| Revision as of 22:31, 30 July 2014 editAgnosticaphid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,561 edits →Gender Transition: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 5 August 2014 edit undo143.231.249.138 (talk) →Alias as title?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 374: | Line 374: | ||
| ::::::: If this were a country with stricter morals (thinking Islamic) the same things you said about underwear could be said about shoes, but in what is the greatest thing about the internet we don't have to live by their morals, or yours. If ] consider it notable, we should at least be allowed to discuss it without the ]/morals police freaking out. ] (]) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ::::::: If this were a country with stricter morals (thinking Islamic) the same things you said about underwear could be said about shoes, but in what is the greatest thing about the internet we don't have to live by their morals, or yours. If ] consider it notable, we should at least be allowed to discuss it without the ]/morals police freaking out. ] (]) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: ''"And I don't think they would, frankly"'' If you bothered to read the reference we are discussing, you'll find that it clearly says "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army's recommendation to keep Manning in military custody and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment, a defense official said Thursday. The initial gender treatments could include allowing Manning to wear some female undergarments and also possibly provide some hormone treatments." As I said above, the policy about speculation in articles ''explicitly allows for discussion of future developments where reliably sourced.'' So I think to say that including this is "freaky" kind of demonstrates a lack of awareness. ''']''' ] 22:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ::::::: ''"And I don't think they would, frankly"'' If you bothered to read the reference we are discussing, you'll find that it clearly says "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army's recommendation to keep Manning in military custody and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment, a defense official said Thursday. The initial gender treatments could include allowing Manning to wear some female undergarments and also possibly provide some hormone treatments." As I said above, the policy about speculation in articles ''explicitly allows for discussion of future developments where reliably sourced.'' So I think to say that including this is "freaky" kind of demonstrates a lack of awareness. ''']''' ] 22:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Alias as title? == | |||
| Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well known under his real name. ] (]) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:14, 5 August 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelsea Manning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Editor behavior around the article title discussion was brought to Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee: |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Chelsea 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | The contents of the Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage page were merged into Chelsea Manning on 18 September 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about article name and gender. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. |
Source/Footnotes Quotes
I have comments/suggestions about this article.
1. First paragraph
The article currently states, "From early life through much of Army life, Manning was known as Bradley, and was diagnosed with gender identity disorder while in the Army."
As I was reading this article, I (and I know what assuming means) assumed that he had been previously diagnosed before the leaks took place. So, I read the article linked with footnote , which states, "Dr. David Moulton, the forensic psychologist assigned to review Manning’s case, said that Manning was suffering from gender identity disorder, a diagnosis supported by a military sanity board."
I take this to mean that the Doctor was appointed by the court to review Manning's case, therefore, it was not a pre-leak diagnoses. Perhaps the sentence could be changed to something like, "From early life through much of Army life, Manning was known as Bradley, and was diagnosed with gender identity during her trial."
2. Parents' divorce, move to Wales
"He also said that Manning excelled at the saxophone, science, and computers, creating her first website at the age of ten. Manning taught herself how to use PowerPoint, won the grand prize three years in a row at the local science fair, and in sixth grade, took top prize at a statewide quiz bowl."
The actual direct quote from footnote is, "He would create his own websites. His first website I think he did when he was, like, 10 years old, where I had to go out and actually buy an advanced HTML manual...."
I understand, and have read all the arguments for/against the he/she debate, the sentence, the way it is currently written, infers that the father stated she instead of he. Therefore, you are misrepresenting his comments on the subject. I suggest either directly quoting the father, or removing the sentence.
3. Parents' divorce, move to Wales
"A childhood friend of Manning's, speaking about a conversation they had when Manning was 13, said "he told me he was gay." The friend also stated that Manning's home life was not good and that her father was very controlling. Around this time, Manning's parents divorced, and she and her mother Susan moved out of the house to a rented apartment in Crescent, Oklahoma."
Again, this statement is inferring that Jordan Davis is using the word "her" and he doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "A childhood friend of Manning's, speaking about a conversation they had when Manning was 13, said, "He told me he was gay." The friend also stated when asked about Manning's home life, "...that it wasn't good, and that his dad is very controlling of him.." Around this time, Manning's parents divorced, and she and her mother Susan moved out of the house to a rented apartment in Crescent, Oklahoma."
4. Parents' divorce, move to Wales
"her aunt told The Washington Post that Manning awoke to an empty camp one morning, after everyone else packed up their tents and left without her."
Again, this statement is inferring that his aunt, Sharon Staples, is using the word "her" and she doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "Once on a camping trip with friends, she (Manning's Aunt) said, “he woke up, and all the tents around him were gone. They left while he was sleeping.”
5. Return to the United States
"took several low-paid jobs"
This should really be "low-paying jobs."
6. Enlistment in the Army
"She told her Army supervisor later that she had also hoped joining such a masculine environment would resolve her gender identity disorder."
The quote from footnote is, "In an April 24, 2010 email to his supervisor at the time, Master Sgt. Paul Adkins, Manning confessed he was transgender, and that he joined the Army, basically, to 'get rid of it.'"
I would delete this all together. It is covered in the first paragraph of "Email to supervisor, recommended discharge" And takes place 3 years after the previous sentence.
7. Contact with gender counselor
"The counselor told Steve Fishman of New York Magazine in 2011 that it was clear Manning was in crisis, partly because of her gender concerns, but also because she was opposed to the kind of war in which she found herself involved."
The quote from footnote is, "About that time, Manning later explained, 'everything started slipping.' Manning, it turned out, wasn't built for this kind of war. 'I was a part of something … i was actively involved in something that i was completely against.'"
Again, this statement is inferring that his counselor, Sharon Staples, is using the word "her" and she doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "The counselor told Steve Fishman of New York Magazine in 2011 that it was clear Manning was in crisis, and that Manning had explained, 'I was actively involved in something that i was completely against.'"
8. Contact with gender counselor
"Because of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy (known as DADT and in effect until September 20, 2011)"
I was in the military during this time, and was one of the people in charge of training troops of the new policy. Never did anyone ever refer to it as DADT. I would just remove that part.
9. Release of material to WikiLeaks
"After her arrest, her former partner, Tyler Watkins, told Wired that Manning had said during the visit that she had found some sensitive information and was considering leaking it."
The quote from footnote is, "In January, while on leave in the United States, Manning visited a close friend in Boston and confessed he’d gotten his hands on unspecified sensitive information, and was weighing leaking it, according to the friend. “He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”
Again, this statement is inferring that her former partner, Tyler Watkins, is using the word "she" and he doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "After her arrest, her former partner told Wired that Manning had gotten her hands on unspecified sensitive information, and was weighing leaking it, according to the friend. “He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”
10. Awards and decorations
The star on her Iraqi Campaign Medal should be in the middle/center of the ribbon. http://rlv.zcache.com/iraq_campaign_medal_ribbon_1_battle_star_sticker_bumper_sticker-r93c182f3a8044d94b83957f34f513ee1_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg
11. Awards and decorations
One service stripe look like this http://media.cdn.usamilitarymedals.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/6/5/6596_us_army_service_1_stripe_female_size_1.jpg
12. Chelsea Manning
"On 21 June Julian Assange told The Guardian that WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning but that they had not been given access to her."
The quote from footnote is, "Assange said WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning but that they had been granted no access to him. Manning has instead been assigned US military counsel."
Again, this statement is inferring that Julian Assange, is using the word "her" and he doesn't. A possible alternative sentence could be, "On 21 June Julian Assange told The Guardian that WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning, but that they had been granted no access to him. Manning has instead been assigned US military counsel."
I can keep going through this thing, but the fact of the matter remains, if you're going to willy-nilly change the word "him" to "her", or "he" to "she", then then you need to change your footnotes. Whenever you say in this article....XXXX says she, instead of XXXX says he, you are not taking into consideration that you are altering the sources quote, and therefore the validity of the quote.
Robertvincentswain (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- In response: 1. Manning was diagnosed by at least two different army doctors, one before the trial, the other before the leaks, both while Manning was in the Army (as she still is). The trial doctor was assessing and reaffirming previous diagnoses. 2., 3., 4., 6., 7., 9., 12. are all attempts to write "she" out of most of the article. All of these instances have extensive discussions hammering out wording. If it's not part of the direct quote, we go with Mos:Identity. Replacing all pre-trial pronouns with some variation of "Manning" was discussed and I doubt there is a consensus to remove all or most pronouns that are not part of a direct quote. Again, if it is not part of a direct quote, then it is "she" and "her" and we can't write her whole history in direct quotes; we have to use pronouns sometime. 5. looks like a good suggestion. 8. Whatever it was called at the time by some of the people who implemented it, DADT is what it is commonly called and referenced as now, up to the legislative level. 10. and 11. should be looked at by an editor with more military experience (maybe someone can help find a single stripe image, on Commons, and address the layout business with the star. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Manning was diagnosed by at least two different army doctors, one before the trial, the other before the leaks, both while Manning was in the Army (as she still is)."
- Footnote does not mention anything about 2 doctors diagnosing him. I suggest a new footnote be added that references the fact that he was diagnosed prior to the leaks.
- In so far as Mos:Identity,
- "Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions."
- It seems to me that this article was written purposely to include she/her, instead of having direct quotes, thereby skirting the rules. It is my contention that if the statement is..."Joe told the reporter that she did it." As opposed to, "While talking to the reporter, Joe said, 'He did it,'" that it is a misquote. It seems that the author purposely did not directly quote the sources in the footnotes so that they could include the she/her into the article. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it seems purposefully biased in the feminine favor.
- And I do agree with you, Manning is in the Army until she serves her sentence, therefore all statements of "while in the Army" should be removed>Robertvincentswain (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article was written purposely to include some pronouns. It's better than having a lot of "Manning did this, and Manning did that on Manning's birthday with Manning's family". At one point someone tried it with no pronouns and it looked unreadable. The article is a mix of direct and indirect quotes, like most articles. (And really, the article still has a direct quote that says "He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side." so there are clearly direct quotes with people using masculine terms. Even your third point has a direct quote that uses "he" in the direct quote, "he told me he was gay".) At this point the article's about her, so it's not a misquote to refer to her as her (outside of direct quotation), and the article is harder to read if it's all direct quotes, or if it's "Manning Manning Manning". __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- In regards to number ten, I think that is more of a website issue than somebody ignorant of the proper placement of the star putting it in the wrong spot. If I view the ICM on my computer the star is towards the bottom of the ribbon but if I look at it on my phone the star is centered like it is supposed to be. In regards to 11, I added Manning's service stripe to that section but Wikimedia didn't have individual service stripes like they have individual Overseas Service Bars. If I'm not mistaken no outside linked images are allowed and pictures have to be uploaded to Wikimedia first, which is why I put the picture showing four. Manning isn't the only person to use that photo for service stripes, if you look at Sergeant Major of the Army Chandler's page it uses the same service stripe photo in his awards section even though the SMA has way more than four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amducker (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- After having taken the better part of 2 hours to read through the archives on for this article (and I'm still not half way through yet), I see now that there has been considerable debate about the Title, and noun/pronouns. I withdraw all comments until such time as I have finished reading the rest of the archives, and will resubmit anything that was not previously discussed, one comment at a time. Robertvincentswain (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- In regards to number ten, I think that is more of a website issue than somebody ignorant of the proper placement of the star putting it in the wrong spot. If I view the ICM on my computer the star is towards the bottom of the ribbon but if I look at it on my phone the star is centered like it is supposed to be. In regards to 11, I added Manning's service stripe to that section but Wikimedia didn't have individual service stripes like they have individual Overseas Service Bars. If I'm not mistaken no outside linked images are allowed and pictures have to be uploaded to Wikimedia first, which is why I put the picture showing four. Manning isn't the only person to use that photo for service stripes, if you look at Sergeant Major of the Army Chandler's page it uses the same service stripe photo in his awards section even though the SMA has way more than four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amducker (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article was written purposely to include some pronouns. It's better than having a lot of "Manning did this, and Manning did that on Manning's birthday with Manning's family". At one point someone tried it with no pronouns and it looked unreadable. The article is a mix of direct and indirect quotes, like most articles. (And really, the article still has a direct quote that says "He's a faggot, pick on him. The guy took it from every side." so there are clearly direct quotes with people using masculine terms. Even your third point has a direct quote that uses "he" in the direct quote, "he told me he was gay".) At this point the article's about her, so it's not a misquote to refer to her as her (outside of direct quotation), and the article is harder to read if it's all direct quotes, or if it's "Manning Manning Manning". __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- And I do agree with you, Manning is in the Army until she serves her sentence, therefore all statements of "while in the Army" should be removed>Robertvincentswain (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Manning writes opinion piece for New York Times
FYI
Robertvincentswain (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic info about WP in the article
We have the following recently added to the article:
"Misplaced Pages publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations.
- Sampson, Tim (August 23, 2013). "Misplaced Pages battle rages over Chelsea Manning's gender identity". The Daily Dot. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
- Wadewitz, Wadewitz; Ayers, Phoebe (September 3, 2013). "The struggle over gender on Misplaced Pages: the case of Chelsea Manning". HASTAC Blog. HASTAC. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
- Hern, Alex (September 4, 2013). "Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Misplaced Pages". New Statesman. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
I submit that the material here is not about Manning, but is off-topic. We have the {{press}} posting above, which is the proper place for such material. Including it in the article space is akin to saying there was a debate about Manning at the local Elks Lodge. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow you. If there were a debate about Manning at some Elks Lodge that received widespread news coverage, surely that would be notable too, and just as relevant to this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just to throw in my two cents here, I'd weak oppose the material in question. This is pretty clearly navel gazing and I wouldn't characterize the coverage as "widespread", or at least not as widespread as the coverage is for Manning's leaking activity. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I like Nick's comment very much. Re the Elks, I'm trying to come up with a good analogy as to why the material is off topic for Misplaced Pages. Considering that we have the press section above, the material is redundant. My next problem is with the text. Did we "struggle"? Isn't everything we do "public"? Does the sentence imply that we produced a new standardized pronoun usage as a result of the discussions? If a news organization looks at this thread and writes a story, is the new story proper for the article? (Does WP:CIRCULAR help in any sense?) – S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just to throw in my two cents here, I'd weak oppose the material in question. This is pretty clearly navel gazing and I wouldn't characterize the coverage as "widespread", or at least not as widespread as the coverage is for Manning's leaking activity. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The English Misplaced Pages, a free-access Internet encyclopedia with more than 4.5 million articles, 21.8 million registered users, and a worldwide audience reaching into the hundreds of millions, is hardly "the local Elks Lodge." According to Alexa, wikipedia.org is the sixth most popular website in the United States and globally. If it would help editors reach consensus, here are 15 other citations to reliable sources—in English, French, or German—that reported contemporaneously on Misplaced Pages's public, protracted and very messy struggle over Manning's gender identity.
- Stern, Mark Joseph (22 August 2013). "Misplaced Pages Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning's New Gender". Slate. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
- Hakimi, Natasha (22 August 2013). "How Misplaced Pages Edited Pvt. Manning's Gender Without Spectacle". Truthdig. Retrieved 5 September 2013.
- Sharrock, Justine (22 August 2013). "Misplaced Pages Changed Its Entry To Properly Reflect Chelsea Manning's Name". BuzzFeed.
- Brady, Abigail (22 August 2013). "Chelsea Manning: on pressing the button".
- Hern, Alex (23 August 2013). "Behind the Misplaced Pages wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea". New Statesman.
- Steinmetz, Katy (28 August 2013). "Media Makes the Manning Switch". TIME. Retrieved 28 August 2013.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|deadurl=(help) - Hathaway, Jay (31 August 2013). "Misplaced Pages decides Chelsea Manning will remain 'Bradley' for now". The Daily Dot.
- Reynaud, Florian (2 September 2013). "Misplaced Pages refuse le changement de nom de Chelsea Manning". Slate.fr (in French).
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|deadurl=(help) - "Pour Misplaced Pages, Chelsea Manning n'existe pas". Newsring (in French). 2 September 2013.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|deadurl=(help) - Sandifer, Philip (3 September 2013). "Something Rotten at the Sausage Factory: How Misplaced Pages Embraced Transphobia for Chelsea Manning". Philip Sandifer: Writer.
- Gardner, Sue (4 September 2013). "How Misplaced Pages got it wrong on Chelsea Manning, and why". Sue Gardner's Blog.
- Ayers, Phoebe (3 September 2013). "Chelsea Manning and Misplaced Pages". No Maps For These Territories.
- "Ihr Name ist Chelsea". Kleinerdrei. 3 September 2013.
{{cite news}}:|first=missing|last=(help) - Northrup, William (4 September 2013). "WTF Wednesday: Hiding Chelsea". Velociriot.
- "Chelsea Manning - Cisgenderism at Misplaced Pages". UnCommon Sense. 5 September 2013.
{{cite news}}:|first=missing|last=(help)
JohnValeron (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I submit the best and proper place for this info is Misplaced Pages:Press coverage, not the WP:ARTICLE. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- And I'll try a modified analogy. Two patrons at the local bar get into an argument over "Bradley v. Chelsea". They fight and get arrested for brawling. The news story says "Two arrested for disturbing the peace during argument over Chelsea/Bradley Manning". Is that story noteworthy in terms of this article? How about if one murders the other? – S. Rich (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your analogies are strained, feeble and unpersuasive. Please try a different approach. JohnValeron (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- @JohnValeron: - re "strained, feeble and unpersuasive" - Lolz......
- The only really mainstream, "high quality" source you've offered is Time, which doesn't cover the actual "struggle", but only briefly mentions the fact that WP was using Chelsea Manning.
- I'm not sure. This still feels like navel gazing. Interesting navel gazing, granted, but navel gazing none the less. I don't think it ultimately offers much to a reader seeking to learn about Manning. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- You carp, "I don't think it ultimately offers much to a reader seeking to learn about Manning." Yet the disputed sentence is part of a paragraph describing the media's response to Manning's highly public announcement read on NBC's Today show. If a reader is truly seeking to learn about Manning, it is potentially helpful to be informed about the controversy ignited by the soldier's requested name change and pronoun reassignment. You are arguing that we should provide the reader less information, not more, about how Misplaced Pages—the encyclopedia where said reader has sought information—contributed to that heated controversy. If you are trying to spare Misplaced Pages the embarrassment of not acting decisively, I'm afraid that train has already left the station. JohnValeron (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- @JohnValeron: - If you were there, you might have noticed that[REDACTED] acted a little too decisively. Trying to switch the names before anyone else had. Luckily some clearer minded folks pointed out that Misplaced Pages follows RS's. It does not lead RS's.
- Regardless, I think consensus is against you here. If you want to push this, I'd set up an RfC to reach a wider audience. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- You are way off base in proclaiming consensus here. Exactly four editors have weighed in.
- S. Rich opposes including the disputed sentence
- Psychonaut indicates the sentence is notable and relevant to this article
- I am obviously in favor of retaining the disputed sentence
- You first said you'd "weak oppose" keeping it, later said "I'm not sure," but apparently now oppose it more forcefully
- That's two in favor, two opposed. Proclaiming consensus is, at this point, premature and—strictly on the numbers (2 ayes, 2 nays)—unwarranted. JohnValeron (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I admit my analogies are crude, but I don't want their lacking to obscure the fact WP policies at play. Mainly, because this is a BLP we must exercise the greatest care. Items about what Misplaced Pages did or did not do with regard to the Manning article are not about Manning. Thus, the listing can be (and should be) removed. Once it is, the WP:BURDEN shifts to JohnValeron to include it. A two-to-two !vote does not meet the burden. BTW, the "notability" of the news stories is not the criteria. WP:Noteworthiness is the proper term. In this regard, the news stories are not noteworthy because they are not about the article about Manning. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- What "listing" are you talking about? On July 25, I added a single sentence—not a list—to Chelsea Manning. The sentence was accompanied by three citations to reliable sources. Your contention that those news stories are not about Misplaced Pages's Manning article is absurd. That is precisely what they're about. And I remind you, the topic of the paragraph to which I added a sentence is "Reaction to Manning's request by the news media." Are you suggesting that entire paragraph should be removed because it is "not about" Manning? JohnValeron (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are 3 listings. I'm concerned about the list of 3 items as references in the sentence. Then there is the press listing on this page and the third list is the references you promised. I am saying the sentence should be removed. It does not talk about a reaction about Mannings request in the news media – it talks about how the news media reported on a discussion regarding Misplaced Pages's editing practices. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your fixation on "listings" is inexplicable. I added a single sentence—not a list—to Chelsea Manning. That sentence was referenced by three properly footnoted citations to reliable sources. I have never proposed adding any "listings" to the article in question. JohnValeron (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose adding the sentence because, I don't think that any of the 14 pages of notes (as it stands now), should be any part of this article. It has nothing to do with it at all. I can't think of a single page that I've gone to on here that references its' own notes page in the article. I also don't like editors reporting about the editing process in articles. $0.02. Robertvincentswain (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Added....On the "What Misplaced Pages is not" page, it states, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." If this whole debacle had taken place 30 years ago, The Encyclopedia Britannica would not have had a sentence in their book saying, "The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations." Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by "the 14 pages of notes." Where are you seeing that in the article Chelsea Manning? JohnValeron (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose adding the sentence because, I don't think that any of the 14 pages of notes (as it stands now), should be any part of this article. It has nothing to do with it at all. I can't think of a single page that I've gone to on here that references its' own notes page in the article. I also don't like editors reporting about the editing process in articles. $0.02. Robertvincentswain (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Added....On the "What Misplaced Pages is not" page, it states, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." If this whole debacle had taken place 30 years ago, The Encyclopedia Britannica would not have had a sentence in their book saying, "The Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations." Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your fixation on "listings" is inexplicable. I added a single sentence—not a list—to Chelsea Manning. That sentence was referenced by three properly footnoted citations to reliable sources. I have never proposed adding any "listings" to the article in question. JohnValeron (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are 3 listings. I'm concerned about the list of 3 items as references in the sentence. Then there is the press listing on this page and the third list is the references you promised. I am saying the sentence should be removed. It does not talk about a reaction about Mannings request in the news media – it talks about how the news media reported on a discussion regarding Misplaced Pages's editing practices. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- What "listing" are you talking about? On July 25, I added a single sentence—not a list—to Chelsea Manning. The sentence was accompanied by three citations to reliable sources. Your contention that those news stories are not about Misplaced Pages's Manning article is absurd. That is precisely what they're about. And I remind you, the topic of the paragraph to which I added a sentence is "Reaction to Manning's request by the news media." Are you suggesting that entire paragraph should be removed because it is "not about" Manning? JohnValeron (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I admit my analogies are crude, but I don't want their lacking to obscure the fact WP policies at play. Mainly, because this is a BLP we must exercise the greatest care. Items about what Misplaced Pages did or did not do with regard to the Manning article are not about Manning. Thus, the listing can be (and should be) removed. Once it is, the WP:BURDEN shifts to JohnValeron to include it. A two-to-two !vote does not meet the burden. BTW, the "notability" of the news stories is not the criteria. WP:Noteworthiness is the proper term. In this regard, the news stories are not noteworthy because they are not about the article about Manning. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- You are way off base in proclaiming consensus here. Exactly four editors have weighed in.
- You carp, "I don't think it ultimately offers much to a reader seeking to learn about Manning." Yet the disputed sentence is part of a paragraph describing the media's response to Manning's highly public announcement read on NBC's Today show. If a reader is truly seeking to learn about Manning, it is potentially helpful to be informed about the controversy ignited by the soldier's requested name change and pronoun reassignment. You are arguing that we should provide the reader less information, not more, about how Misplaced Pages—the encyclopedia where said reader has sought information—contributed to that heated controversy. If you are trying to spare Misplaced Pages the embarrassment of not acting decisively, I'm afraid that train has already left the station. JohnValeron (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your analogies are strained, feeble and unpersuasive. Please try a different approach. JohnValeron (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Please excuse my wording...I meant 14 pages of archives.Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I still have no idea what you're talking about. What 14 pages of archives? Where are you seeing that in the article Chelsea Manning? JohnValeron (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- He's talking about the one sentence in the article that regards the media attention from over 14 pages of our talk page activity. He's not being particularly unclear here. I think it was understandable the first time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now I have no idea what either of you are talking about. Please, please provide a link to the section in Chelsea Manning that contains the material you object to. Then tell me how the paragraph in question begins so I can spot it. Thanks for your assistance. JohnValeron (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's the same sentence we've been discussing in this section, ""Misplaced Pages publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations."Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I understand you object to the sentence "Misplaced Pages publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting 'Chelsea' and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations." What baffles me is where in the article Chelsea Manning you see 14 pages of notes or 14 pages of archives or 14 pages of anything, actually. I see only one page. JohnValeron (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the top section of the talk page, past pages are archived. Right now there are 14 archived pages that date back to when this article was first created. The sentence you added is referencing most of those archived pages. Most of those archived pages discuss the very topic of the sentence you added. So when the above comments are talking about "navel gazing" and "WP:CIRCULAR" this is what they mean. Your very own comment of ,"...the topic of the paragraph to which I added a sentence is 'Reaction to Manning's request by the news media.'" Misplaced Pages is not news media. I don't know if you've read all of the archives or not, (I have), but it's my opinion that no one should be adding any content on this page other than a typo fix without an in depth discussion on what is being added. Robertvincentswain (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- That was like pulling teeth. Thank you for a coherent statement at last. JohnValeron (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please set aside the snark. It looked understandable the first time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- And, piggybacking off of what S.Rich said, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages as a press source states, "If the article is about Misplaced Pages itself, please add it to Misplaced Pages:Press coverage, rather than (the article)." I agree that it would be best to put it there. My current count is with the addition of ELAQUEATE and myself, the tally is now 4 oppose, 2 keeps.Robertvincentswain (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please set aside the snark. It looked understandable the first time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- That was like pulling teeth. Thank you for a coherent statement at last. JohnValeron (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the top section of the talk page, past pages are archived. Right now there are 14 archived pages that date back to when this article was first created. The sentence you added is referencing most of those archived pages. Most of those archived pages discuss the very topic of the sentence you added. So when the above comments are talking about "navel gazing" and "WP:CIRCULAR" this is what they mean. Your very own comment of ,"...the topic of the paragraph to which I added a sentence is 'Reaction to Manning's request by the news media.'" Misplaced Pages is not news media. I don't know if you've read all of the archives or not, (I have), but it's my opinion that no one should be adding any content on this page other than a typo fix without an in depth discussion on what is being added. Robertvincentswain (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I understand you object to the sentence "Misplaced Pages publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting 'Chelsea' and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations." What baffles me is where in the article Chelsea Manning you see 14 pages of notes or 14 pages of archives or 14 pages of anything, actually. I see only one page. JohnValeron (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's the same sentence we've been discussing in this section, ""Misplaced Pages publicly struggled with Manning's new gender identity, ultimately adopting "Chelsea" and standardizing female pronouns except in direct quotations."Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now I have no idea what either of you are talking about. Please, please provide a link to the section in Chelsea Manning that contains the material you object to. Then tell me how the paragraph in question begins so I can spot it. Thanks for your assistance. JohnValeron (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- He's talking about the one sentence in the article that regards the media attention from over 14 pages of our talk page activity. He's not being particularly unclear here. I think it was understandable the first time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Done By popular demand, I removed the disputed sentence from the article Chelsea Manning. Thanks to everyone for their input. JohnValeron (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well done, JohnValeron. May I also suggest you take up the honor of completing the listing of news in the {{press}} section above. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure I follow. If you mean Misplaced Pages:Press coverage, the three references included with the disputed sentence, and the 15 citations I posted on this page at 15:11, 25 July 2014, are already there. That's where I found them in the first place. JohnValeron (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- And so they are. When I did my search (ctrl F) to match the names, I did so in the non-edit view. As a result the names in the box above did not popup. (This is a lazy man's method of reading.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure I follow. If you mean Misplaced Pages:Press coverage, the three references included with the disputed sentence, and the 15 citations I posted on this page at 15:11, 25 July 2014, are already there. That's where I found them in the first place. JohnValeron (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Gender Transition
Article currently states, "In July 2014, the Federal Bureau of Prisons rejected a request by the Army to transfer Manning from the USDB to a civilian facility for treatment of her gender dysphoria. Instead, the Army will keep Manning in military custody and begin rudimentary gender treatment, which could include allowing her to wear female undergarments and possibly receive hormone treatments. No decision was announced regarding whether or not Manning will be transferred from the all-male USDB to a female facility."
It may just be me, but I'm not liking the could in this statement. This feels like a crystal ball to me. But, it is a well sourced crystal ball, mainly because all the sources I found used the same AP article as in source . I'm also not liking the inclusion of, "No decision was announced..." I guess an analogy could be, "No decision was announced regarding whether or not Manning will be elected Pope by the College of Cardinals." No news is no news, I don't see why it's in here.
I would rewrite it as, "In July 2014, the Federal Bureau of Prisons rejected a request by the Army to transfer Manning from the USDB to a civilian facility for treatment of her gender dysphoria. Instead, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army’s recommendation to keep Manning in military custody and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment."
I'm not going to war over it, it's just something that stuck out to me. Discuss amongst yourselves.Robertvincentswain (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Editing Misplaced Pages requires making choices, primarily based on the limited space available. There is much reported that we do not include. However, in this instance, readers can be expected to be curious about the practical arrangements of an Army private, confined to an all-male maximum security prison, who is transitioning to living as a woman. If we follow your advice and remove the reliably sourced detail that the Army has not decided whether or not to transfer Manning to a female facility, we deprive readers of pertinent data. Why force readers to leave Misplaced Pages and search for that information elsewhere? Your analogy about Manning being elected Pope is nonsensical. Everyone knows there is zero chance of that happening. But the question of where a feminized Manning will serve her sentence is real and deserves an answer—even if that answer is, "We don't yet know." JohnValeron (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's nice but you do not speak for every reader here. "No decision was announced regarding whether or not Manning will be transferred from the all-male USDB to a female facility" sounds like a try statement to me can you try to pick up a pencil? The answer is going to be yes or no. The statement offers nothing for the article other than to say Manning may or may not be transferred we just don't know yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- While in normal situations this particular comment may not have a place in an article, the whole situation with this article's subject is unique since Manning isn't an incarcerated civilian and is an active duty servicemember who is confined. Considering that Manning is probably the first inmate at the USDB to identify as a woman while confined it seems notable due to the fact that it will make people wonder whether or not they will move Manning to the military's female facility at Miramar while being allowed to transition. Obviously, this situation is something new for the Army to deal with since in normal situations they would just discharge you if you came out as transgender but Manning can't be discharged while an inmate. One option might be to simply write the second sentence as "Instead, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army’s recommendation to keep Manning in military custody at the USDB and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment." so it is clear that Manning isn't being moved while receiving the treatment. Amducker (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would read much better.Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I can't claim to be super familiar with all of this, but it seems like that changes the meaning. There is a difference between "she won't be sent to a civilian facility but she might be moved to a female facility" (which is the implication of what it says now), and "the army announced they are keeping her at USDB" (what you propose). Also, WP:CRYSTALBALL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." So I think this discussion is a bit off base. If the AP says that treatments could include allowing her to wear female undergarments then it's perfectly appropriate, even perhaps helpful, for us to relay that to readers.
That being said, the AP article doesn't actually say that no announcement was made about whether to move her, it just says that Mr Hagel's comments "raise the question" of whether she would be moved. I think that unless there is some reliable source that specifically discusses the question of whether she will be moved (which I don't know, since like I said I'm not that familiar) that the sentence is not that accurate. It seems better to say something like "press accounts questioned whether
Mr Hagel'sthe Army's decision would require Ms Manning to be moved to a female facility." AgnosticAphid talk 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)- What?? Speculating about what any BLP subject is wearing under their clothes is just freaky and wrong, even if the AP said it. And I don't think they would, frankly. Even if it's in a reliable source, it would still be speculation, and grossly invasive of something that's highly personal. So let's be careful here, per WP:BLP - Alison 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- If this were a country with stricter morals (thinking Islamic) the same things you said about underwear could be said about shoes, but in what is the greatest thing about the internet we don't have to live by their morals, or yours. If WP:RS consider it notable, we should at least be allowed to discuss it without the WP:BLP/morals police freaking out. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- "And I don't think they would, frankly" If you bothered to read the reference we are discussing, you'll find that it clearly says "Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army's recommendation to keep Manning in military custody and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment, a defense official said Thursday. The initial gender treatments could include allowing Manning to wear some female undergarments and also possibly provide some hormone treatments." As I said above, the policy about speculation in articles explicitly allows for discussion of future developments where reliably sourced. So I think to say that including this is "freaky" kind of demonstrates a lack of awareness. AgnosticAphid talk 22:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- What?? Speculating about what any BLP subject is wearing under their clothes is just freaky and wrong, even if the AP said it. And I don't think they would, frankly. Even if it's in a reliable source, it would still be speculation, and grossly invasive of something that's highly personal. So let's be careful here, per WP:BLP - Alison 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I can't claim to be super familiar with all of this, but it seems like that changes the meaning. There is a difference between "she won't be sent to a civilian facility but she might be moved to a female facility" (which is the implication of what it says now), and "the army announced they are keeping her at USDB" (what you propose). Also, WP:CRYSTALBALL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." So I think this discussion is a bit off base. If the AP says that treatments could include allowing her to wear female undergarments then it's perfectly appropriate, even perhaps helpful, for us to relay that to readers.
- Yes, I think that would read much better.Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- While in normal situations this particular comment may not have a place in an article, the whole situation with this article's subject is unique since Manning isn't an incarcerated civilian and is an active duty servicemember who is confined. Considering that Manning is probably the first inmate at the USDB to identify as a woman while confined it seems notable due to the fact that it will make people wonder whether or not they will move Manning to the military's female facility at Miramar while being allowed to transition. Obviously, this situation is something new for the Army to deal with since in normal situations they would just discharge you if you came out as transgender but Manning can't be discharged while an inmate. One option might be to simply write the second sentence as "Instead, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Army’s recommendation to keep Manning in military custody at the USDB and start a rudimentary level of gender treatment." so it is clear that Manning isn't being moved while receiving the treatment. Amducker (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's nice but you do not speak for every reader here. "No decision was announced regarding whether or not Manning will be transferred from the all-male USDB to a female facility" sounds like a try statement to me can you try to pick up a pencil? The answer is going to be yes or no. The statement offers nothing for the article other than to say Manning may or may not be transferred we just don't know yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Alias as title?
Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well known under his real name. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- Low-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- GA-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- GA-Class Oklahoma articles
- Low-importance Oklahoma articles