Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Chelsea Manning Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:12, 4 September 2013 editBenlisquare (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,176 edits →News agencies using Bradley Manning: section link← Previous edit Revision as of 18:13, 4 September 2013 edit undoElaqueate (talk | contribs)5,779 edits →Comments (on the above sources only)Next edit →
Line 175: Line 175:
:Reuters just switched to Chelsea Manning.--] (]) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC) :Reuters just switched to Chelsea Manning.--] (]) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
::That source for Reuters isn't entirely convincing that they've made the switch, the bit where they mention Private Chelsea Manning just seems to be reporting what the statement on the pardon website says. Plus the article contains 2 mentions of Chelsea and 2 of Bradley and studiously avoids any pronouns, so they're hardly embracing the change. --] (]) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC) ::That source for Reuters isn't entirely convincing that they've made the switch, the bit where they mention Private Chelsea Manning just seems to be reporting what the statement on the pardon website says. Plus the article contains 2 mentions of Chelsea and 2 of Bradley and studiously avoids any pronouns, so they're hardly embracing the change. --] (]) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
:::That's an interesting interpretation, but the website and pardon don't use the wording "Private Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley". I can't judge the quality of their long-term enthusiasm or unwritten intent, only that they describe the subject of this article as "Chelsea Manning".--] (]) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


*'''Comment:''' The SCMP article has a ]. On ], install the and set the ] to "Googlebot 2.1", so that the website thinks that you are a Google robot. You might need to block all scripts as well. ], there is no Misplaced Pages policy which prohibits me sharing this information, nor is there any United States law which prohibits the sharing of information which may be used to circumvent artificial paywalls, and the Wikimedia servers are located in Florida. '''There are no US laws which say that it is illegal to spoof the UA of your internet browser.''' Please do not remove my posts that isn't well backed up. You also shouldn't remove the either, since it isn't circumvented in itself. Even with the paywall, some Misplaced Pages users may have a paid subscription, and are able to access the article. There is already a note explaining the accessibility status of the source, removing the URL using an "accessibility" excuse can be interpreted in bad faith. Per ]: ''"Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, some online sources may require payment... '''Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.''' If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able do so on your behalf"''. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC) *'''Comment:''' The SCMP article has a ]. On ], install the and set the ] to "Googlebot 2.1", so that the website thinks that you are a Google robot. You might need to block all scripts as well. ], there is no Misplaced Pages policy which prohibits me sharing this information, nor is there any United States law which prohibits the sharing of information which may be used to circumvent artificial paywalls, and the Wikimedia servers are located in Florida. '''There are no US laws which say that it is illegal to spoof the UA of your internet browser.''' Please do not remove my posts that isn't well backed up. You also shouldn't remove the either, since it isn't circumvented in itself. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


== Move request == == Move request ==

Revision as of 18:13, 4 September 2013


For now, this page is intended for those building a case for a move from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning." Editors are welcome to contribute relevant sources and participating in discussion of them. Please do not yet use this page to debate the move per se.

Evidence

Relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines

Below is a listing of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that may be relevant to this discussion. They are sorted in alphabetic order so as to remain neutral.

  • WP:BLP
    • states "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"
  • WP:COMMONNAME
    • including "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", "neutrality is also considered" and "when there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
  • MOS:IDENTITY
    • stating that "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. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life."

Comments (about citing the above policies and guidelines)

Resolved issues

Is anyone still making the argument that using either "Bradley" or "Chelsea" doesn't show "regard for the subject's privacy", given that the person in question is famous under both names and both names will be listed in the first sentence of the lead? If not, can we remove mention of that aspect of WP:BLP as irrelevant to this move request? -sche (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

yup, done. privacy is one of the weakest arguments ever, esp given "Bradley" will be in the lede until pigs fly...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence from reliable sources on what names they use

This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning and Bradley Manning.

Note: Links should show use of one name or the other after August 22, when the announcement was made. It is trivially obvious that sources before the announcement will use Bradley; that is not of interest here.

News agencies using Chelsea Manning

News agencies using post announcement AP articles while retaining Chelsea + female pronouns

News agencies using Bradley Manning

Sources specifically discussing media usage

Sources specifically discussing the title of the Misplaced Pages article

On initial move from Bradley to Chelsea

On reversal from Chelsea to Bradley

(List courtesy of )

Evidence from reliable sources on how naming decisions affect trans people

This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question.

  • Subsection of Trans media watch submission to the Leveson Inquiry (press controls in the UK, ). On page 11 they discuss methods by which the press aggress against trans people; the first bulletpoint in that section:
"Routine use of previous names - even when the use of these names is intensely painful or places them in actual danger. Typically a transitioning transsexual person will wish to move on from their previous identity, having perhaps lived in deep distress within that ’identity’ in the past. They may be working with colleagues who know nothing of their past, or they may not have revealed their life story to neighbours. Gratuitous revelation can lead to abuse. Further, for transgender people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate, it is illegal for an individual working in an "official capacity" to disclose a person’s previous name. They are, for all legal purposes, recognised in the gender in which they live. This seldom makes any difference to the press."
  • Misplaced Pages’s Deadnaming Violence ("our old name are frequently weaponised against us, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected.") (Urban Achives)
  • Juliet Jacques article discussing choosing a new name. She states that someone using her old name can be "a mistake a malicious attempt to undermine my identity".

Comments (on the above sources only)

It's worth pointing out that what here constitutes a 'reliable source' will necessarily limit the examples that are able to be given here. Representation of trans folk by trans people in newspapers is pretty thin on the ground, as are stories that factually recount e.g. suicide rates together with contributing factors. This section is worthwhile and I shall contribute if I have time (moving house again + jobhunt), but people need to be aware that asking for reliable sourcing of the effects on a group with little to no media access is going to be difficult. 7daysahead (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(On Leveson Inquiry) This states clearly that the use of previous names is intensely painful to trans people (and is illegal in the UK in certain circumstances). 7daysahead (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the pain and potential danger they are talking about here is more in the context of press revelation of a former gender which is generally unknown, which is obviously not the case here. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(On Urban Achives article) I don't see this passing muster as a 'reliable source'. 7daysahead (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a blog written by a scholar whose research interests include digital media ethics, and specifically discusses this particular case (the Misplaced Pages Manning case). Josh Gorand (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Does that not fall foul of WP:OR? Perhaps we need clarification of what reliable sources means here. (Thanks for fixing my poor formatting) 7daysahead (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Self-published sources are OK as sources when they are written by experts. In any case, that blog post is just cited here on this talk page, not in an article, and is helpful to explain how this is perceived by transgendered people because it addresses the specific topic. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources are being deleted where an article is AP-sourced and where the news agency has made editorial decisions to maintain the use of the name Chelsea and female pronouns. Agencies such as the Miami Herald, which ran multiple stories vetted by their news editors with female pronouns and one opinion piece that uses both, is placed in the "News agencies using Bradley Manning" column. Where a syndicated source (such as Xinhua) uses Bradley, secondary agencies using their reporting in this way have been included. Elaqueate (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: Multiple articles in the "News agencies using Bradley Manning" are the AP article with the pronouns switched back. There are no instances here where an agency actively chose to run the AP story with Chelsea and female pronouns. Taking this approach, for whatever good reasons, will bias the categories. Elaqueate (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's inherently of note that some sources tweak the AP source. I think we can assume most will run the AP articles w/o changes, except for a few, and finding those few is interesting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is interesting when they tweak the source report. It is also of note when some run an article that uses Chelsea Manning without changing it. It can show the degree of later editorial opposition, if any. It is impossible to infer that no editorial judgement took place in all sources that ran it with feminine pronouns. We can't ignore all of the stories that were actually promoted by these widely-read sources, wholesale. Elaqueate (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Elaqueate is obviously right here. It would bias things greatly to count only papers that change AP stories to say "Bradley", and not papers that keep "Chelsea". It would mean assuming that the latter papers are run by robots that never make editorial decisions. It would also miss the point that any paper that uses "Chelsea" exposes its reader to that name and thus contributes to that name being commonly known, which is relevant under some oft-encountered interpretations of COMMONNAME. -sche (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could agree that we should source evidence of media preferences from after the announcement. Is this unreasonable? Elaqueate (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, post announcement are really the only sources that matter in the determination here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It should be current or "last known" usage. Anything else implies complicity with the opposite. JOJ 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi I agree as long as you amend to be current or last-known "post announcement". Otherwise, they will all trivially be Bradley - I don't think you'll find any Chelsea Manning sources anywhere before Aug 22.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Its "what name they use". The last useage Bradley Manning. They still use Bradley Manning until evidence suggests otherwise. JOJ 16:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but that is trivially true. For example, if there is a magazine which last published an article on Manning in February 2011, we can say "Well, magazine X calls her Bradley". But we don't learn anything from that fact, as EVERY single source pre-Aug 22 likely uses Bradley. Thus, the only sources we should list above are those sources which teach use something, like "Source X refuses to use Chelsea" or "Source Y decided to use Chelsea". Pre Aug-22 sources simply don't mean much, since we can grant that ~100% of them use Bradley, that's not under dispute.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't find anything about her before December of 1987 in any of the world press.Elaqueate (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I see Elaqueate has removed AJ from the list of sources using "Bradley", I was about to do the same thing and for the same reasons: the articles use "Chelsea". (If a specific article uses "Bradley", link to it.) In general, I think we should link to specific articles, not "topic sections". -sche (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment regarding the treatment of Manning as transgender
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(On General LGBT sources as references for identification in this specific case) I hatted my long winded explanation which may be read by un-hatting. Example, the Leveson Inquiry recounts how trans people can feel intense emotional pain by being referred to by previous name. It is equally important though, not to associate criminality and instability to GID for people other than Manning. Sources that simply reflect the perspective of the subject w/o the perspective of the group risk being stereotypical. As an example, Osama bin Laden identified as Islamic and Arabic. It would be extremely offensive to portray his notable acts stemming from Islam or Arabian identification. Manning used GID as justification in court for assaulting a senior female enlisted person, releasing classified information and for emotional instability. Just like there are guides for generally describing followers of Islam, it may be disparaging to the group go overboard when describing a follower that committed crimes they attributed to that religion. Whence, making GID the central topic for Manning overlooks the crimes that made her notable. Any source should be tailored directly at Manning and not a general source for GID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) --03:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So you (unsigned contributrix) require only reliable sources that tell us how Manning feels about her name, rather than the name of trans women. That would limit the available sources to zero (a nonexistent essay by Manning) and is not a helpful suggestion. The thing about the GID defense is that it is valid: transition or preparing to transition is incredibly destablising, with 84% considering suicide (40% making at least one attempt), and being trapped in a hyper-masculine environment could lead a person to do something foolish, be it suicide or lashing out.
Finally in your hatted section below you say that "My concern is recognizing Manning as a woman may do a great injustice and disservice to transwoman that have actually had therapy, surgery, etc and have lived as a woman.". This is completely counter to Misplaced Pages's dedication to fact: I don't recognise Chelsea Manning as a woman based on my personal opinion of her - I recognize her as a woman because it's true. 7daysahead (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
previously, only the following section was hatted:

I think it's also worth considering that GID in this case was used as a mitigating factor to explain emotional instability, assaulting a senior female enlisted person, and disclosing classified information. Manning has expressed a desire to live as a woman and be referred to as Chelsea. However, I find the evidence lacking that she lived as a woman for any length of time (and possibly this explains emotional distress/instability as she wasn't allowed to in the Army). It is an odd choice to join the military where DADT was accepted but certainly not transgender lifestyles. My concern is recognizing Manning as a woman may do a great injustice and disservice to transwoman that have actually had therapy, surgery, etc and have lived as a woman. Manning's GID was used to explain away criminal behavior. GID is perhaps one of the few LGBT expressions of sexuality that are treated medically. Because of that (GID treatment by medical professionals, use as a mitigating factor fro criminal behavior), I think the bar for making the gender claim is higher than other self-identifying sexualities where it is no longer considered disorder. Imagine in the past where homosexuality was considered a disorder and a pedophile used that to mitigate a molestation charge yet there was no evidence or slight evidence that the pedophile had any adult same-sex relationships. That person would be using the old DSM medical diagnoses to mitigate his crime but inexorably he is tying pedophilia to homosexuality and stigmatizing being gay. I think every gay male person has to overcome the pedophile stereotype because of that. Certainly if someone today claimed to be gay and that's the reason for pedophilia, the LGBT community would want more evidence than just a self-declaration of being gay to be recognized as such and certainly make sure that pedophilia and homosexuality are not related. I don't think anyone would be clamoring to identify a pedophile as gay as they were leaving the courthouse after being convicted. Imagine the press release "I am not a pedophile, I'm a gay pedophile. Please refer to me that way from now on." Manning's crimes aren't sexual in nature but he is blaming gender dysphoria for criminal behavior and to mitigate any punishment he may receive because of it. He is not doing the LGBT community any favors. As an example of the difference, we have a local High School teacher that was born with male genitalia. At some point, she recognized she was female, she sought out the appropriate medical help, started hormone therapy, legally changed her name for social security and drivers license and over a school summer she returned to the classroom as a woman. I have no idea what hormone therapy she did or whether she had surgery but it is immaterial. She is a woman. That person went through a personal transformation that was difficult on friends, family, co-workers, etc, but she is the person that has leapt more hurdles than Manning and her self-identity carries much more weight, IMO, than Manning and she is entitled to be called a woman simply based on how she lives and wishes to be called. She managed to teach high school as a man without fighting superiors, emotional instability and criminal behavior. I understand the desire to be accepting since this is exactly the story of the teacher above. Her decision shows how transgender people are conflicted and acceptance of their personal decisions and medical decisions made with medical professionals should be accepted without question or derision. The teacher had no other motive than to live as she wished to live. Manning, however, has not shown this. Manning used it as a tool in a criminal trial. It may turn out that Manning is female and just as conflicted as the teacher and would go through all the same processes to live how she wants to live. But it demeans the teacher and others with GID to simply accept Manning's account of how his GID led him to commit crimes and be emotionally unstable. Manning is not a GID poster child with virtually no history of living as a woman and I still haven't seen an actual account of a diagnosis for GID (the Army classified it as a working adjustment disorder but mentioned gender identity as a possible contributing factor). Because of the disservice that it does to transgender persons to associate GID with the emotional instability, untrustworthy behavior and violence exhibited by Manning, I think the bar is higher than just self-identity. I would much prefer to wait until he is a) treated and diagnosed, b) lives as a woman and c) shows that those actions have overcome the items she attributed to being "Bradley." I am neither qualified nor inclined to rush to a judgement on Manning's psychological gender. But I think there needs to be time and space before Manning's criminal actions stigmatize persons with GID. Accepting that Manning's behavior is explained by GID is to deny opportunity for others with GID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Note: I have expanded the hatnote to cover this entire section, because it does not constitute discussion of the specific sources listed above, which is what this section is for. Instead, it constitutes an argument against a move or for making a move only after careful consideration of the impact treating Manning as transgender would have on other transgender people; it thus belongs not here but in the relevant "Discussion" section below once the move request opens. -sche (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that The Telegraph has actively changed one of its stories from Chelsea to Bradley, but left the other story alone - I've put it in both sections for now, with the appropriate reference for each, but I think the changed story is more recent, so that may put it more firmly in the Bradley camp.--Jeude54cartes (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need to list all the news agencies that syndicate Associated Press articles? I found it redundant and pointless to list all the sources that syndicate Xinhua and Reuters, so I chose not to. There are likewise plenty of Xinhua and Reuters-based articles from various news agencies that use Bradley, but in my opinion it would be pointless to list every single one. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reuters just switched to Chelsea Manning.--Elaqueate (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That source for Reuters isn't entirely convincing that they've made the switch, the bit where they mention Private Chelsea Manning just seems to be reporting what the statement on the pardon website says. Plus the article contains 2 mentions of Chelsea and 2 of Bradley and studiously avoids any pronouns, so they're hardly embracing the change. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting interpretation, but the website and pardon don't use the wording "Private Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley". I can't judge the quality of their long-term enthusiasm or unwritten intent, only that they describe the subject of this article as "Chelsea Manning".--Elaqueate (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The SCMP article has a WP:PAYWALL. On Mozilla Firefox, install the User Agent Switcher add-on and set the user agent to "Googlebot 2.1", so that the website thinks that you are a Google robot. You might need to block all scripts as well. User:Josh Gorand, there is no Misplaced Pages policy which prohibits me sharing this information, nor is there any United States law which prohibits the sharing of information which may be used to circumvent artificial paywalls, and the Wikimedia servers are located in Florida. There are no US laws which say that it is illegal to spoof the UA of your internet browser. Please do not remove my posts with really vague reasoning that isn't well backed up. You also shouldn't remove the link to the raw URL either, since it isn't circumvented in itself. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Keep closed until end of September when the move request is filed

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

Request move from Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning

Survey

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

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.