| Revision as of 19:29, 9 September 2013 editLtPowers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,800 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:41, 10 September 2013 edit undoKatie Ryan A (talk | contribs)475 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| **Thanks, {{u|Crisco 1492}}. I should've checked whether it was non-free. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | **Thanks, {{u|Crisco 1492}}. I should've checked whether it was non-free. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *Bless Sue Gardner. Some of the comments left in that discussion were really nasty (it's why I chose not to participate) and the whole debacle left a bad taste in the back of my mouth. --''']'''! ] 01:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | *Bless Sue Gardner. Some of the comments left in that discussion were really nasty (it's why I chose not to participate) and the whole debacle left a bad taste in the back of my mouth. --''']'''! ] 01:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| **I agree - I've discussed the Chelsea Manning issue with friends who were misgendering her and complaining about their taxes supporting her treatment, and was able to explain things from my experience as a trans woman. They know and respect me, and it didn't take long for them to understand why that attitude is so troubling and came away with a much better understanding of trans issues. Then I saw her name changed back on Misplaced Pages, and didn't feel like I could give my opinion - some of the comments just didn't make me feel welcome. When people are making statements that imply that trans people are less human than them, it seems like there's no point in trying to explain things from my point of view. ] (]) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *ArbCom + politics. What could ''possibly'' go wrong? In reality, the decision was sound and is not in ArbCom's purview. ] is the controlling policy, and must be interpreted in the context of ] (and ]). On this, community support should be clearly in support of a change per ]. It was not. Just remember the old adage: ]. The best solution IMO is to let the liberal media have a good go at the subject, and let the Misplaced Pages editors flock to the article title change proposal ''en masse''. ] (]) 03:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | *ArbCom + politics. What could ''possibly'' go wrong? In reality, the decision was sound and is not in ArbCom's purview. ] is the controlling policy, and must be interpreted in the context of ] (and ]). On this, community support should be clearly in support of a change per ]. It was not. Just remember the old adage: ]. The best solution IMO is to let the liberal media have a good go at the subject, and let the Misplaced Pages editors flock to the article title change proposal ''en masse''. ] (]) 03:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ** "Liberal" media? What does political leaning have to do with a source's input into the acceptability of the name change? ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC) | ** "Liberal" media? What does political leaning have to do with a source's input into the acceptability of the name change? ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:41, 10 September 2013
← Back to In the media
Discuss this story
- @Jayen: I've removed the fair-use image for now. I heard a donation was being considered, but until such time we still need to follow the NFCC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Crisco 1492. I should've checked whether it was non-free. Andreas JN466 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bless Sue Gardner. Some of the comments left in that discussion were really nasty (it's why I chose not to participate) and the whole debacle left a bad taste in the back of my mouth. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 01:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree - I've discussed the Chelsea Manning issue with friends who were misgendering her and complaining about their taxes supporting her treatment, and was able to explain things from my experience as a trans woman. They know and respect me, and it didn't take long for them to understand why that attitude is so troubling and came away with a much better understanding of trans issues. Then I saw her name changed back on Misplaced Pages, and didn't feel like I could give my opinion - some of the comments just didn't make me feel welcome. When people are making statements that imply that trans people are less human than them, it seems like there's no point in trying to explain things from my point of view. Katie R (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- ArbCom + politics. What could possibly go wrong? In reality, the decision was sound and is not in ArbCom's purview. WP:COMMONNAME is the controlling policy, and must be interpreted in the context of WP:RS (and WP:TRUTH). On this, community support should be clearly in support of a change per WP:CONS. It was not. Just remember the old adage: hard cases make bad law. The best solution IMO is to let the liberal media have a good go at the subject, and let the Misplaced Pages editors flock to the article title change proposal en masse. Int21h (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Liberal" media? What does political leaning have to do with a source's input into the acceptability of the name change? Powers 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- It has to do with editor consensus, as anything that influences editors also influences editor consensus. The liberal media happens to be very influential on Misplaced Pages editors IMO. Int21h (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're implying that accepted media standards for handling transgender persons is a creation of the liberal media. I suppose you would favor the conservative media as a model to follow? Powers 19:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- It has to do with editor consensus, as anything that influences editors also influences editor consensus. The liberal media happens to be very influential on Misplaced Pages editors IMO. Int21h (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Liberal" media? What does political leaning have to do with a source's input into the acceptability of the name change? Powers 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was an appallingly transphobic decision, in my opinion. Particularly as all conversation on the name is currently blocked over at the article. Adam Cuerden 05:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Any action that pretends to block conversation is void on its face as a violation of WP:CONS, and WP:IGNORE obviously applies; in addition, " may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process" which I assume would apply to any such pretension. Administrators have apparently blocked "a new proposal to move the page ... being initiated ... less than thirty days from the date of this determination", which is close but not quite the same, and implemented discretionary sanctions, which is just a fancy way of saying "I'm watching you while you edit". Int21h (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)