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 05:16, 19 December 2013 (→‎Recent RFC). 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

Topic dropped per Arbcom case and admin request, IP in question blocked for non useful edits.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]


Below merged from a later section. LFaraone 20:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the pronoun "he" is appropriate in reference to all dates or events prior to the announcement that Manning wished to be referred to as female. It's not contentious or disrespectful; Manning officially self-identified as male, went by the name Bradley, and was treated in our society and in the military as a male. He was identified, by himself and others, as a male. For descriptions of all dates and events from birth to the Aug 2013 announcement, the name Bradley, and masculine pronouns should be used, which would also cut down on confusion and wordy clarifications. For all dates and events after the August 2013 announcement, it would seem appropriate to use feminine pronouns. - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per above I would just drop the issue on pronoun usage here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the above; it seemed of only tangential relevance to my suggestion. - Boneyard90 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY doesn't support that proposal, nor does it match http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender , or the usage by major news outlets. LFaraone 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boneyard90, Your suggestion re pronouns was essentially discussed at WT:Manual of Style#RfC on pronouns throughout life. A majority of the editors there supported it, but that wasn't considered enough support for a consensus to change the guideline MOS:IDENTITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced, but understand the results of the discussion. If another debate is brought up, I will join in then. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting pronoun edits

Topic dropped per Arbcom case and admin request, IP in question blocked for non useful edits.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]
I have no idea, what I do know is that per WP:BEANS I see no evidence that all the excess messaging here is doing any good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that she is simply a woman, and biology doesn’t factor into it. Current Wikipedia consensus is to respect transgenderism over biological sex. —Frungi (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be fine for Wikipedia and the editors around here that know this but as raised above I do not think it is going to make a difference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the consensus is to refer to Manning with female pronouns, unless we get better documentation that she prefers male pronouns for the time before her public transition. I don't think wikipedia is making a statement on whether a trans-woman is "simply a woman", as there are many points of view on this subject and what exactly comprises "woman", so I think it's best if wikipedia avoids making such statements.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask all participants in this thread to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Discretionary sanctions applicable and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions. This is your general warning to drop this subject. The IP editor has been blocked as a non-useful contributor. DS (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unless the name has been legally changed, we should use Bradley.12.96.87.26 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed and consensus has been reached that we use Chelsea. Consensus can change, but for now the issue is settled and reverting the name is disruptive editing behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the same standard used for other people who have changed their names or have gone by non-legally-recognized nicknames. As it stands, her name is 'Bradley "Chelsea" Manning,' and it's disappointing to see Wikipedia fall to tyranny of the majority instead of being consistent. It should be Bradley "Chelsea" Manning for the title of the article, with female pronouns. Within the article it would be fine to use Chelsea, as that would be consistent with other people with nicknames/alias.

Seriously - legal recognition of someone's name is not required. We covered this. Her name is Chelsea. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his legal name is Bradley, but the article here is titled Chelsea. Because that's the way the move discussion turned out. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it is moot don't you think? Anyways what is the point in discussing this more? Eight years from now when Manning is up for parole then maybe we can revisit things but for now given arbcom I feel this is only going to add more fuel to the fire. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legal name doesn't matter. We don't list the legal names of people like "Steven Robert Irwin" or "Farrokh Bulsara" as the titles of their respective articles, Why do it with this article? Simply because Chelsea is transgender?--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered in FAQ at the top of this page. In short, when she declared what her new name was it became her new legal name. So we are using her legal name. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article name might be based on consensus, but do not deceive yourself, or try to deceive anyone here. "Chelsea" is not his legal name. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist. Misgendering Chelsea is not helping anything. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist. Just because this page is an echo chamber doesn't mean it has any bearing on good Encyclopedic practice. Bradley Manning is the name he/she is universally recognized by the world population, outside of activist groups like the Guardian. It's going to be reverted back, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but as long as this website is grounded in reality Chelsea Manning is unsustainable. And until you acknowledge this fact the main pages is going to literally never be unlocked. Is that what wikipedia is about, hoarding your article for fear that mean ole' reality might interfere with it?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reaction

This section is one sides, you give a lot of space to glenn Greenwald an ally and a supporter of Manning. I suggest we put in reaction of John bolton, former U.S ambassador. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254071/bolton-wikileaks-treason-punishable-death-brian-bolduc

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&oldid=586743828"