Talk:Chelsea Manning

This article has been mentioned or used by the following media organizations:

Image

Was reading the FAQ and read question 6 about the image. That's seems like a bad reason to keep the image pre-transition. Shouldn't we be more concerned with facts rather than what the subject of the article likes? I realize WP:BLP and all that, but it seems like a loosely-put WP:COI to honor the subjects wishes in this case. Just my two cents. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 08:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

An image needs to be representative, but also of good quality. She has stated not to mind the current image, that just means she says that feelings shouldn't influence the image that is used. There aren't really any high quality images of her as a woman, so for now it seems moot.Feyre (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As a male

User:Epicgenius says that "As a male" is an acceptable phrase to use to describe the image despite being inconsistent with the fact that Wikipedia's manual of style says trans women are women. Any thoughts anyone has?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I’m a man identifying as male. If I were to dress in drag, it would not be inappropriate to say that I was dressed “as a woman” and use such a caption on a photo. I’m not sure what a better way to put it would be; the photo (of a male) would not clearly be of a male. Likewise, this photo of Chelsea is not clearly of a female. I think “as a male” implies very well that she’s not in fact a male. —Frungi (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The "as a" phrasing is ambiguous. An old picture of LeBron James could be captioned "James as a Cleveland Cavalier". A childhood picture of him could be captioned "James as a boy". In both cases, the "as a" is indicating what his identity was at the time, but no longer is. However, a picture of LeBron James in a Halloween costume could be captioned "LeBron James as a vampire" without claiming that he actually was a vampire at the time. Similarly, pictures of actors from films could be captioned as with things like "Denzel Washington as a pilot" or "Morgan Freeman as a prisoner" and not be saying anything about their actual identity. So the phrase is ambiguous, and thus best avoided. The better way to phrase it is to use say "presenting as a man". By adding the word "presenting" it makes it clear that the "as a" is describing appearance, not reality. 99.192.65.112 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Transgender issues are not fully understood by most yet, and they are something that has just begun to be worked out by the transgender community themselves. But I think that the consensus is that a transgender woman/man is to be considered a woman/man regardless of their biology, as gender is independent of biology. So "as a" doesn't really work for transpeople in my eyes, as they don't switch between man and woman; they have been one gender all their lives. To me, putting "Manning as a man" and/or "Manning as a woman" sort-of implies there is little difference between a transperson and a drag-performer.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unarguably, Manning did not look like a female at the time. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 13:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not overly certain why the manual of style is written that way at all. A man is a man, regardless of his psychological self-identity. It's genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.142.207 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Genetics is irrelevant. Gender and sex are not the same. — Richard BB 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's fine to keep "as a male" there, if she identified as a male at that point in time. As long as the sentence isn't from a period where she identified as Chelsea, and instead as Bradley, it seems okay to me. — Richard BB 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Transgender-ism (I think that's what you call it) is likely genetics too. "Gender" is independent of a persons biological...ehm..."bits"; it's not a binary Male/Female thing either, but that's a different story.

Well, 'transgender-ism' is a really complicated topic, let's leave it at that. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

She identified as a male publicly, but she has said "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female." and that she has felt this way "since childhood" and so had identified as female privately for most, if not all, of her life. We'd need to ask her to be sure I suppose lol. My issue with using "as a male" is that it implies Chelsea is switching between "Man" and "Woman" simply by dressing in certain clothes; what I understand about the issue is that she is to be considered a woman from birth regardless of what she wears...although even that seems to change based on specific transpersons' preferences. To get round such issues, I'll usually just ask someone what they want to be referred as...but obviously we can't here lol --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that her gender is female since childhood? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While this is going on, there is an ongoing dispute about whether the caption accompanying the image on Manning's infobox should say 'as a soldier', or whether it should have more or fewer precise details. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, yes I think is means her gender has been female since childhood, and this doesn't match her biological sex, hence the term "transgendered".

As for the picture caption, I think "as a soldier" is as far as that needs to go. It's irrelevant that the uniform is "Class A male" or whatever. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To add my 2 cents to this, I think "as a male" is good in theory (she may have felt she was a woman at that point, but she's certainly presenting as male here). "as a male" sounds a bit too clinical for my liking, however. Perhaps "as a man", or "presenting as male" would be better? The latter seems best to me. - AJF (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

How about "before transition annoucement"?Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Both of these (“presenting as” and “before announcement”) sound good to me, for one. —Frungi (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility for the figure caption

Here's another possibility for the figure caption, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning" and here's how it would look in the info box.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me! --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfect—tells you what you need to know without implying anything. —Frungi (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I implemented it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus yet. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I also see no consensus yet. Yworo (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should just be left the way it is and without any detail, there are too many pointless arguments being made here about a few redundant words that some want to add. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Yworo reverted the change and requested more discussion.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We currently have a picture of what appears to be a male soldier named Chelsea Manning. The current caption "Manning in April 2012",[3] doesn't help clarify.

The proposed caption, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning",[4] mitigates the discrepancy and includes the info that Manning was a Pfc. at the time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if it means to clarify things then go ahead I really have no strong feelings either way. I do not believe it violates anything as it is referring to Manning in the past just as the article says "Born as a male". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (BTW, the article doesn't say "Born as a male", and neither does the proposed caption make such a reference.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Yworo: Regarding your comment about MOS:IDENTITY in your edit summary[5], that guideline doesn't apply here because no pronouns are used and neither are nouns such as man, woman, etc. If you think otherwise, please explain. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)--

I honestly don’t understand this revert. As it stands, the photo doesn’t make sense in the context of an article about a woman. The proposed caption states objective facts which help that photo make sense in this context, and MOS:IDENTITY supports making sense (e.g., avoid phrasings like “he gave birth”). The most substantive objection I’ve seen here is that there’s “no consensus”—why not? What, if any, are the compelling reasons against this change? —Frungi (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the clearly worded box at near the top of the page about how to treat transgender people. It states: "the gendered names and pronouns". This is not just about pronouns, it's about names as well. I am not going to object to the three "born as" uses of the former male name in the lead, the info box, and the text about the subject's birth. But the subject's former male name should not be injected anywhere else in the article. It's not necessary and it's also presumed by policy to be offensive to the subject. Yworo (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Yworo: Re your comment "clearly worded box at near the top of [this] page about how to treat transgender people. It states: "the gendered names and pronouns"." — "names" is an error in the template for the worded box. It should be "nouns". Please see Template talk:MOS-TW#Suggest "names" → "nouns". --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, the "Born" field with the birth name is directly below the caption. What is it you think people are not going to understand when viewing the infobox? Gender and sex are not the same. Regardless of your personal opinion, that picture depicts a female-gendered person who happens to have a male-sexed body. If you don't understand this, I recommend reading the book Transgender 101 (ISBN 978-0231157131). Anyone who has only a shallow understanding of these issues is really not qualified to discuss how naming should be treated in this article. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Stop telling people to read the books you want to them to read, say somthing like: "Transgender 101 (ISBN 978-0231157131), has a good explination of what many consider the difference between sex and gender...". 2. Different interpretation does not equal "shallow understanding". I am so tired of these "it is this way because <x> says so" arguments. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is irrelevant; the reader’s understanding is the point. No one is claiming with these edits that her name is Bradley or that she was male. It’s a matter of historical record that she was known as Bradley at the time of the photograph. I really don’t think it’s inappropriate to merely mention that in cases where a lack of such clarity may be baffling to the reader, such as this one—a photograph that is unambiguously male in appearance featured on an article about a woman. —Frungi (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. Please try to be more sensitive to the feelings of the subject. The reader can figure it out by reading the article, which is what it is here for. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If the feelings of the subject were a primary concern, we would not allow any sourced criticism or anything potentially embarrassing in any BLP articles, no matter how relevant. This is not the case. We’re here to serve our readers, and presenting this photo in an initially confusing manner really doesn’t seem the best way to do that, even if readers can “figure it out” later. —Frungi (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't seem to understand transgender issues. Intentionally referring to the subject by the wrong pronouns or name is equivalent to using the N-word in an article about an African American. And that's certainly prohibited by BLP. Yworo (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And as I said, the "Born as" field is directly below the caption! Why repeat the former name twice in a row? That's ridiculous. The reader will take in that information at a glance without needing it repeated unnecessarily. It ain't broke, and doesn't need to be fixed. Yworo (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It’s not “referring” to her as Bradley. It’s stating that she was known by that name at the time of the photo. (Going with your inappropriate comparison, this would be like stating that an African-American was called the N-word in some instance, given that this fact was relevant to the context. But here it’s more like if this person had told people that the N-word was his or her own name, which is absurd.) And as I said, whether I understand transgender issues isn’t the point here; my concern is whether readers who don’t understand transgender issues would understand the photo with its current caption. But you do have a point in your latter comment; let’s see what the consensus is. —Frungi (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

With the article scrolled to the top, the reader sees not only the birth name directly below the caption, they also see it in bold in the first line of the article! I see no possibility of the reader misunderstanding the caption unless they can't read English, in which case changing the caption will do no good. Yworo (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that being born Bradley Manning explains why a transgender woman named Chelsea is dressed as a male soldier. That was the reason for the proposed caption, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The article also backs up this proposed sentence: "Throughout her early life Manning was known as Bradley" I do see a consensus here for it's inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like Yworo is alone here in her opposition to the proposed caption, although CombatWombat42 might be too. Perhaps User:CombatWombat42 would care to express support or opposition and explain why? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a ... I just wanted to point out that at that time there was no consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:CombatWombat42, What's your opinion now regarding consensus? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Manning in April 2012" is ideal for me; there is no need to add more. Sepsis II (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That caption does not help mitigate the discrepancy of having a picture of what appears to be a male soldier named Chelsea Manning. The proposed caption does, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning." --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Either "Manning in April 2012" or "when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning" are best in my books. "As a man" is fraught because as mentioned above, it brings in all kinds of connotations with drag, and implies she was a man, which is just a mess in TG language. As mentioned by others, "when known as" is not, in my humble O, misgendering. Although my top choice would simply be to add the year and omit the name and implied gender of the person in the photograph. I think people will get the picture pretty quickly when reading that this is an article about a trans* person, and why on earth should the omission of her name at the time be confusing? Readers will get over that hump pretty quickly. Happeningfish (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the idea of good writing is to reduce or get rid of the "humps", which the proposed caption does and the current caption doesn't. Also, without clarification of the picture titled "Chelsea Manning", it might look like Manning was known as Chelsea when the picture was taken in 2012, which is confusing because Manning appears to be a man in the picture. It's simply cleared up with the proposed caption, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• support Frungi's change here - "as Pfc. Bradley Manning" helps explain to the user why they're seeing Chelsea as a man.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

But they are not "seeing Chelsea as a man". Trans* people are differently gendered from birth, regardless of how they present. This is not a man, it is a woman presenting as a man, and the use of the subject's former name is certainly not a "explanation" for that. Yworo (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Gender is not only internal, it's also a social construction. See Womyn born womyn and cotton ceiling debates for examples of how this is not so clear cut. Chelsea may not have felt like a man when that picture was taken, but people around her considered her to be a man, treated her as such, and she received benefits and privileges as a result of being a man. This is a tension, and it cannot be resolved by simply saying "Chelsea was always a woman" or "Chelsea was a man" - it depends on your POV and there's no "right" answer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

They’re seeing a picture that looks like a man. This is not to say that the picture is of a man; it has the appearance of one. At the time the picture was taken, Manning was known as (or, if you’d rather, was presenting as) a man and was known by a man’s name. Do you dispute any of these claims? This is all that’s being asserted by this change—not that she “was” a man. In fact, unless MOS:IDENTITY significantly changes, I cannot support any edit making such a claim. —Frungi (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of current first picture

Why don't you use the picture of her as a woman if that's the most important issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the collapsed FAQ at the top of this page. —Frungi (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the contention that "Manning's lawyer has said that Manning is proud of the current main image, and would want Wikipedia to use it until a better one is provided." is sourced only to unseen correspondence directly to a single editor and to no outside source. I don't know why it says Manning would want Wikipedia to use this particular photo above all others. Why are we saying we know this with no evidence that we can look at? It's not just original research, but we've never actually seen the research beyond a comment by an editor that it's true and nothing else. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This was the diff in question [6]. Now, I've known SlimVirgin for a while, she is a deeply experienced editor, and even though we have strong disagreements at times, I think the chance that she is making this up is about 1 in a million. In other words, I trust her, and so should you. This image issue has been discussed ad nauseum, so until we have a note from the lawyer providing us with a new photo, I think we should end this discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing removing the image, and I assume good faith. But the FAQ wording is based on nothing anybody can verify or reference in any way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

EQ has a point. SlimVirgin is not a reliable source, so we shouldn't give this "statement" any consideration. But as a counterpoint, who cares what Manning thinks about which photo should be used? Manning's opinion on the photo should be given no consideration whatsoever.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys, we're talking about editorial decision making, and we don't have to source our reasons. Manning's preference for the photo is important, because many people have wandered in here and stated "omg remove that photo it's offensive to Manning" - so that stated preference is useful as a counterpoint. You'll notice the support network also uses similar photos of Manning: [7]. TKOP, I also disagree with you; we regularly reach out to biography subjects and ask them to provide a publicity shot that represents them in a way they'd prefer vs going with a free image. We even encourage this on our official help page here: Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects. Obviously, we still have to exercise editorial discretion, but if a notable person sent me an image of themselves that was better than the free one someone glommed off Flickr, I see no reason to not accede to their request. There's nothing *wrong* with listening to someone's preferences on this, especially if its the lead image in their biography.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is an editorial decision and you make good points Obiwankenobi. That said, I, personally, put very little weight behind how people want to be perceived on Wikipedia. More specifically, I don't care how Manning wants to appear either in text or images, so saying to me "Manning would want Wikipedia to use this particular photo above all others" just serves to piss me off because it makes me think she is trying to manipulate her public image. Just my 2 cents. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is there's no statement that she prefers her uniformed picture. Nobody's manipulating the article, but we shouldn't claim we know her opinion in the FAQ when we can't verify the lawyer said it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

EQ, instead of continuing to whine about it, why don't you fix the problem? Write to SV and ask her to forward you the email. Barring that, send an email to Manning's lawyer - I'm sure he has lots of time to help us sort out our editorial issues - maybe we could even ask him to get a statement signed by Manning about what photo they prefer and send it to OTRS?? Or, you could just assume good faith, and assume that SV was not bullshitting, and that the Private Manning support network is not bullshitting, and that if there was a major issue with the photo something perhaps would have been said by someone from Manning's camp. The rest is just wikilawyering (waaa we can't confirm this, how do we really know, blah blah blah) - if you're not satisfied with the evidence, go collect better evidence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't care about Mannings or her support network's opinion, why should we? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I already mentioned why - because some have used the fact that Manning might oppose that photo, on BLP grounds, to propose to remove it. The fact that Manning prefers this photo (as of Aug 27) means we can disarm such claims.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From that perspective, there’s nothing wrong with the current photo. —Frungi (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite Obi being disruptively snotty with me here, I'm not talking about removing the photo from the article. I do think repeating the unsourceable and unverified "stated opinion" in the FAQ as truth and without attribution is a step too far. Getting angry with people for challenging self-admitted leaps-of-faith is not constructive here. Verifiability is not some throwaway concept. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If this was a claim made in the article, you would have a very good point. But this a claim made in the header of the talk page. You may notice another claim up there, that we must always refer to Manning as "she" - according to her lawyer, the female pronoun was to be used only for post-disclosure, not pre. So, what is your "sourcing" for "Manning must always be called she"? Because we have a statement from Manning's lawyer that says the opposite... Let me repeat this as you seem to be missing this point - this is a TALK PAGE. Rules of sourcing DON'T MATTER here. I clarified the FAQ above with a link to SV's statement, if it still irritates you ask SV to forward the email to OTRS and they can add a statement confirming the veracity of the email. But please stop whining about it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Great. It's been changed from something like "Chelsea likes this picture" to something more like "According to a Wikipedia editor, Chelsea's lawyer said she'd like this picture." Much better, actually true, and not claiming something as true that you don't know. That's what it needed. Thanks for doing that, although I don't know why you're still arguing that it's fine to stretch the truth on the talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, let's talk about stretching the truth. You claim, above, that it used to say "Chelsea likes the picture" - well, no, that's not what it said!!! Look carefully at my diff: [8]. All I added was that the lawyer's statement had been sent to SV - not that the lawyer didn't make the statement, just that it was sent to SV, and not posted on the front page of the NY times. Thus, the statement above before my edit was COMPLETELY TRUE - it simply was missing an additional detail, so it wasn't an error of fact but a (minor) omission. What kills me is that you've made such a massive mountain out of the tiniest of molehills, all predicated on the 1-in-a-million chance that SlimVirgin, noted defender of BLPs and respected wikipedia admin, was just making shit up. I never claimed it was fine to stretch the truth on the talk page, I just said we don't have to have meticulously documented sources behind every edit and template and header and editorial judgement call we make here. Anyway, let's consider this horse well and fully beaten.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I’ve edited the FAQ in an attempt to more completely answer the question by giving a compelling reason against the other photo, namely that it’s lower quality. —Frungi (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Error in template:MOS-TW that is used at the top of this talk oage

There is an error in the template {{MOS-TW}} that is used at the top of this talk page. Please see Template talk:MOS-TW#Suggest "names" → "nouns". Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not an error and should not be changed. Nouns certainly may need to be added, but names are proper nouns and they are gendered and are techincally included in this proscription. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

FAQ put up for deletion

Yworo has proposed deletion of the FAQ: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/FAQ. Please comment there, not here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent RFC

The result of the recent RFC resulted in a change here: [9]. Per the email received by @Slim Virgin: in August, Manning's lawyer has stated that the female pronouns should only be used for post-announcement material. Should we enact this change in the article? I think yes. Slim Virgin, would you be willing to forward the email to OTRS and have the volunteers there confirm the contents of the email? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The lawyer is not the final word on what the subject prefers, as we have seen from the Peace Prize kerfuffle. I think the fact that Chelsea Manning has written a very clear letter that we should not consider her lawyer's preferences as her own, we should wait till we get a direct confirmation from her. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Dont you think its problematic that the subject of an encyclopedia article is dictating how the article should be written? Shouldn't there be an encyclopedic standard based on facts and reality rather than the whims of the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.88 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If the letter may be authenticated, then yes. And the lawyer is currently Manning's advocate, so we don't need "direct" confirmation. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you here. If there's no issue, a lawyer would seem to be someone you could assume spoke for their client. But we can't assume that when the subject explicitly and directly says to ignore what he says unless it's specifically trial related. You can't say you're paying attention to the preferences of the subject if you have to reject or ignore the preferences of the subject to do it. We don't currently know what she'd prefer. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Statements or positions filtered through my attorney or other representative should be considered unofficial, unless they deal with purely legal issues or positions, or they are accompanied by a signed "official" letter or release.[10] The addition to the guidance requires a stated preference from the subject, not a stated preference from a source the subject has explicitly disavowed. And she sounds like she likes feminine pronouns...she also “thanks everyone who has avoided misgendering me and switched to using my new name and feminine pronouns”.____ E L A Q U E A T E 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't communicating with a subject in any way shape or form count as a bias, POV problem? Doesn't it automatically establish inherent problems with a neutral narrative? Original research problems? The idea of the encyclopedia shaping/creating the narrative rather than documenting it? Any and all of these things simultaneously?