Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

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)

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)

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)

Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?

So I think the gender identity policy is odd. Under a situation like Chelsea Manning's, we could have a "she" father a child in the fully biological way. Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important? (I understand the wisdom of changing gender following sex change operations)jj (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC) ( I logged in)

Yes. Personal identity is vitally important, and I'd argue considerably more vital than biological sex. —me_and 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Biology is essential to the survival of the human race. jj (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, biology is essential to the survival of the human race. But using the pronouns a transgender person has asked people use isn't going to impact anyone's biology nor impede our ongoing survival. —me_and 16:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Touche, but this website is meant to reflect reality, not mere feelings. Could a Filipino ask to be called hispanic, white (or vice-versa) and we do a change just based on his/her word? jj (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone identifies as a different gender, we should respect that, and use the pronouns they choose. A person's biological sex does not dictate the pronouns that should be used to refer to them. See GLAAD's Media Reference Guide: A Resource for Journalists: "Whenever possible, ask transgender people which pronoun they would like you to use. A person who identifies as a certain gender, whether or not that person has taken hormones or had some form of surgery, should be referred to using the pronouns appropriate for that gender." Per the AP Stylebook, "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". – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• No. There is a similar topic bubbling away at the film project. MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, while WP:VERIFIABLE is a policy, and guidelines do not trump policies. If WP:V and MOS:IDENTITY conflict, then the policy takes precedence. That has always been the case with other policies and guidelines, and this is no different. Betty Logan (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where WP:V comes into play here. In this particular situation, we can verify both that Chelsea Manning is biologically male, and that she identifies as female. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The question seems to be presented as a general one so I answered in that capacity. However, I can think of many different circumstances of where MOS:ID would not be easily accommodated. For instance, even in one of the examples the guidelines gives "He became a parent for the first time" in place of "She gave birth for the first time" obsfucates a verifiable fact. Likewise, "He had a hysterectomy" is a biological impossibility. If Angelina Jolie became a man, it would be incongruous to say "He is married to Brad Pitt". MOS:IDENTITY only really relates to matters of self-identity, but once you move from a gender context to a biological sex context, then WP:V requires us to put the guideline aside. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "biological sex context." In most cases, discussion of the biology of human gender is not relevant to the article about the subject. Chaz Bono's article, for example, does not require such a discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think my comments make it obvious what a "biological sex context" is. If the subject gave birth, then that is female biological action; if she marries as a woman, that likewise is a biologically female act. When we are describing biologically female acts, the subject should not be presented as male. If MOS:ID prevents us from presenting a verifiable fact as a clearly as possible it should be put aside. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments did not make your meaning clear. I had thought you were talking about a situation in which issues of the biology of gender became relevant to the subject's life. I couldn't remember her name in time to include it in my post, but the article about Caster Semenya, for example, does merit a discussion of these issues because Semenya is best known for a gender-based controversy that involved a semipolitical issue, in this case gender testing in sports. This isn't the case with Chaz Bono or with Chelsea/Bradley Manning. So no, I didn't think you meant giving birth when you said "biological context."

Marriage is not a biological act. It is a social act. That has more to do with gender in the sense of gender role than gender in the sense of being intrinsically male or female.

As for presenting verifiable facts clearly, the article absolutely should say "Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning at birth and raised male." MoS:ID does not prevent this in any way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A wedding may be a social function but a male/female marriage is a biological act, unless it is not consummated, although we assume most are. Even if you make it clear someone was born male, then it is still incongruous if you describe them as "She" in a context in which they fulfil a biologically male role. To take an example from the Manning article, this sentence has been reduced to farce: Raised as a boy, Manning was regarded as small for her age – as an adult, he reached just 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed 105 lb (47.6 kg). This sentence refers to him in male capacity twice, and a female capacity once. This is a prime example of where MOS:ID should be put aside. The claim specifically relates to the biological traits of a young boy, and here language is deliberately obsfucating a verifiable fact. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Consummation is biological, but we can have sexual intercourse without marriage and marriage without sexual intercourse. Vows are intellectual and social, often spiritual. Think about it: What is a wedding vow, really? It's a promise made to one's partner and one's community. Men and women can both do this and they do it in almost exactly the same way. Almost any animal can consummate a sexual interaction, but only humans can marry.

The sentence that you cite is not in compliance with MoS:ID. MoS: ID It requires that female pronouns be used in all cases. It should say, "Raised as a boy, Manning was regarded as small for her age. As an adult, she reached just 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weight 105 lb (47.6 kg)," though it could probably be reworded to use fewer gendered pronouns. This is a case of MoS:ID being insufficiently enforced, not a case in which MOS:ID needs to be put aside. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-writing the sentence as you suggest may make it compliant with MOS:ID, but would violate WP:V. His stature was considered in relation to being a biological male, so should be presented in the context that is imparted by the sources. Using a female pronoun in this particular context obsfucates a factual claim. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How would it violate WP:V? The fact in question is whether Manning is male or female for the purposes of gendered pronouns on Wikipedia. That Manning is female in this sense has been verified: Manning declared it publicly.

Referring to the young Manning with female pronouns is consistent with the idea that Manning did not become female as an adult but rather was always female and only discovered this fact later in life. There is no deceit here, only a misconception that has been corrected. If a country music singer had always maintained that she'd been born in Nashville but later finds her birth certificate and sees that she was born in Memphis, we don't have to refer to her as being born in Nashville, even when discussing parts of her life during which she believed that to be true.

As for the "small for his/her age" issue, the problem that you describe can be handled in context. The passage just said that Manning had been raised as a boy. It is likely that the reader will know that Manning was being evaluated using boys' height figures. To be extra safe, it could be reworded saying "Manning's height was below average for boys her age" or "Manning was shorter than what was at that time considered average height for a boy." It's not a gendered-pronoun issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of the female pronoun in such instances removes clarity from expressing a factual claim. It undermines WP:V, not least because you are not representing the claim as clearly as possible. You are effectively introducing wordplay to alter the context and expression of a fact that is not present in the source. MOS:IDENTITY is a nice guiding principle to have, but not if it compromises the documenting of fact, which is the over-riding goal of Wikipedia. In cases where the events of a person's life or facts about them are clearly contingent on them being biologically male/female then they shouldn't be compromised by revisionist gender pronouns. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand how using "she" alters the context. What facts do you believe are being obscured? This is not a rhetorical question. I actually don't see what you're getting at.

As far as being "biologically male" or "biologically female," unless someone has tested Manning's chromosomes, blood chemistry, run an fMRI, and published the results, we cannot rightly claim to know to which biological sex Manning belongs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Biological sex is vitally important, but let's first establish what that is. The biological characteristics associated with gender in humans are genes/chromosomes, gene expression, body chemistry, anatomy with respect to primary sexual characteristics, and anatomy with respect to secondary sexual characteristics, which includes brain anatomy. These things don't always match. The clearest example of this is that people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome can have XY chromosomes and plenty of testosterone in their blood but they also have breasts and female-seeming genitals. They usually don't even know they're not ordinary women until they're adults, an most of them continue to identify as female after they learn of it. So yes, biological sex is what causes gender identity, but biological sex is not limited to whether or not someone has a penis. It is most likely that trans people are trans because they have the brain anatomy or body chemistry or some other real, non-imagined measurable characteristic of the gender in which they wish to identify, but this has yet to be proven concretely. So okay, we can assume that Manning has had male external genitalia this whole time, but what about all that other stuff? Because we cannot give every subject a brain scan, blood workup and entirely hypothetical exam based on scientific discoveries not yet made, we should not base Wikipedia policy on this information. So what are we to do? Calling Manning male makes a political statement and calling Manning female makes a political statement. We're stuck either way, so we might as well do what we do with every other subject and take Manning's word for it. At least that's polite. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. The primary thing we go on when looking at people's gender is just that: their gender presentation and self-identification. If asked, I tell people I'm a man, and I appear as a man. It is a rare and privileged minority that get to confirm that my gender presentation and self-identification matches my biological sex. I don't know whether I in fact have XY chromosomes: it is not something I have tried to check. As for sex organs, you'll just have to trust me that it is not a sock stuffed down there.
  For the vast majority of people, their gender presentation, their gender self-identification and their biological sex will be the same and will not be an issue for them. But for a pretty small number of people who are trans the important thing we should do under WP:BLP is to treat them with the dignity and respect to identify them as they identify themselves. Just as we rightly have policies that say that a person is the ultimate decider of their religion, sexual identity and so on, it is profoundly undignified to have a situation where someone is misgendered by Wikipedia. If we are unable to follow the subject's wishes regarding their gender identity, then our BLP policy is failing article subjects.
  Let's not be get caught up in arguments over the relative merits of Manual of Style vs. WP:COMMONNAME here. The ultimate issue is one of BLP and treating subjects fairly. In a case like Manning, where we have a clear and pretty unequivocal statement of their wishes regarding name and pronoun use, it is absolutely unfair on her as a subject to not respect those wishes. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Tom Morris - *re "Let's not be get caught up in arguments....The ultimate issue is one of BLP" - Complete shenenigans. BLP doesn't tell us to treat folks "fairly". It tells us to treat folks "verifiably". If it's verifiable that someones COMMONNAME is Jack, there name is Jack. Period. Since when has WP been about "respecting wishes". We aren't in the game of "respecting wishes" in the game of delivering verifiable information. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To repeat a comment I made at the Manning RM discussion: consider how we would handle it if Manning said he'd always felt that he was blue-skinned (say), and was thinking of getting a full-skin tattoo to match his body image. Would we mangle the article so as to imply that his skin was always blue? I suspect that we would not, and that there would be no controversy about this. A statement that some BLP subject always felt they were blue-skinned would be a reason to edit the article to say that the subject always felt that they were blue-skinned, but policy would not support editing the article to say that the subject had always been blue-skinned and that was why they were dyeing their skin blue. So likewise with penises. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently just misleading. The extensive and retrospective use of female pronouns, resulting in "she was arrested", "she was sentenced" etc, simply imply that Manning was always female. If someone unfamiliar with the topic started to read the article as it stands now, with a photo of a man in the infobox, that reader would be throughly confused by the second paragraph.

Manning became notable as a man, and has openly identified as a female for a matter of hours. The recent radical changes to the article skew the prose to a most unhelpful degree. Furthermore, I don't really understand the idea that we have to kow-tow to the subject's wishes regarding his/her Wikipedia article. How about if Lance Armstrong self-identifies as drug-free? Do we say, "Aw, OK, then, we don't want to upset him"...? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A variety of professional medical associations recognize that gender identity is something that's personal and internal. [1] [2] [3] No professional organizations recognize one's drug status as being personal or internal. --Hirsutism (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, but neither instance presents a good reason to distort facts. Put simply: the article says "she was arrested". No female was arrested, and that is incontrovertible. Ergo, the sentence is misleading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

According to many transgendered individuals, Manning was always female and merely discovered this later in life than most people. So yes, "she was arrested" would be factually accurate. When we talk about women who dressed up as men to fight in the Civil War, we say "she was promoted to lieutenant," even though everyone thought she was a man at the time.

Can I prove that Manning was always really a woman? No I can't. But no one can prove that Manning was really a man this whole time either. We should err on the side of being polite and take Manning's word for it, just as we take other people's. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be factually accurate according to certain viewpoints, but it is still misleading. Your Civil War analogy isn't entirely similar, as Manning was never simply a woman pretending to be a man. The result of (for some reason) the desire to be polite is that a number of readers, possibly a large number, will not understand what has been written. Not all readers can be expected to get their heads around such a rewriting of history, which is what this is, as all historical sources refer to Manning as a man. I do not expect those sources to be rewritten with male pronouns substituted for female ones. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how using "she" is misleading. Manning is a woman for our purposes. Of course the article should say flat-out that Manning was raised male and was living as a man and believed to be a man at the time of her notability. Using "she" does not change this. That's not rewriting history. That's incorporating newly discovered information into the narrative. Otherwise we'd have to say that the sun circled around the earth when discussing any historical period during which this was commonly believed to be true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that everyone accepts, or should accept, that Manning was always a woman, because Manning says so. I doubt that it's a widely-held viewpoint. I do not accept the logic behind why this practice should apply to gender and not anything or everything else. I have read GorillaWarfare's point below, and however widespread the practice may be, I believe it's still misleading, and largely unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone accepts that Manning merits (or ever merited) the pronoun "he" either. We can't prove that Manning is really a she. We can't prove that Manning is really a he. Manning's word for it might not be hard evidence, but it's enough to tip the scales. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• No No No - This policy seems to bring MOS:IDENTITY into clear and blatant conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. If I decide to call myself "Sarah", but the entire world refers to me as "Nick", it is just plain silly for Wikipedia to reflect my personal choice and not the viewpoint of THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Can someone point to another group of people that get to choose how they are named on WP?!?!?! Are transgendered folk special? Why do they deserve special consideration when we try to figure out what they should be called.........? Now for the record here, I want to say that I think it's a great thing when WP gives some consideration to self-identity, but this is just silly silly silly silly silly. Just silly. NickCT (talk)

(edit conflict) Referring to trans* people as their preferred pronoun, regardless of when they decided to start using said pronoun, is pretty standard practice. From 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." From Matt Kailey, "I would always use the person’s current pronoun, even when referring to something that person did in the past." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here [4] is a good example (with one apparent lapse) of how easy it is to write something without using gender pronouns. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, you are confusing two independent questions: A person's gender and their name. The name used for an article title should be how they are commonly referred to, as WP:COMMONNAME says. But that does not say anything about what gender a person is or which gender should be used in reference to a person. WP:COMMONNAME should determine whether the name of the article is "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning". But within the article, whether the male or female pronoun is used is a separate question. In fact, while WP:COMMONNAME governs the title of an article, it does not even put a limitation on the name used for the person within an article. In the Metta World Peace article, he is referred to a "Artest" when discussing the parts of his life when that was his name, which is most of it (so far). In the case of Manning, WP:COMMONNAME says that the article right now should be titled "Bradley Manning", because that is her "common name". Within the article, it is fair to note that Manning now wants to use the name "Chelsea" instead of "Bradley". But since it is standard within an article to refer to a person solely by their surname, it will be just "Manning" in most of the article as a reference name. And none of that settles or even begins to address the issue of whether or not Manning should be referred to as "he" or "she". That's because her name and her "common name" are separate questions from her gender. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@99.192.64.222 - Actually I stand partially correct here. For some reason when I first read "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", I thought it was saying that we should use the self-identified name. It doesn't. It says we should use the self-identified pronoun. Good point-of-order IP.

Maybe a resolution is to call Manning "Bradley", but use "she" as the pronoun. I feel somewhat neutral toward that potential outcome. NickCT (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are self-identified names often wrong?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The title concern is a little more complex than the pronoun one. Most people know Manning as "Bradley Manning," as this is the name by which she has been referred up until extremely recently. Though there are many cases in which article titles do not much the subject's legal name (Marilyn Manson, not Brian Hugh Warner; Laura Jane Grace, not Thomas James Gabel), there are plenty of counterexamples where an article title is different from the subject's preferred name (Snoop Dogg, not Snoop Lion; Lily Allen, not Lily Rose Cooper). – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Georgia guy - Self-identified names often aren't common names. NickCT (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare - re "The title concern is a little more complex than the pronoun one." - I think I'd agree with that. Purely speaking from a policy basis, my feeling now is that MOSIDENT supports the "her" pronoun, while COMMONNAME supports the use of Bradley. That seems somehow like a bit of a contradiction, no? Refusing to use the female name, but opting to use the female pronoun.... NickCT (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT: I agree that using both "Bradley" and "her" might seem odd, but some people have male names despite being female. Take Michael Learned, for example. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT: the question of how Manning should be referred to is a very lively debate right now on her talk page. I'll leave further discussion of that specific case to there.

Georgia guy: It depends on what you mean by "wrong", but even then it is probably not all that often wrong. A self-identified name can quite commonly be different from a person's legal name. Many celebrities have legal names different from their "credit" name. Also, many people use nicknames as a self-identified name that is not a legal name. The idea behind WP:COMMONNAME is that the default in naming an article should neither be to a person's self-identified name nor should it be to their legal name. It should be to however the person is most commonly known. "Snoop Dogg" is the common name of the person whose legal name is "Calvin Broadus" and who now self-identifies as "Snoop Lion". So sometimes all three are different. Which name is the "right" name and which are "wrong" depends on what you mean by "right" and "wrong" names. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Example: Is Christine Jorgensen the right name or a wrong name?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It still depends on what you mean by "right". "Christine Jorgensen" was her legal name at the time of her death, so it is "right" in that regard. It also is the name she is best known by, so as a common name it is "right" in that regard. If you are talking about her early life when her legal and self-identified name was "George", it might be "wrong". But names are labels that pick out a person and do not necessarily telly you what a person's legal, self-identified, or common name is. So the sentence "Christine Jorgensen was born in New York" is true, even though her name was "George" at the time she was born. But it is also true that John Wayne was born in Iowa, even though his name was "Marion Morrison" at the time. (Note to NickCT: Using both "Marion" and "he" might seem odd, too, but that's what he was named). 99.192.64.222 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OT remark — the classic division is that Marion is a man's name and Marian is a woman's name, as with Francis for a man and Frances for a woman. By now Marion may be more common as a woman's name, but it was not always thus. --Trovatore (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Classic case of "nothing more than feelings" vs More Than a Feeling. All I know is when I have a Wikipedia article, I'm self-identifying as a pteranodon, science be damned. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. This isn't rocket science, actually. For most people, their sex and their gender "match". Most people are either both male and a man or female and a woman. But in the case of a transgender person (who has not had sex reassignment surgery) a person can be male and a woman or female and a man. When gendered pronouns in the English language were developed long long ago, the idea that a person's sex and gender might not "match" was not a consideration. So the question, "when a person's sex does not 'match' their gender, which pronoun should be used?" was never thought necessary to ask. But in more recent times, it has become clear that it is a valid question and there are two straightforward answers: (1) Let's have pronouns track sex or (2) Let's have pronouns track gender.

The question of whether pronouns should track the person's sex or their gender is not intuitively obvious to many people. But for people who are not transgender it often seems more natural for pronouns to track sex while to those people who are transgender it generally seems obvious that pronouns should track gender. People who are not transgender, but who are sympathetic to the transgender community have generally decided that it is asking less of us to get over the fact that it might sound unfamiliar to us to use pronouns to refer to gender, not sex than it is to ask people to accept pronouns be applied to them that seem alien and false. Furthermore, that female pronouns seem less odd to those of us who are not transgender when a person who is biologically male "presents" herself as a woman suggests that our comfort with pronouns is only superficial, while a transgendered person's comfort with them is quite deep and personal. So both people who are transgender and their supporters have strongly advocated that pronouns should track gender, not sex.

In addition, a person's sex can change over time, but a person's gender does not. In this regard, gender is like sexual orientation. Even when a person who is gay "presented" themselves as heterosexual and even at a time in their life when they sincerely believed that they were heterosexual they were not. They were always gay, even if it took a bit of time to come to that realization and even more time before telling others. For a person born biologically male but whose gender is female the same is true. She is a "she" by gender from birth, regardless of biology, regardless of how she presents herself and even regardless of how she understands her own gender at earlier times in her life. Once she knows that she is a "she" and tells the world that she is a "she" it becomes a verifiable fact (for anyone worries about WP:V) that she was always a "she", even when she (biologically) fathered a child.

MOS:IDENTITY has been written to specifically acknowledge these facts. Since a person's gender does not change over time (regardless of whether or not the person's sex changes), it means that the correct pronoun to use for a male (sex) woman (gender) is "she" even when referring to a time when the person had a male name, male genitalia, and presented as a man - and even at a time when she (biologically) fathered a child.

"O brave new world, That has such people in't!" 99.192.64.222 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes -- Nbound (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

At this point I need to jump in with a clarification: The word "gender" has about five correct definitions in English. In ordinary speech, it means "state of being male or female" in general with no real implications about biology vs. sociology. "What gender is that kitten? It's female." In the social sciences, it's often used to mean "gender role" (society's rules and expectations for how male and female people should live and act) and even "gender identity" (a person's self-concept as being male or female). So if I say that biology determines gender (general sense) or if Anonymous User 99.192.64.222 says that we should ignore sex in favor of gender (gender role), nobody's using the word wrong. But it might help to drop a "gender role" or a "biological gender" out there for clarification when appropriate.

I'm saying this because the first (and second and third) time I heard a non-hard-scientist say "gender is culturally defined" I thought she had lost her mind. Years later I found out she was just using a different def. of "gender."

For me, I'm not too clear what Anon99 means by a person's sex changing over time. I know of frogs that can do that. If Anon99 means hormone treatment, surgery etc. then I'd say that some of the biological determinants of gender in humans can be altered. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but not by the current methodology. I am a gay cisgender man who accepts transgender individuals as having the new name and gender they have chosen. After they do so. Simply put, the expressed preference of GLAAD and transgender individuals that a person should retroactively be referred to only as their new gender is nonsensical. It is not confusing to read a piece that describes a person as being born a man and living as a male (with male names and pronouns), explains the person's gender transition, and subsequently describes her using female names and pronouns. What is extremely confusing is to read a piece that mentions a person's male birth, but then describes the person using female names and pronouns when referring to a time when they were known as a male, especially when any source dating to that time will describe them as male.

Chelsea Manning is, to put it succinctly, a female man who is known as Bradley Manning. In the article, descriptions of Manning's life from now onwards should refer to her as Chelsea Manning. When describing Manning's childhood, service, and trial, he should be referred to as Bradley Manning to reflect the understanding of him that existed at the time. WP:IDENTITY should be modified to indicate that a change in name and gender references should occur only from the point at which the change in the person's identity was expressed. Further, it should make it explicit that a person's chosen name should not automatically become an article title if the person is still commonly known by a former name; the common name should remain the title, with the new name being used in the body of the article from the time that the name was adopted. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

DavidK93: "... gender they have chosen." To talk of a person choosing a gender is like talking of a person choosing a sexual orientation. People don't choose to be gay, straight, or bi. People don't choose their gender. Manning lived as a male and used male pronouns exactly like how some people who are gay live as heterosexuals (ie; date people of the opposite sex they have no attraction to and even get married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids) and explicitly deny being gay. But that does not mean that they suddenly become gay when they first come to realize that they are gay or when they first publicly acknowledge that they are gay. Same for transgender people. They don't have, as you put it, a "new" gender. They might have a new sex if they undergo surgery and hormone therapy, but not a new gender.

"When describing Manning's childhood, service, and trial, he should be referred to as Bradley Manning to reflect the understanding of him that existed at the time." We almost agree entirely on the issue of name. The one disagreement is at the end of the sentence of yours I just quoted. She should be referred to as "Bradley" for her life prior to today, but the reason for that is because until today that was her name. The name used should not be decided based on anyone's "understanding" of a person, but based solely on what the person's name actually was at the time. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how one can simultaneously believe that (1) gender is fluid; and (2) Bradley Manning's gender has always and immutably been female and we know this for a fact. We have Manning's assertion that she currently identifies as a woman and prior assertions that she was confused about her gender identity, but to extrapolate from that that Manning's gender has always been female is a bit much, especially given that admitted confusion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dyrnych: Firstly, I agree that you can't believe both (1) and (2). But I don't believe (1). Gender is not "fluid". Secondly, there is a difference between being confused about your gender and it being "fluid". To use the example of sexuality, it is not uncommon for people to be confused about their sexuality at some point in their lives, but that does not mean that their sexuality changed. 99.192.70.178 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.222)

I was going to stay out of this, but... With regard to whether or not gender is fluid, I feel the need to point out genderqueer; there are indeed people who feel that their gender is fluid. Likewise, there are people who feel that their sexuality (though not necessarily their sexual orientation) is fluid; some people will simply think of those people as bisexual, but a lot of people who feel that their sexuality (in this case, sexual attraction to men, women or both) is fluid don't consider themselves bisexual. I'm also with Darkfrog24 on not understanding how a person's sex changes over time (unless it's what Darkfrog24 mentioned). I've never heard anyone until now assert that a person's sex changes, unless speaking of sex reassignment surgery; but even with sex reassignment (the surgery or non-surgery aspect of it), it is not as though a person's biological sex has changed to the point where even the DNA reads their sex differently. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree about one point. People don't choose to feel the attractions or the roles that their mind believes in, agreed. However, they DO choose when to come out and identify who they are or who they believe themselves to be. Up until this point, from the perspective of everybody except the individual in question, the person has been what they identified as until that point in a public sense. UNTIL Chelsea Manning identified as Chelsea Manning, she was a biological male who every other person on the planet identified as just that. I can happily accept that Chelsea feels as she does and is now identifying as a woman. What I can't happily accept is that this changes the past or that her simply saying "I am now this" makes it so, immediately and for all time past and present. There is no other facet of Wikipedia where we would ignore all other sources in favour of the views of the person themselves... Otherwise I could self-identify as the most-notable person on the planet and make a Wikipedia article about myself that says everything that I believe myself to be. Why does gender warrant the one and only exception to our standards? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes What's the big deal? Scholarship regarding this has been clear for years, as have journalistic and law ethics. Respect the gender identity of the individual, regardless of their current sex. One is not more important than the other. You can acknowledge both if it is pertinent, but what genitals or chromosomes a person has is typically not pertinent. We don't note intersex individuals that frequently (often because we don't know, and that's the point). Also, please use the appropriate terms: man/woman or masculine/feminine for gender and male/female for sex. (I am working on my PhD in sociology and focusing in gender). EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, and I object to the loaded wording of the question. EvergreenFir has it right. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Lots of personal opinions here; I have mine, but they are all irrelevant. Wikipedia should follow reliable sources, particularly in this case reliable style guides. By all means let's discuss what these say, and how to word articles so as not to confuse readers, but not what our personal views are. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment We do have a clash here between the common name by which Manning is known (Bradley Manning) and Manning's identity as a woman (Chelsea Manning). One way of dealing with this clash might be to minimise the use of personal pronouns. For example, the first paragraph could be reworded like this:

Chelsea E. Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of several violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. Manning was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to 35 years in prison. The prisoner (or She) will be eligible for parole after serving one third of this sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.

This may or may not be acceptable to other editors but it could help to make the prose less confronting to some readers.Michael Glass (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead for Carlotta is currently worded in a similar way:

Carol 'Carlotta' Spencer (born Richard Lawrence Byron)[1] is an Australian cabaret performer and television celebrity. She began her career as an original member of the long-running Les Girls cabaret show, performed entirely by heavily costumed males, which started in 1963 in the purpose built Les Girls (nightclub) building which stood on a prominent corner in the heart of Sydney's Kings Cross. The building was owned by Sydney identity Abe Saffron. Carlotta, a transgender woman, rose through the ranks of the show to eventually become the show's compere and its most famous member.

-- Nbound (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

""A quick reminder that the question being debated is "Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?". This is not a question surrounding how we should treat transgender peoples self-proclaimed identities in most cases. Instead this is question asking if it is worth respecting a person’s identity when it leads to a very confusing article. The main case of this is Bradley Manning's article which is almost unreadable now.

First off if we are going to get anywhere we have to agree that the Bradley Manning article is confusing. This is because most people are not used to refer to people who currently have all the biological characteristics of one sex but identify as the other being referred to by the pronoun that they identify with. Can we at least agree that the article is confusing in its current state? 67.169.14.206 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It probably is, unfortunately it got protected at a bad time. The thing to note is that none of the other transgender articles are hard to read. Chances are the Bradley/Chelsea Manning article can be fixed. The status quo for refering to transgender people didnt just happen over night, and has been tested for years. If there was confusion Im sure the transgender community themselves would have sorted something vastly different out. -- Nbound (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think getting posted in the LGBT wikiproject is the reason it is so confusing. They rushed to push their advocacy into the article. Clinton (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen from scrolling down once clicking on this link, that article was locked down before information about the matter was posted at the LGBT project. This means the pronoun changes had already been made. There are LGBT Wikipedia editors who don't participate at WP:LGBT. And there are Wikipedia editors who are not LGBT...but believe in WP:MOSIDENTITY. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article is particularly confusing at present. It notes Manning by both names immediately, makes it clear that it's going to use female pronouns, then uses them consistently. I understand that this may confuse some readers, but not doing this would also cause confusion. —me_and 23:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender is a grammatical term, and the idea of "gender identity" is in and of itself advocacy. Grammatical gender in reference to sentient beings exists as a way to reference the biological sex of the individual in question. You can't be a man who is female - that isn't how language works. To suggest otherwise would be an endorsement of doublespeak. Clinton (talk)

if you are fundamentally opposed to the idea of gender identity, you might consider looking into the article about it — it is an established entity in the spectrum of identity, and it has been discussed for over a century. i do not think the validity of "gender identity" as a concept or term is up for debate. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's not up for debate, what have people been discussing for over a century? Plenty still believe a man who wants to be a woman is just a rarer sort of man, and a man who has the surgery is a modified man. But I've no opinion on what you or Wikipedia should think. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

sorry for the lack of clarity. what i'm saying is that the concept of "gender identity" is a valid and recognised concept that has been used in psychological et al. literature for a long time, not that people are trying to decide what it is. they aren't. ~ Boomur [talk] 04:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering about a different context; notably the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. The festival holds an intention that it be for females assigned at birth for political/socio-cultural reasons; trans women simply do not fit into that category. However, there have been edits to remove the implication that trans women aren't female and justified by the WP MOS style guidelines. This seems specious to me. Gender is completely socially constructed; there is nothing innate about it. Female, however, has a variety of associated characteristics that cannot be adapted (reproductive capacity, menstruation, etc.) It seems very odd to define the rule through the exception (less than 3% of women have Klinefelter's or some intense genetic disorder or are intersex). The overwhelming majority of trans women have no genetic disorder and are biologically male. To ignore that is also to ignore the realities associated with female biology that are unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugaredpeas (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in: Sugaredpress's position can be difficult to understand because the word "gender" has multiple meanings. SP, do you mean "gender roles are entirely socially constructed," "gender identity is entirely socially constructed" or "the state of being male or female is entirely socially constructed"? I'd partially agree with you on the first one but not on the other two.

Also, in all three cases, I'm not clear what this has to do with the Manning case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Pronouns should reflect a person's chosen gender identity. To do otherwise is profoundly disrespectful to that person, and a violation of the BLP policy which requires that we write biographical articles about living people with "a high degree of sensitivity" to the subject. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I support MOS:IDENTITY as it stands now; it has served Wikipedia well over the years. I also note that the comment by jj which began this discussion is loaded and factually incorrect in places, and may have skewed the discussion so much that it won't be possible to reach a consensus and/or conclusion. (JJ says, for example, that "we could have a "she" father a child in the fully biological way", but MOS:IDENTITY actually advises not just against confusing wording in general, but against that specific kind of phrase. I quote: "instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time".) -sche (talk) 23:05, 27 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)

MOS:Identity

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." [5] (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: [6] And here's the OED US: [7]

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)

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 inherently prescriptive and denotes 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)

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....)

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)

MOS:IDENTITY and WP:POVNAMING

I know that MOS:IDENTITY and name changes have been the subject of a lot of discussion recently... but one aspect has not yet been discussed: Does MOS:IDENTITY sometimes conflict with WP:POVNAMING? I would say that most of the time it will not... but, on rare occasions it can. I am thinking about a situation where a person changes their name to reflect an identity change, and yet a significant majority of reliable sources (written after the name change was announced) reject the name change and continue to use the person's old name . In this situation we actually would be non-neutral to favor the person's preference over that of reliable sources. We would be giving what could be a fringe view UNDUE weight. I think we do need to factor this Policy provision into the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This can involve names of people and names of places. See "Macedonia naming dispute".

—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC) and 00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Naming controversies.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to call Manning "Bradley" and refer to Manning as "she" in the same sentence. I see no conflict. It would be moot most of the time anyway because Manning would be called just "Manning" with no first name. Darkfrog24 (talk)

I was trying to frame my question in terms that went beyond the current controversy over the Manning article. I understand that this is on everyone's mind... but please try to think big picture. Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is about what pronouns to use. WP:POVNAMING is about what name to use. So I don't see how they would ever come into conflict. If reliable sources reject a name change, then Wikipedia sticks to the old name, as per WP:AT and WP:POVNAMING. If a person reveals that they are transgender, then Wikipedia uses the pronouns that go with the newly announced gender as per MOS:IDENTITY. If that means using a name that is more typical of one gender and at the same time the pronouns of the other gender, then that's the result of correctly applying the policies. Since people can have names that are atypical for their gender without being transgender, this is something that already happens in Wikipedia articles. No conflict. 99.192.84.128 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Got it, BB.: It would be moot most of the time anyway because the subject would be called just "[subject's last name]" with no first name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• For --146.115.41.51 (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• For Wikipedia respects a name change in most circumstances, why be so bigoted that you won't accept someone's gender? Is this a comprehensive encyclopedia or isn't it? --Availablenames (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

At issue here is not whether a statement from the subject as to his or her gender would be "respected in most circumstances." I think almost everyone agrees in MOST circumstances there won't be an issue. It's whether it should be accepted in EVERY and ALL circumstances. Most of us who are opposed to the current reading of MOS:IDENTITY are opposed because it does not follow WP:POVNAMING which demands at least SOME reference to reliable sources other than the subject.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Bdell555, to repeat a comment I made to "Dicklyon" above, 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. And to repeat a comment I made above to "Blueboar", MOS:IDENTITY is about what pronouns to use. WP:POVNAMING is about what name to use. So I don't see how they would ever come into conflict. 99.192.84.19 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• Against I don't see a problem for several reasons. The most obvious reason is because MOS:IDENTITY says that when a dispute over a name occurs we go with RS. Additionally, us using a name the person doesn't use isn't necessarily a "POV naming". "Octomom" is a good example of a POV name. Any reasonable person would agree that it has an derogatory tone. Just naming an article after a name different to the one the person themselves prefers (e.g. Cat Stevens) isn't necessarily a "POVNAME". --RA (✍) 20:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Refusing to recognize a person's name change in that circumstance would also be a violation of WP:POVNAMING — so if you're left in a situation where you have no choice but to juggle POVs, really the only choice you have is to err on the side of respect for the individual who's being named. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a common argument... and why POVNAMING talks about seemingly non-neutral names and terms. It isn't a question of refusing to recognize the change (we would still note it prominently in the article... probably in the first sentence) - its a question of recognizing all viewpoints and assessing how much weight to give them. Yes, it does seem non-neutral to not follow the person's wishes. However it would be more non-neutral to ignore all the other sources. When you have only one reliable source (the person) saying the name is X, contrasted by multiple reliable sources all agreeing that the name is Y, Wikipedia policy is to follow the majority usage in the sources and use Y (doing so is actually more neutral than following the person's desires). Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that media sources vary in how consistently they follow correct practice for writing about a transgender person, and sometimes in how much they even care about what is or isn't correct practice in writing about a transgender person, any source that uses anything other than her stated name is, by definition, also committing a POV act. They don't get to decide that they know better than she does what name she's allowed to use; she gets to make that decision for herself, and any source that does not respect and follow her wishes is itself being POV. And our NPOV rules also require us to evaluate our sources for their POV — for instance, we're obligated to deprecate sources that refer to gay men as "faggot" or to African-Americans as "n-word". We're obligated to deprecate sources that are presenting an obviously biased or non-neutral portrayal of a story. So why are we expected to do that in every other case, yet accept it as neutral, and somehow more definitive than her own word on the matter, when the source's POV is an anti-transgender one? Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Support: This is probably one of the few cases where considerable weight should be placed on WP:SELFPUB. Moreover, how reliable are "reliable sources"? As an example, one would normally regard the New York Times as being reliable, yet in this article they refer to the Duchess of Cambridge by her maiden name in their headline (OK, they use her current name in the article). The quality British press style her as the "Duchess of Cambridge" and never mention her maiden name. (The popular press appear to have a mixed approach). One could expect the same sort of split in quality references about a trans-gender person. Martinvl (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Blueboar has a very valid concern, and one which I've witnessed in a very extreme form at Alexis Reich. The only people referring to John Mark Karr by that name are LGBT rags and Wikipedia; every other source post-2010 refers to the sex change and then goes back to "he" and "Karr". I grant this is a somewhat extreme example, and more loaded than most, but these do exist, and requiring a one-size-fits-all approach is supremely unhelpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

tBotNL, whether or not the title of the Alexis Reich is wrong is a matter for Wikipedia:Article titles, not the MOS. I think the title is wrong, but nothing in the MOS says that "Alexis Reich" should be used for the title. (See the section below called "Proposed wording change to MOS:IDENTITY" for more discussion of this.) In the body of the article, the name used throughout is "Karr", so I see no problem there. As for the pronoun, sources report that in 2008 the State of Washington officially recognized that she is a woman and issued a driver's license to Alexis Reich under that name, so we have sufficient sourcing to support the use of female pronouns in the article. So I don't see the problem. 99.192.57.48 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

It only says Karr because I went through the article and removed a ton of unreadable crap which read something like "Reich (then male)" and "Reich (at this point still a male)". Exactly nothing establishing the subject's notability occurred under the name and identity Alexis Reich, and it renders the article extremely confusing. A man named John Mark Karr was arrested on these charges and subsequently fled, that is what the record and all of the reliable sources (which is what we're supposed to be following, not LGBT rags) say. And before you give me any "she was always a woman, she only found out she was later in life than most" 1. that claim is still highly debated in science and 2. is not universally held even among transgender people; Thomas Beatie, for one, explicitly said as much. People's past identities don't magically disappear, we shouldn't pretend they do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So the Karr article used the wrong name, almost a year ago you fixed it, and since then it has used the right name. So what's the problem? Oh yeah. The article title. I agree that it is wrong, but based on WP:AT, the policy that governs article names. This is not a MOS issue. As for the pronoun issue, Reich was always a woman, she only found out she was later in life than most. What's that you say? Scientists don't all agree? Well we should find out what the dominant view of scientists is and go with that. The "Gender identity" article includes this sentence, "Basic gender identity is usually formed by age three and is extremely difficult to change after that." It even provides three sources for the claim. So I don't see a reason to think that the scientist who disagree are more than a minority view. Finally, about Beatie, he says that he realized that he was a "he" around age 10, so he's not a good example for you to use. 99.192.91.135 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.912....)

Respecting the "Gender neutral"

As long as we are discussing the best way to respect gender self-identity... I know two people who self-identify as being gender neutral... neither male nor female (or perhaps self-identifying as being both at the same time). One even went as far as convincing his/her employer to install a unisex bathroom so she/he would not have to choose one sex over the other. Thankfully, neither of them are notable enough for an article... but what if they were? MOS:IDENTITY does not cover this. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question, but as I read it MOS:IDENTITY does cover the situation insofar as it says to use the pronouns "that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." I just don't happen to know which pronouns do that. But it is easy enough to find out. Try asking those two people what pronouns they think should be used when referring to them. That would be a good place to start. Let us know what they say.

In the absence of knowing an answer, gendered language can be avoided if you think about it enough. It is much easier to do than people might suspect, as is demonstrated in the plot summary for the film Let the Right One In, where editors agreed that the gender ambiguity of the character "Eli" is best handled by not using any gendered terms in reference to Eli. 99.192.84.19 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I agree. In some cases, it may be better to suggest avoiding gendered language. There is also the epicene they. I don't think this would be appropriate is most cases. For example, if it was used on the Penny Whetton article, I think it would be offensive. But it may be a solution in some cases, in conjunction with avoiding other forms of gendered language. I think the Manning example is one where it might work in the short term, until things worked themselves out. --RA (✍) 21:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Members of Category:Androgynous Wikipedians might have some ideas.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In some cases you do indeed have no viable choice but to avoid gendered language altogether; however, singular "they" is also a fairly widespread (although not universal) alternative. (Some of the other gender-neutral pronouns that have been proposed in the past, e.g. "hir"/"zie", never really caught on and aren't generally appropriate for use on here for that reason.) Categorywise we have Category:Genderqueer people — which again might not be ideal for all of the people in question (I still have no idea whether to file Judith Halberstam in it or not, for starters), but does demonstrate that we have options. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether gender-neutral is something that human beings can actually be, it's not something that the English language actually does. As Bearcat says, people have proposed gender-neutral pronouns, but they didn't take. English does not at this time have singular pronouns that are suitable for use with people that are not gender-based. I wouldn't be opposed to using the person's surname as much as possible. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, singular they works quite well. It's intuitively acceptable and has centuries of usage. Its only barrier is people who like to pretend that pronouns can't be used for both singular and plural, but you (*cough*) know better. MaxHarmony (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Where possible, the most non-controversial method would be trying to avoid pronouns where controversy might arise. Many sentences can be written to avoid excessive pronoun use. As an exaggerated example, "He said that his job at his employer where he worked..." could be changed to "Last Name's job at employer..." Andrew³²⁷ 19:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Another barrier, MaxHarmony, is that the singular they is not sufficiently formal for an encyclopedia. People don't pretend that singular and plural must match. They know it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MaxHarmony that when it's not possible to avoid pronouns, it's best to refer to non-male, non-female people using the singular "they". (Tangentially, I've always been amused by the suggestion that the singular "they" was somehow informal or incorrect. Is the King James Bible informal? Did the men called the fathers of English literature, Shakespeare and Chaucer, not know how to speak English or Middle English in the latter case? The English borrowed "they" from the Norse in the 1200s, and were already using it with singular antecedents by the 1400s—possibly as early as the 1300s. It had been in use for centuries by the time the first prescriptivists decided to dislike it.) But it's usually possible to avoid pronouns... -sche (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This idea that prescriptivism is a recent phenomenon or that people who acknowledge that the English language has rules are silly has got to go. Do what you like but don't do it here.

Regardless of what the singular they ever was, Wikipedia must work with the way English is. Right now, the singular they is not considered appropriate for formal contexts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of using "they" as a singular pronoun, including in formal contexts (Merriam-Webster also agrees with this), but using "they" is not a solution here. The singular "they" is only appropriate in generic contexts to avoid using "he" as a generic pronoun (eg; "The rules say that any person who wants to ask a question must raise their hand.") or in a context where the gender of the person is unknown (eg; "The winner of the race lost their trophy.") To use "they" as a singular pronoun for people who identify as neither gender fits neither situation: The reference is to a specific person, not a generic reference, and the person's gender is not unknown, it is known to be "neither". So unless people who identify as neither gender say that the singular "they" is what they prefer to be used, it would be inaccurate to use it. 99.192.57.48 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)

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)

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)

Proposed wording change to MOS:IDENTITY

I would like to propose that we delete the following bold text from MOS:IDENTITY:

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. 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. (For example, see the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)

To be clear, I am only looking to delete the bold text, not the first sentence. The trouble with this text comes when there is a conflict between how a person or group is most commonly addressed in reliable sources and how that person or group prefers to address itself. If you ignore the phrase When there is no dispute..., the policy makes a very strong statement that we must use the term that the person or group prefers. However, the phrase When there is no dispute renders everything that follows meaningless. If there is no dispute, why consult the manual of style? The entire purpose of a manual of style is to provide some guidance when there are multiple plausible choices. The policy, as written, does not actually tell us what to do if there is a dispute. It is very easy for someone who (purposefully or not) ignores the phrase "When there is no dispute" to come away thinking that the policy is saying something that it is not actually saying.GabrielF (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Also, the idea that when there is no dispute we use one criterion, and when there is a dispute we use another one, is nonsense. If a particular form of words is the best one to use when there has been a dispute, that form of words would have been the best to use had there been no dispute, so it makes no sense at all to have a clause which specifically states that it applies only when there is no dispute. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think much of the advice in the section that is bolded is OK. The phrase, When there is no dispute certainly is problematical. I think the desired clarification could be achieved by the omission of that phrase and some other changes. Then the passage would read:

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 term most commonly used for a person is usually the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group are usually those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use these terms too. (For example, see the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)

(I would also question the example at the end of the passage. I would guess that the choice between Jew or Jewish would depend on context.) Michael Glass (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

While the text would be significantly clarified by deleting the phrase "When there is no dispute", doing so would create a new policy and carve out an exception to existing policies such as Wikipedia:Article titles. We should not do this without significant discussion. GabrielF (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mild Support My reading of those sentences is that they are designed to be informative, not instructional, so while I do think they have informative value if they are being read as (or could reasonably be read as) being instructional they can be removed without loss. To explain my reading, the second sentence ("When there is no dispute....") is merely pointing out that, as is often the case, a person's name is not in dispute and in those cases it is simply true that the person's common name is the name they use for themselves. The next sentence ("Wikipedia should use them too.") is just reaffirming the position that the policies listed in the first sentence take. The final parenthetical sentence is explicitly indicated to be an example, and is not a controversial one, so I take it to be informative as well. So while I see nothing problematic about any of these sentences and I do think they could be helpful as explanations, I see no real change in the policy by removing them and so have no real objection to that.

It might be worthwhile for people to check the history of how those sentences came to be a part of MOS:IDENTITY in the first place. Five years ago, in April 2008, there was a discussion on this talk page that resulted in a significant wording change. Part of that change was to add the references to other policies in the first sentence, as it looked at the time that MOS:IDENTITY was in conflict with them. So this text:

"Use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible. Use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself."

was replaced by this text:

"Disputes over the proper name of a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Naming conventions where the name appears in an article name. When there is no dispute, use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself."

A month later, in May 2008, an editor made a further revision that seems to have not been discussed or disputed resulting in this text:

"When there is no dispute, the name 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."

If you want to check out these bits of editing history for yourself, here are some links (I hope) will take you the the pertinent pages: The April 2008 edits, the April 2008 talk page discussion, and the May 2008 edits. 99.192.80.196 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• Support As currently written, the bold section seems to add no clarity to the issue, for the reasons given by GabrielF. And it's just strangely written; I would be okay with reverting to the April 2008 version, which appears to state the intended policy more comprehensibly. I thank 99.192.80.196 for providing the additional information. I think the undebated May 2008 change damaged the readability of the policy. Also, I think the "Jew" example is not good. The article actually states that, in many contexts, "Jewish" is preferable to "Jew," but that it can also be insulting to avoid "Jew" in favor of "Jewish" when "Jew" would have been acceptable. (And, as a Jew, I can vouch that I have never encountered a preference for "Jew" over "Jewish person." In fact, like most ethnonyms and demonyms, the adjective form is almost always used rather than the noun form. I.e., "I'm Jewish." instead of "I'm a Jew.") If the guideline needs an example, we should choose a better one. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that the language is hopelessly contradictory for the reasons everyone's said. If the second sentence only applies when there is no RS dispute, then when is it helpful and when does it actually mean anything? We can't pick a name that has no RS support. I dont think the volume of discussion about phrasing in April 2008 is sufficient to validate this aspect of the guideline in light of current interest in the naming of the Manning article. But I still find the following text from the April 2008 discussion substantially more satisfactory than the current guideline: Use terminology that the majority of sources use for the subject whenever possible. Use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself when reliable sources conflict with one another. What do you guys think of something along these lines? With respect to this expected objection from above: Also, the idea that when there is no dispute we use one criterion, and when there is a dispute we use another one, is nonsense – I don't really think that's true. If we have to make a choice between RSs assuming roughly equal usage of a name what's wrong with expressing a preference for the self-chosen name? We could add a clear statement to the rule about it only applying if more traditional naming considerations are in equipoise. Or perhaps it would be best to revisit this issue in a few weeks when it's less hot? AgnosticAphid talk 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I already offered my mild support for the proposal above, but if we want to consider alternative ideas I have one. The intent of the bullet point in question is (as I understand it) to be informational only. Paraphrased and shortened, the point would read: "For disputes, check these policies. Where there is no dispute, this is what happens." So I suggest that we drop the second part (as proposed) and reword the first (and only remaining sentence) to be more explicit about the fact that names are not settled by MOS:IDENTITY, but by other policies. So I suggest this: "What name to use for a person either as the title of an article or when referring to a person within an article are determined by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles." Nothing in particular needs to be said about disputes over names, because where there are disputes, people should check the appropriate policies and when there are none, there is nothing that needs to be said at all. 99.192.57.48 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Personally, I think it would be desirable to express a preference for self-identification in the event of a RS naming dispute. I'm probably going to regret mentioning this, but I think that the RM about Manning is actually a good example of this – if half of the RSs use Chelsea and the other half use Bradley, and we can't agree which is more accurate, why can't MOS:IDENTITY, consistently with its pronoun guidance, express a preference for the self-chosen name? It seems to me that a decent number of people in the Manning RM think that MOS:IDENTITY is at least instructive to a certain extent, and it also seems to me that a lot of people wouldn't agree that the second sentence means nothing -- see this comment, for instance -- and I think that expressing the MOS self-identification preference as a tie-breaker subordinate to more typical naming criteria, as above, could be a good compromise. Maybe? Another possibility is to just create a separate Wikipedia guideline about names and pronouns and perhaps other things relating to transgender individuals specifically and then we could trim MOS:IDENTITY down to the bare minimum. AgnosticAphid talk 15:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What should or should not be done concerning the question of what name to use (whether as the name for and article or a name used within an article) should be settled by Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles. The MOS should stay out of it. For article titles, the policy already says "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best...." If that is deemed to be insufficient, then the change should be made to the policy there, not here. 99.192.57.48 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192...)

My concern with AgnosticAphid's proposal is that MOS:IDENTITY applies widely - for instance to ethnic groups - while the recent discussion has been dominated with one very specific case. I don't think we've fully explored the consequences of establishing self-identification as a tie-breaker for a wide range of articles. I also think that the best place for this proposed policy change would be at WP:Article titles, which goes into substantial depth on the different factors in choosing a name. Placing it here would split Wikipedia's guidance on names into different places. GabrielF (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, we should put reconsidering the wording of MOS:IDENTITY on hold until the closed discussion at WT:AT is revisited. I sadly don't think that we'll be able to reach a consensus on whether the second sentence as currently written is entirely superfluous, even if we can all agree it's confusing. AgnosticAphid talk 17:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think waiting is necessary. GabrielF's proposal has three supporters (including GabrielF) and so far no one has said voted against the revision. We might disagree on what the sentences after the first are saying, but so far everyone is ok with removing them. That people don't agree about what they are saying is all the more reason to remove them for being unclear. 99.192.57.48 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I'm afraid that I totally don't agree with that proposed revision. Making this change would suggest that the subject's self-identity is not a relevant consideration in naming decisions at all, but I disagree. It seems to me that based on the Manning RM that there are quite a number of people who would agree that the subject's self-identity should have at least some weight in article titling, even if it's subordinate to other considerations and not dispositive. I think that we need to have a broader discussion about this issue before we remove wikipedia's only guidance (I think it's the only guidance? Maybe I'd change my mind if I'm wrong and this actually is addressed elsewhere somewhere). I believe that is the case even though the current wording is obviously ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation perhaps in an unintended manner. AgnosticAphid talk 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As it is currently written, MOS:IDENTITY does not say that self-identification should be a relevant consideration, except for cases where no consideration is needed because there is no dispute over what name to use. The policy as it stands easily leads editors to an incorrect conclusion and for that reason alone it needs to be changed. It sounds like what you're saying is that you want people to misread the policy because you like the misreading. That, to me, is bad policy-making. I think it's very reasonable to ask that self-identification be a consideration in article titles, but that should happen through the normal policy-making process, not through exploiting bad wording. I would strongly recommend raising the issue at WP:AT. Now is the opportune moment to make this official policy the correct way, since a relevant test case received massive attention and is fresh in everyone's mind. GabrielF (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All I was saying is that there seem to be a lot of other views on this issue and it seems way inappropriate to make a dramatic change to the only policy we have just because four people here on this talk page agree on what "if there is no dispute" means. For instance, in the post I linked before, the editor said, :WP:IDENTITY is applicable here and supports using Chelsea. It states: “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.” Some people have argued that this doesn’t apply because there is a dispute over whether to use Chelsea or Bradley. But I think it is clear in context that the reference to a “dispute” does not mean a dispute on Wikipedia; rather it means a dispute regarding what is subsequently referred to in the sentence – “the term ... [a] person uses for himself or herself...” How is this a completely unreasonable viewpoint? And I'm not going to even pretend that I've reviewed all of the other opinions about MOS:IDENTITY's applicability in that RM. AgnosticAphid talk 02:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the policy can be interpreted to mean two entirely different things (that it applies when there is no dispute over what to call a subject, or that it applies when there is no dispute over what a subject calls himself/herself) suggests to me that it is completely useless as policy and needs to be changed. GabrielF (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It does need to be changed, but the manner in which it needs to be changed needs to be consistent with the naming policy, and the discussion on how we should change the naming policy to address this and similar issues is on hold until after the digestion of the Manning RM. So I think it's a bit unfortunate to find ourselves with such an unclear policy at such a consequential juncture, but I do think it's best to wait for at least a little while, and perhaps we can all take solace in the fact that future discussion will be robust because in my admittedly brief time watching this page that controversial discussions here never seem to lack for participants. AgnosticAphid talk 03:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Agnosticaphid, that interpretation you quote is demonstrably false. I have already posted the changes in how the text was written and a link to the 2008 discussion that resulted in the "Disputes over.... When there is no dispute...."' language being introduced. They make it incontrovertibly clear that the "dispute" language was only introduced to make it clear that MOS:IDENTITY was not attempting to overrule policies on what names to use. But that someone reading MOS:IDENTITY as it is currently written might have the incorrect interpretation of it you have noted is a good reason to eliminate that part of it. 99.192.91.135 (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192...)

But really, who cares what those five people thought either? I have no real knowledge of the underlying history of when MOS:IDENTITY was created, but I thought it was a bit of a broader collaboration between a few groups of people. Some people came along later and made essentially the same argument people are making here in this section and changed the text accordingly. They did a poor job and now we're stuck with this unclear text that needs to be fixed at some point. But there's nothing special about what those original people thought, I don't think. It's not like we operate under some system of strict precedent or something; we don't need to defer to the original judgment. Opinions there or here about the exact phrasing of these two sentences are massively swamped by the opinions people have expressed in the Manning RM about MOS:IDENTITY and – though I could be wrong – they're likely to be massively swamped by the future discussion on this issue at WT:AT. AgnosticAphid talk 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"But really, who cares what those five people thought either?" Since they wrote the passage being misread, I would say it matters a great deal what they thought. If you want to know what the text means, it is worth knowing what the people who wrote it said they were saying and what they were changing the text from. 99.192.91.135 (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

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)