How does Sue Gardner exchange gasses without external assistance?
DHeyward, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the BLP violation here. Naming the article Bradley Manning is not a BLP violation because Chelsea Manning's gender identity is female and therefore calling her Bradley Manning misgenders her. Rather, naming the article Bradley Manning is a BLP violation because Chelsea Manning has *announced* that her gender identity is female, and has made a public request to be called Chelsea. That announcement and request did not happen in the Lamo chat logs or in her conversations with her doctor: it happened via her lawyer, and it was the impetus for changing the article title. If there was a Wikipedia BLP that described someone as male, and privately the person understood themselves to be female, the article would nonetheless be BLP-compliant, until and unless the person requested to be referred to as female. The issue is that misgendering someone *contrary to their explicit request* is offensive and presumptuous and hurtful to the person being misgendered, because it pretends that somebody else knows better than they do what their gender identity is or should be. All this is clearly laid out in the detailed rationale Kirill links to above. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
She's been the titular head of wikipedia for a good long while and she, literally, has no fucking idea what the policies say or how they are regularly implemented.
So very much like Jimmy Wales here.
Why is Bradley/Chelsea Manning so much more deserving of en.wp's compassion than all the other people whose BLPs have been shit on regularly?
Why are you going whole hog on this particular article?
Can you say "advocacy"? Sure, I knew you could.
Newyorkbrad, I do not think a finding that editors engaged in discriminatory speech is the same as calling those editors bigots: the latter describes a person and the former an action. Also, +1 to Chris Smowton's request for clarity about where opinion ends and hate speech begins. Also +1 to Elaqueate's request to consider harm. Part of the problem with this dispute has been that the potential for harm has been utterly discounted, in my view wrongly. Editors have argued that because they believe it is unlikely that Chelsea Manning would be harmed by the article title, or because they believe the harm (if it occurred) would be small, then therefore the issue of harm should be completely set aside --- and indeed that is what has happened. I disagree. I don't think that the Wikipedia article title by itself is likely to be seriously damaging to Chelsea Manning (although I also am not sure, and in the absence of certitude I'd bias towards caution), but I do believe, based on the chat logs and my understanding of gender identity disorder, that a pattern of being publicly misgendered including by Wikipedia could in fact be seriously damaging to her, and so I think dismissing the issue of harm is an error. (I'll note also that although it's tangential to this specific discussion, this is I believe the most compelling argument for naming the article Chelsea Manning. Given that there has been no consensus that policy requires use of Bradley Manning for the title, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do therefore is to take the article subject's wishes into account, precisely in order to avoid avoidable harm. Why not?) Sue Gardner (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Why aren't you monitoring all the rest of the BLPs for "harm" you hypocritical shit?
Where's your outrage for what Qworty and LittleGreenRosetta did?
