being transphobic to cry loudly harassment. It will lead to exactly the same style of conversation as before: a wildfire of anger. Report to admins is the only realistic route. 7daysahead (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
| Victimization |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The sentence "please [...] accept that different people may have different views from you on this subject" is confusing and needs rewording to clarify that we are only interested in arguments on which title to use that are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not editors' personal views on the article subject or transgender issues (as the last debate was rife with). Josh Gorand (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like reasonable basic principles, and I support having them heading the next move debate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight. If someone says something offensive and uncivil and I point it out, I'm "playing the victim"? I'm not a victim. I haven't been hurt. The conversation has been damaged, not me. That's like saying if I identify someone as a troll, then I'm playing the victim. That's not what is happening. If I (or you or anyone) is saying another person is being insensitive, it's just identifying the remarks as unproductive and uncivil. No one is identifying themselves as a "victim". What deteriorates is the conversation and other people are pointing that out. It is often the people using uncivil language who take remarks so personally when they are challenged. But let's stop painting other people as "victims". Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with the current wording of the section on how to respond to offensive commentary, for reasons pointed out by myself and others, including the prominence given to the opinion that one should post "civil note(s) on their talk page(s)" (which is insensitively worded and also not really appropriate or the best response in many of the cases we were talking about in the last discussion), because there's nothing wrong with pointing out that someone's comment is factually wrong (in fact it's entirely normal on Wikipedia), and because of the "you are transphobic" strawman (nobody ever said "you are transphobic" in the last discussion). If the current wording of that section is to appear in the next discussion, it will have to be as a signed, personal comment, not as an unsigned guideline, or otherwise it needs rewording to avoid promoting a disputed account of the last debate and suggestions other editors don't really find to be the most helpful responses to unacceptable commentary for a number of reasons. Also, the matter is not what I or other editors feel personally about comments that degrade Manning or transgendered people by comparing them to dogs and such, but about Wikipedia policy, specifically BLP as applied to talk pages, and which arguments that are based on Wikipedia policy in an RM and which arguments that are invalid. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- josh, you may want to read WP:NPA which is also a policy, especially the section under how to react. You'll notice that the policy based suggestions are quite similar to what we have above - eg do nothing, or drop a note on the talk page, or if egregious accelerate to ANI. Your continued righteousness about your behavior during the last discussion frankly makes you a poor judge of this particular section IMHO and you should probably let others come to consensus about the wording. If you had it your way, the guideline would be worded to sanction the behavior you exhibited last time, as I have yet to see any recognition by you anywhere that you may have done anything wrong. I agree there's nothing wrong with pointing out factual disagreement - eg if someone says Manning's legal name is Bradley you can feel free to cite your common law case law - but if you are offended by something pointing it out in the middle of the talk page is NOT recommended by policy, practice, and general consensus forming behavior and I think a number if us want to ensure that it doesn't happen again - we also want to ensure that remarks that are hurtful to trans* supporters Are not welcome which is the purpose of the other section.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- For the second time, whether I or others are offended is not the matter at all, and there is nothing wrong with having a general discussion that points out that a talk page contains unacceptable and non-policy based commentary that needs to be discounted in an RM. I don't recall any editors saying "you are transphobic" or anything like that, but I recall a number of editors pointing out that there was a general problem with commentary degrading trans people and Manning. You are as involved as anyone else, and I don't really find it productive to use this section that should contain some general guidance on the next debate to promote your own view of the last debate and what other editors did back then. The current wording, just like your comment above, appear to blame those pointing out abuse on the talk page in the last debate as much (or more?) than those making the actual abusive comments comparing the living subject of a biography to a dog, among other things. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Listen, Josh, I don't want to turn this into a second trial for you, but since you persist on recounting a rather rose-colored version of events, I just want to quote a couple of choice phrases of yours that you threw out last time, that go WAY beyond "pointing out there was a general problem with commentary":
- "Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harrassment of the subject."
- "Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harrassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, to refer to someone who self-identifies as a woman, by insisting on using their former name with which they no longer identifies."
- "Consensus" doesn't overrule policy, and especially not BLP. Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people who completely ignore Wikipedia policy. We don't move articles because some people hate transgendered people, it's that simple."
- "Phil merely employed the mainstream, common definition of transphobia. The idea that you can insist on childishly calling someone who states her name is Chelsea, "Bradley", is really a WP:FRINGE POV and not encyclopedic at all."
- (in response to: Wikipedia is not the place to advance any agenda. And no-one should assume opposition to this article being at Chelsea Manning as being evidence of "transphobia" - Josh says: "Which other reason do you suggest exists for insisting on referring to someone using a male given name, that they have explicitly asked not to be used and said they do not identify with? I think you will find that according to the common definition in polite society, at least in the media world outside of Wikipedia, this is probably the most common form of transphobia" - thus, anyone who wants the page to be titled Bradley, is transphobic.
- Josh, these weren't only blatant personal attacks, they were attacks against EVERYONE who was commenting on the side of Bradley. You weren't the only offender, and I agree there were inappropriate comments on both sides.
- I could go on, but I won't. The point is, you (and others) went far beyond simply remarking that there was a bit of potentially offensive commentary - you accused people of sexual harassment, accused them of "hatred", of being not only transphobic but "virulently" transphobic, and so on and so forth - and all of this was in the MIDDLE of the discussion (and not at ANI, or a talk page, or somewhere else), that all started 1 day after the announcement, when the bulk of media sources were still referring to this person as Bradley. As such, I really don't think you're the best person to be deciding what the guidance is going forward - I'd rather others weigh in here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is this, "a bit of potentially offensive commentary", a fair assessment of what was being responded to? I'm curious. Is it your view that there was commentary that could be reasonably interpreted as transphobic on the first day of these discussions, or would you characterize it differently? __Elaqueate (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Obi-Wan Kenobi, this is not really the place to reopen old and irrelevant debates. Furthermore, I have made no personal attacks whatsoever, and continued attempts to cite various comments—that address either the content decision, explain the concept of transphobia in general terms or are reasonable responses to claims the BLP is a psychotic dog—out of context and misrepresent them doesn't impress me. Also, proposing that moving the article to Bradley should be sanctioned was a reasonable suggestion in light of the fact that the article had been moved to Chelsea by an administrator specifically citing BLP. Your proposed wording still looks like an attempt to reopen an old debate. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Josh, I don't want to open up old (while nonetheless quite relevant!) debates, but you continue to willfully misrepresent what you did and said, and I'm trying to make the case that you step away from editing this particular guideline due to being too INVOLVED - indeed your behavior is one of the inspirations for this guideline existing in the first place. As for your assertion that "I have made no personal attacks whatsover", I'm sorry but the only way to describe that is 100% high-grade wikilawyering bullshit. "Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harrassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, to refer to someone who self-identifies as a woman, by insisting on using their former name with which they no longer identifies." - you used this statement (and many others) to refer to EVERYONE who refers to Manning as Bradley - this was not just an attack on ppl who compared her to a dog. (Here's another one: "Referring to her as "he" is a BLP violation and gross sexual harrassment" - so the simple use of a pronoun "he" by many editors in the discussion was in your mind gross sexual harrassment) How you can imagine that this doesn't constitute a personal attack is beyond my comprehension. You didn't personally attack one person, you personally attacked EVERYONE who supported keeping the title at Bradley - even if they were doing so for reasons not motivated by "transphobic hate" and "sexual harassment" - you even accused them of "libel", which is a tort! So please, spare me. Read WP:NPA and try to really understand what qualifies as a personal attack.
- I'm not trying to open up an old debate, I'm trying to get a consensus wording that both sides are happy with in order to make it clear that the sort of statements you (and others from BOTH sides) were making during the course of the discussion are not acceptable behavior, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't opine further on the wording at this point and let others help tweak it further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Listen, Josh, I don't want to turn this into a second trial for you, but since you persist on recounting a rather rose-colored version of events, I just want to quote a couple of choice phrases of yours that you threw out last time, that go WAY beyond "pointing out there was a general problem with commentary":
- For the second time, whether I or others are offended is not the matter at all, and there is nothing wrong with having a general discussion that points out that a talk page contains unacceptable and non-policy based commentary that needs to be discounted in an RM. I don't recall any editors saying "you are transphobic" or anything like that, but I recall a number of editors pointing out that there was a general problem with commentary degrading trans people and Manning. You are as involved as anyone else, and I don't really find it productive to use this section that should contain some general guidance on the next debate to promote your own view of the last debate and what other editors did back then. The current wording, just like your comment above, appear to blame those pointing out abuse on the talk page in the last debate as much (or more?) than those making the actual abusive comments comparing the living subject of a biography to a dog, among other things. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently you admit to writing that particular sub section as a way to criticise me and promote your own disputed account of the last debate, and I'm not going to tolerate that. If you want to do that, sign it as your own personal comment. You are not the right person to accuse others of personal attacks; even your above comment includes plenty of those directed at me. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Elaqueate, yes, there was "commentary that could be reasonably interpreted as transphobic". I don't have a good sense of when, or how much, but clearly there was some.
- And I've (call me a slowpoke) finally figured out why we've been talking past each other all this time. Here's the sequence:
- In the aftermath of the move from Bradley to Chelsea, while discussing the move back to Bradley, some number of editors (call it M) make transphobic statements. Some of them are quite virulent.
- Some other number of editors (call it N) make various statements out of ignorance or ask questions which would not reasonably be labeled as transphobic.
- A certain number of editors, passionately defending Bradley and/or transgendered persons in general, seem to criticize the N as well as the M. (And as in (1), some of this criticism is quite virulent.)
- To yet other editors, the defense in (3) seems overzealous, counterproductive, and actively hostile to the goal of reaching consensus on retaining Chelsea as the article title. They say so, and (among other things) propose including the words "If you see someone's comment and it offends you... consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page" and "Stating... 'you are transphobic' polarizes the discussion" in the guidelines for this next move discussion.
- (this is the key point) To the passionate defenders in (3), the critics in (4) seem to be defending or excusing the M transphobic editors in (1).
- So: to the passionate defenders in (3): If I seem to criticize you, it is for overzealousness, not because I think you are wrong in condemning the M. But please don't lump the N in with the M. And if I fail to say, "the M are very wrong", it doesn't mean I think they are right. —Steve Summit (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I like your model and appreciate your thoughts. I hope that we can also help keep clear the qualitative distinction between the two different statement-types "I think you are a person who has made a conscious commitment to transphobia" and "There are arguments based on transphobic foundations or expressions extant in this discussion." __Elaqueate (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I really wish the stick could be dropped already on this, there are sources using Bradley and referring him to a man, and sources using Chelsea and referring her to a woman. I do not see why you need to get ticked off everytime someone says what you might feel as transphobic when you have source using the term covering the event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Do you not agree that there was some commentary that could reasonably be interpreted as being transphobic? What is your definition of a bona fide transphobic comment? __Elaqueate (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, there was, and you'll notice we have a large section now with 7 or 8 "things to avoid" in order to make it clear what sort of comments can be considered transphobic. but the fashion by which some responded to certain statements had a chilling and negative effect on the whole discussion, and we need to avoid this next time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- As you say, there was transphobic comment. That might have had a chilling and negative effect on the whole discussion as well. I agree that no one would enjoy engaging in fruitless debate based on prejudicial foundation. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, there was and it did. The way to combat that is to team up as a project (English Wikipedia) against it. Going arm in arm with your political rivals to combat unacceptable degradation of human decency. The way it happened, however, was that the political rivals were lumped in with the 'haters' whom were mostly SPAs and the situation was polarized.--v/r - TP 14:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Less lumping, fewer arguments based on transphobic assumptions. These are not unreasonable goals. --Elaqueate (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, there was and it did. The way to combat that is to team up as a project (English Wikipedia) against it. Going arm in arm with your political rivals to combat unacceptable degradation of human decency. The way it happened, however, was that the political rivals were lumped in with the 'haters' whom were mostly SPAs and the situation was polarized.--v/r - TP 14:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Elaqueate: The use of -phobia suggests a "fear" but the definition of transphobia includes behaviors that can be attributed to other emotions or ignorance. It's an issue of academics misusing a suffix because a better one doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 13:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- As you say, there was transphobic comment. That might have had a chilling and negative effect on the whole discussion as well. I agree that no one would enjoy engaging in fruitless debate based on prejudicial foundation. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, there was, and you'll notice we have a large section now with 7 or 8 "things to avoid" in order to make it clear what sort of comments can be considered transphobic. but the fashion by which some responded to certain statements had a chilling and negative effect on the whole discussion, and we need to avoid this next time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Do you not agree that there was some commentary that could reasonably be interpreted as being transphobic? What is your definition of a bona fide transphobic comment? __Elaqueate (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I really wish the stick could be dropped already on this, there are sources using Bradley and referring him to a man, and sources using Chelsea and referring her to a woman. I do not see why you need to get ticked off everytime someone says what you might feel as transphobic when you have source using the term covering the event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Move request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request move from Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning
Guidance for discussion
Please be civil, and respect the viewpoints of others. This is a contentious topic so others may hold very different views from your own. Please do not engage in battlegrounding. Please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.
Contributors to the previous discussion expressed concern that some of the content was transphobic. Likewise, some editors expressed concern with accusations of transphobia. Please be careful about making comments that could be perceived as transphobic, and with making accusations of transphobia. Serious violations of WP:BLP or WP:NPA should be noted at WP:ANI.
Please cite relevant Wikipedia policies when you make your argument. You may wish to consider the arguments that others put forward in the previous move request.
This discussion centers around the title of the article currently located at Bradley Manning. Please comment only on the title of the article; please refrain from making other types of comments. For example, comments about your personal feelings or views, without policy evidence, may not contribute to the discussion. Similarly, comments on what pronouns you think should be used are outside the scope of this discussion. Such off-topic comments may be closed or ignored.