Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.102.186.231 (talk) at 15:29, 31 August 2013 (→Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:connected contributor?

Do we need to stick one of those templates pointing out I'm a Wikipedia editor here, or is that too a) marginal, b) obvious? Morwen (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on your question, but I would politely ask that you refrain from editing the article as you are a source in some of the articles that are used as sources. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't intending to. Morwen (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't edited the article and not the talk page (aside from this question) I wouldn't think a connected contributor template is appropriate - since you aren't a contributor to the article. Iselilja (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Morwen acknowledges that Naillacquer (talk · contribs · logs) is her alternate account, which I assume to be the purpose of the template, I can't see what the problem is here. This is explicitly allowed per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. It's high time people lay off Morwen and find something constructive to do. Such as, dunno, maybe uh…help write an encyclopedia?170.170.59.139 (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Naillacquer is certainly not me. I'd be happy to be checkusered to demonstrate this: in the mean-time you hopefully draw that conclusion from the edit times. I might stay up inadvisably late arguing on the Internet, but not that late. Morwen (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

No, I'm not proposing that this be called the Bradley Manning media coverage controversy. Instead, I'm wondering about whether it needs to be more specific. Was there no controversial coverage of Private Manning previously? Clearly, the article is about the contoroversy following the name change Should we have Chelsea Manning naming controversy or something? Not that the renaming itself is controversial - it is the coverage. I'm not ready to do an RM yet - I'm still thinking. StAnselm (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I agree with you. Considering Chelsea Manning is already a controversial figure who has been in and out of the news for some time now, the title of this article is a bit to broad or general given the topic it covers. — Richard BB 13:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are name changes customarily acknowledged as fact simply on the wish of the named person, or does the name change have to be legally registered? If not, are they acknowledged only in cases of transgender identification or can anyone at all forego their given name just upon a declaration? Starranger00 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia?

With all the coverage, and coverage about the coverage - what makes Wikipedia notable? All we have is two opinion pieces... StAnselm (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a case of us (editors) viewing our little editing bubble as incredibly in-the-news. It's forgivable and I do the same; as such I would be unable to determine whether coverage of the Wikipedia article is notable enough for a section. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was one more source. I removed it when I removed the sentence about it. (Didn't think we needed a sentence for every source). But I should have moved the source as a reference to the opening sentence of the secttion rather. I don't have a firm opinion on Wikipedia should be mentioned or not, but it should be rather short, lest we go into details we don't normally cover. Iselilja (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources that should be added. I think I've seen at least a dozen. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section should be removed per WP:SUBJECT — "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)." --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my edit summary on the topic. That rule is about articles mentioning themselves; we are allowed to have other articles mentioning a subject. — Richard BB 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No! Section should definitely not exist per WP:SUBJECT. Is this article about media reaction to Wikipedia? No! It's about media reaction to Manning. Read my excerpt above again. It is essentially a breakaway section of the same article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's kept, what are the thoughts on Wikilinking the userpage of the editor who changed the pronouns? I think it's no different than linking any other subject, and seems proper in this context, where her action as an editor is the focal point of the paragraph. Not something I care enough to argue for, just wondering if it seems to makes sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
I did a search and found four or five articles that mention a wikipedia user name, and done of them had a wikilink. It seemed wrong to have it somehow, and I had a feeling there must be a policy about it somewhere, though I couldn't find anything. StAnselm (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept (which it shouldn't), then the sentence regarding the interview with the Wikipedian definitely isn't appropriate per WP:UNDUE and WP:SUBJECT, and on no account should we ever link to a Wikipedian's user page from the main article space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Wikipedia's part in the renaming has been covered in reliable sources, no reason to not report what has already been covered. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, there's not much controversial here

At present, this is a rather straight-forward recitation of the name-change events. If this title and article focus remains, then perhaps we should see more quotations and analysis from reliable sources that did not view this move so favorably.

and so on. Otherwise this needs a re-title, or a reconsideratin on whether we need an article or not. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chelsea Manning article

I don't think "controversy" is an appropriate description, a better title could be Chelsea Manning media coverage dilemma. However this event is not notable enough to warrant its own page, I think this article should be deleted, possibly merged into Chelsea Manning. Space simian (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why these media article are spun out so fast. Neither this article nor the Chelsea Manning article are particularly long, and this unnecessary split is... well... unnecessary. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the article's authors were thinking about, but perhaps this is a response to the fact that the main Chelsea Manning article is protected. This page is one of the few outlets to actually write something about a topic that many people have strong feelings about; it's sort of an outlet for journalistic desires. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this material should be shortened (esp. overemphasis on NY Times) and merged with the primary article. There is no sensible reason to have a dedicated Wikipedia article for Manning's "Gender Identity Media Coverage," which as a standalone newsworthy event will likely be very short-lived. JohnValeron (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For exactly the reason you give, "[this] will likely be very short-lived.", I would caution against merging anything at the moment. For starters it would require a strong and explicit consensus to do so while the main article is protected, and any merge discussion that did manage to get a word in edgeways would be subject to people arguing about WP:CRYSTAL and whether that means it should be separate or merged for the time being. Not merging it is obviously a lot less effort than merging and then splitting, so I'd recommend waiting until we know how long or short lived the issue is before deciding where we should cover it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it'd just require the same consensus that any other merge would require. The protection of the main article has nothing to do with a merge, nor does WP:CRYSTAL, nor do the many silent voices that choose not to make their opinion known when the decision is made, given that it is properly advertised. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For reference I made the above comment before this was a formal move request and before it had been advertised at the main article's talk. A suitably advertised RM (as this now is) does have the potential to form a strong consensus, but I'd still be very wary about performing the edits needed to merge this in to the main article while it was fully protected. See my formal !vote below for more on WP:CRYSTAL (neither this comment nor the one above should be regarded as a (!)vote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The Chelsea Manning article has been almost exclusively about Manning's classified documents leak, criminal charges, and trial until only very recently. The Chelsea Manning media coverage drama is arguably more notable for what it reveals about how transgender people are treated in contemporary American society – and about how Wikipedia works – than for anything it says about the particulars of the Manning case. Dezastru (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need separate articles to cover this; both are about Chelsea Manning and neither is long enough to warrant this splitting into two articles. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The present article is only the tip of the iceberg on these issues, the Wikipedia section includes just two of the many possible sources. There is a bigger story here that centers on how the media can be bias against gender nonconformity and how they are scrambling to adapt to new media sources. Additionally transgender issues mirror but lag behind other LGBT issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be worthy of inclusion on an article concerning transgender issues in general. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it pertains to this subject as noted in reliable sources it belongs here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've left a note at Talk:Chelsea Manning advising of this proposed merger and inviting comments here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't merge it just yet, given that the other article is still in a state of fierce debate at the moment, but I think it should be merged. The subject of Manning's gender identity doesn't seem likely to me to have much long-term notability, and I'm not sure what more there could be to say about it than this article says already. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Looks like WP:RECENTISM to me (and not a unique case), the media hype will most likely die out within several days or so. Brandmeistertalk 15:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nothing warrants this content being split from the main Chelsea Manning article, including controversy, debate, discussion, or a locked article. Every topic the mass media covers doesn't need an article to discuss the coverage by the mass media; in fact most don't. WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM all apply. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nobody will give a flying crow about this in a few days. Just some news fluff. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge to Chelsea Manning. There really isn't anything in this article that could be added to Manning's biography, because it's about the media coverage, not about Manning. Other options are to redirect the title to Chelsea Manning without a merge of content (i.e. delete it without an AfD), find another article to merge it into if something appropriate can be found, or leave it as it is. Of the three, I lean toward leaving it as a stand-alone article, because readers may find it interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to avoid this becoming a POV fork of main article content. There's not enough here to support a standalone article, and the shelf-life of the "controversy" is limited. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now (for the avoidance of any doubt, this my formal recommendation, my comments above are not). The very significant coverage of Manning's gender idenity and the associated controversy is still ongoing. It is thus WP:CRYSTAL to say that it will have a short shelf life or be very short lived - at this point we cannot know that and we should avoid changing the status quo until we do. As for SlimVirgin's comments, as it stands now I can see a summary of this article having a suitable home in Manning's biography, but I can see how either could develop in a way that makes that inappropriate. Again, I don't think we are in a position at the moment where we can reliably make these sort of judgements about the topic so we should leave things as they are until we can. That could be within the period of this RM (in which case I'll revisit my recommendation) but it isn't necessarily the case. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stand-alone article might be more appropriate if it were to broaden out and examine the history of Manning's transition – from Bradley to a tentative Breanna to Chelsea; how it determined how much Wired published of the Manning–Lamo chats (they withheld some because of that private issue, leading to criticism from people who didn't know why they had withheld any and were suspicious of their motives, including Glenn Greenwald); how the gender dysphoria figured as part of her defence; how the US Army has handled similar cases; what they did in her case at the time; the announcement after sentencing; the media response; and the availability of hormone replacement therapy in US and US military prisons.

    The only question is whether it would be horribly intrusive for Manning to have all that published material about a sensitive issue gathered together into one article – much of it is in the biography, but not in detail – but given the announcement it's unlikely that she'd mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. There's a fair bit of puffery here, especially the wikipedia section. But this topic doesn't even constitute a subsection of Chelsea Manning - it's not like the material there got too unwieldy and a new article had to be created. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is brand new and partisan turf wars are better kept here rather than the main article. This can be a good article once more content and sourcing, which are readily available, are added. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Over time, it will become impossible to differentiate between Manning and the controversies the Private has created. This is a clearcut case of recentism and the articles should be merged. Andrew327 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE this seems like an entirely appropriate stand-alone article. Putting all of this stuff into the main article about Manning would unduly emphasize something very narrow, the media coverage of the transgender issue, in relation to the overall topic of Manning. It further seems to me that the arguments about WP:RECENTISM are arguments appropriate for an AfD, not a proposed merge. This discussion isn't about whether the overall topic is notable, it's about the location of the topic assuming it is notable (I think?). AgnosticAphid talk 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the reasons explained above by Dezastru and SlimVirgin. The Chelsea Manning article has been almost exclusively about Manning's classified documents leak, criminal charges, and trial until only very recently. The Chelsea Manning media coverage drama is arguably more notable for what it reveals about how transgender people are treated in contemporary American society – and about how Wikipedia works – than for anything it says about the particulars of the Manning case. There really isn't anything in this article that could be added to Manning's biography, because it's about the media coverage, not about Manning. Other options are to redirect the title to Chelsea Manning without a merge of content (i.e. delete it without an AfD), find another article to merge it into if something appropriate can be found, or leave it as it is. Of the three, I lean toward leaving it as a stand-alone article, because readers may find it interesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The page has expanded since my first comment. I agree with Anythingyouwant et al. It would be a lot of work of uncertain benefit to merge so better to wait. Since the contentious title has been changed I don't see much harm in leaving the page and see how it evolves. --Space simian (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The primary Wikipedia article now provisionally titled "Chelsea Manning" already contains a 3-paragraph section devoted to "Gender reassignment." The present, bloated standalone article on "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" should be edited for concision and incorporated into that "Gender reassignment" section where it belongs. To argue, as SlimVirgin does above, that the material here is "about the media coverage, not about Manning," is absurd. After all, the main article's existing section "Reaction to disclosures" is entirely about media coverage. So why is it OK to devote 4 paragraphs (nearly 400 words) to media coverage of Manning's disclosures but wrong to trim and merge media coverage of gender identity into the same article? JohnValeron (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem including a very brief summary of this article in the article about Manning, but this article has enough material for a standalone article. In contrast, there's not enough material for a standalone article about media reaction to the disclosures (i.e. leaks).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding. Do you realize how much media reaction there has been in the three years since Manning's leaks? It's humongous. There only reason that section isn't larger is because sensible editors quickly realized there was far too much to incorporate therein, so they wisely kept it to 4 paragraphs. Yet you argue that media reaction in the mere 8 days since Manning's regendering announcement exceeds in both volume and significance the three YEARS worth of reaction to the disclosures? Rubbish. JohnValeron (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They probably kept it to four paragraphs because they realized that any more would require a separate standalone article. Anyway, the big thrill of the moment is how the media is referring to Manning---he or she or both. I don't think there was comparable suspense about how the bigstream media reported Manning's espionage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to be comprehensively informed by a Wikipedia that creates subarticles whenever an article has more than four paragraphs... - Floydian τ ¢ 10:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Initial media coverage' section is inaccurate and poorly written

I think we can safely say that papers that have changed their pronoun use within a week are still within the "initial" media coverage. On that basis I'm removing the Daily Telegraph from this list (since by the end of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10259509/Bradley-Manning-wants-to-live-as-a-woman-called-Chelsea.html they are plainly using female pronouns). I opine that having a list of organisations that did not change pronoun use whilst omitting a list of organisations that did is poor writing style, giving either the impression that every media outlet did not change pronouns, or that every media outlet except those listed did change pronoun use. To improve on this style I'm adding a short list of organisations that have changed pronoun usage. 7daysahead (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input welcome. I couldn't find the telegraph story which I wished to cite (though I found another easily enough) and I'm not certain I cited the AP stories correctly. 7daysahead (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We might need to wait a bit while the media sources themselves review and report on the flux. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is different

This article is specifically about the media controversy that resulted when Chelsea Manning announced her transition. She is now Chelsea Manning, and the media controversy unquestionably relates to her current name and status. Ergo, it makes absolutely no sense to title this page with her former name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 31 August 2013

Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage → Bradley Manning gender identity media coverage – As the main article has been moved back to Bradley Manning, it seemed uncontroversial to have this article match, but apparently that was not the case. In effect, these articles should be considered linked; as one goes, so goes the other, as they are about the same person. Imagine if Hillary Rodham Clinton was successfully renamed to "Hillary Clinton", but editors mustered enough opposes to retain Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State as-is? Tarc (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support per the main page's move decision. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article is specifically about the media coverage of Chelsea Manning's new gender identity and transition. She is no longer Bradley Manning. The name Bradley Manning exists only in historical contexts. There is no debate that Manning has self-identified as a trans-woman, and therefore the media coverage discusses her new gender identity. To have this article titled at her former name makes not a single iota of sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose the main page move was done mostly on technical merits which is disappointing. It's disrespectful to refer to Chelsea by any other name unless you are sending her mail which will only get to her under her former name per the US military. We are able to show more respect for other human beings than that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful / more persuasive if you cited some actual policy... -sche (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Using her former name, that she has requested not be used, as the primary reference/title, violates WP:BLP, WP:IDENTITY, WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME (per [1]) Josh Gorand (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The proposed title would have the potential to cause harm to a living person, in violation of WP:BLP. It would contradict the convention that has been largely accepted by the media, thus violating COMMONNAME. As Josh's source shows: "The media has largely accepted Bradley Manning's request that she be identified as a woman named Chelsea". Weight of voting has already caused us to temporarily have at least one policy violating article, which brutalises a transgender woman by forcing a masculine name upon her. A plea for consistency is not a strong enough reason to have another. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as articles should be consistent. Also, as the close of the Bradley Manning article show, it doesn't violate COMMONNAME, MoS, BLP, NPOV and the close itself wasn't due to the weight of the voting or on technical merits. Continuing to say so makes your vote worthless to the closing admin. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Comment: As with the Bradley Manning > Private Manning move discussion, I will stay formally neutral on this one. I've debated the topic nearly to wit's end and I'm rather burnt out on it. I will share a few thoughts. From what I have seen, a fair amount of the media controversy relates to whether to use Bradley or Chelsea, with the preferences split roughly evenly (without a clear majority either way). Thus I do not have strong opinions as to which name this article should use.
On the one hand, the Bradley title would match the main article, and would avoid confusion. On the other hand, Chelsea may be more appropriate for an article focused on recent events. It is true that the gender identity discussion was almost exclusively conducted after she announced her preference for Chelsea and for female pronouns. In that sense, the sources we look at would generally be from the past week or so, so we should look at those for guidance.
If the requested move at Talk:Bradley Manning from Bradley Manning to Private Manning goes through, I would think it entirely reasonable to move this page to the Private Manning title as well. But for the time being, to do so would be getting a bit ahead of the discussion at Talk:Bradley Manning. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out the following passage at the Bradley Manning RM closure; {quote|A comparatively small number of editors premised their opinions solely on Manning's legal or biological state. These arguments are not based on anything in Wikipedia's policies, and are contrary to numerous precedents. Such arguments were expressly discounted in this determination.}} Emotional arguments really need to be set aside in favor of rational and project-policy-based arguments. This article didn't start out named after Bradley, so it isn't quite in the same boat as the main article, but you really can't have one titled one way and one titled the other, it just looks awkward. Bring this back to the person's original name, and if the main article eventually gets re-titled following a proper RM discussion, then thew result of that would be mirrored here. Tarc (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should not disrespect a living person at all, that we are doing so - mostly as a technicality - on the main page is a tragedy but one that will be corrected in about 37 days. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main article has already been moved back though, as a consensus of editors found that it did not violate WP:BLP to do so. Ergo, moving this one to my proposed title cannot be a BLP violation either. Tarc (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually a three-admin panel decided the process used violated how the process should have gone, BLP be damned. It will be corrected hopefully sooner than later. Please stop the constant disrespect of a trans woman. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Hillary Clinton example would be perfect if Clinton had announced vie the world's media outlets that she was in process of changing gender, had a new name that reflected that change in gender, had also said that she had always felt she was a different gender than the one she was assigned at birth, and added that she wishes everyone to refer to her using the pronouns of her new gender identity. Clearly that example has nothing to do with this case. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning_gender_identity_media_coverage&oldid=570956277"