Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea Manning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 150.209.85.148 (talk) at 02:08, 2 December 2013 (→‎Reverting pronoun edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleChelsea Manning has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 11, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
Toolbox


Recent RFC

The result of the recent RFC resulted in a change here: [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[2] 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)[reply]
That was part of a misunderstanding; the lawyer responded with a blog post, and Manning has softened her stance after that statement. I wouldn't push this too far EQ. I'm tempted to write the lawyer to get clarification from Manning, but need to balance that with the desire to not annoy our beleaguered subject.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one in danger of pushing this too far. Please show where Manning has said she prefers masculine pronouns. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to re-open a divisive pronoun discussion based on something other than the subject's preference. The lawyer states that she may reconsider her position and may let us know later, not that she' changed it. This is still in effect: 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. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably missed the long discussion at Talk:MOS around the wording, which basically says, if a transgender woman presents as a woman, you use "she"; but if that same person states a preference, then we should follow their preference. I don't think we need to rehash that long discussion here. As to whether we can communicate with subjects of bios, I've done it on several occasions; after all, the subject of a bio is one of the best sources for what is or isn't true; this doesn't mean the encyclopedia is shaping the narrative, this simply means we are using the subject as triangulation towards the truth. For example, I made an edit to a biography of a singer who had noted that some shows she had performed, she didn't actually perform. It turns out that the source said "XX will perform in A, B, and C", but when the tour happened, C was cancelled. This wasn't noted in the sources; many people covered the fact that the tour would happen, but few covered the fact that one venue was cancelled. I think we have a duty to listen to BLPs, and weigh their concerns with the needs of the reader and of course the requirement to have verifiable information. But there's nothing 'verifiable' about calling manning 'she' or 'he' - we could do either one. One way might be, just follow sources - but what if sources aren't unanimous? Another way is, if person X presents as gender Y, just call them by gender Y. Another way is, if person X presents as gender Y but says please use gender F for my pre-transition phase - that was a different me - then why not follow their suggestion. I don't think we should accede to the subject's requests in all domains, but there are a few minor areas where it's worth taking it into consideration. Another example is birthdays - if the subject asks, we are supposed to remove the birthday, even if it's reliably sourced. This is the balancing game we play.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've run out of troll ammo. Enjoy the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the consensus behind MOS:IDENTITY is or becomes otherwise, I suggest leaving female pronouns throughout unless we hear explicit confirmation from Manning or her lawyer. —Frungi (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:Identity was changed. But Manning has asked that her lawyer is not her spokesperson for things like this (until we hear otherwise of course) and we've heard nothing from her about masculine pronouns. I'm sure I would be fine with a future explicit confirmation from Manning. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example why we don't set up rules encouraging the subjects of articles how to dictate editorial decisions. Input, sure, control? No. This smacks of the same issue being played out again. Twisting anything to present a trans woman as anything but a real woman. We hear you, but the wrong side of history is not a proud place to be. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the implication of paranoia helps anything… I really don’t think anyone here has (or, at least, is acting on) an anti-trans agenda. The only picture we have of her chosen identity is File:Chelsea Manning with wig.jpg, and it’s a crappy picture, so we use the more presentable one in the infobox. —Frungi (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and fully support the reasoning behind and use of the images the way they are presented presently. We'll have to agree to disagree on the motives of other editors, but it's moot until they act on them to where it disrupts Wikipedia enough that the right people care enough to do something about it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Assume good faith. Please. —Frungi (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen these words of advise elsewhere, Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. We shouldn't ignore the obvious, especially when it causes a constant pattern of disruption and drama. I hope I'm wrong but months of these discussions suggests otherwise. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF is not just advice it is a guideline. If you feel that there is a grand thing behind the scenes going on then this is not the place to discuss it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, almost anyplace is appropriate to talk about concerns that affect articles. That atmosphere on this talk page has been rather hostile at times so I'm glad it has quieted down recently. Hopefully that is a sign of good things to come. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting reassessment

Besides minor issues like the title and the change of pronouns, are there any majors issues that interfere the article's GA status? The last time it might have done was the full-protection, and it was the result of unnecessary self-references, which were eventually removed. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, now that the dust has settled this article should undergo a much needed GA update to check it's status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting pronoun edits

From time to time an editor will try to change the feminine pronouns to masculine. It would be helpful when reverting such an edit to give in the edit summary a link to a section of this talk page where consensus decided to use feminine pronouns for this article. I looked but I had trouble finding it. Could anyone suggest such a section that we can link to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt a link will make a difference. The main editing page already has a disclaimer about changing pronouns, so chances are if somebody chooses to edit them anyway they are doing it to make a statement and not out of ignorance of the current policy on the page. Amducker (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, its funny how reality always tends to get in the way of fantasy.--JOJ Hutton 11:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which reality are we referring to here, that she is a man that thinks she's a woman or a woman that is still technically a man? Or is that the fantasy? I lose the thread sometimes >_>--150.209.85.148 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&oldid=584149331"