Talk:Midge Potts

message: * I'm of the view that Potts should be referred to in the feminine.  Potts had her name legally changed from Mitch to Midge, and identifies as a female.  I believe that the masculine form should only be used when referring to events that happened before she began identifying as a female, such as Potts' military service.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a source for that, because I sure couldn't find one. The only source I found about the issue said he was taking unproven herbal supplements. Jinxmchue 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by editors involved in the process 

message: ::Note this previous RFC. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an RFC has been filed I have had a more thorough look at the article (previously I merely quoted a guideline - see above). The protected version of the page - [] - has five references, only two of which work. Of those two, one refers to the subject as Midge, transgendered and she. The other uses Mitchell, Midge and she. With the present level of citation I think that the subject should be referred according to their self identification, since there is no citation for any other interpretation. Again, I hope this is of some help. Trugster | Talk 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Calling Potts "transgendered" is fine, but I think it should be clarified that he's a man who "self-identifies" as a woman.
As far as pronouns are concerned, how about not using pronouns at all?  For every "he/she" or "him/her" used for Potts, let's just use "Potts."  For example, change this:
She now lives off of Social Security disability benefits.
To this
Potts now lives off of Social Security disability benefits.
Can we find consensus on this? Jinxmchue 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the language typically applied to such matters, your initial suggestion could be reasonably rephrased as the person in question being a biological male who self-identifies as a woman. In the context of transgender issues, "man" and "woman" refer to gender, which is principally a matter of identification (self-identification), while "male" and "female", often with "biological" prepended, refer to plumbing, or "sex"; pronoun usage follows gender rather than sex. Insisting on referring to a woman, whatever their plumbing, as a man, or equivalently using male pronouns, is deeply insulting to the individual, and as such could contribute to BLP problems. SamBC(talk) 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster's entry for gender places biology before "self-identity" (see definition 2a, which mentions sex, which in turn also places biology before all else), so I find your argument about gender being principally a matter of identification specious at best. Ask yourself what gender a medical examiner would assign Potts on his death certificate if he were to die tomorrow. The ME would take one look at Potts male genitals, lack of breast tissue, and five o'clock shadow and determine that Potts was a man. The issue of "self-identification" wouldn't enter into it at all. Jinxmchue 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and let's make sure to draw a distinction between gender and "gender-identity." Jinxmchue 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gender is a social construct.  What the chromosomes say and what's in someone's jockey shorts doesn't mean squat in this case.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: From personal experience I know that, in the US, gender-ID is generally accepted if you can convince the DMV, and they do not require any replumbing as evidence of the gender identity. SamBC(talk) 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a reliable source on that. Seems suspect. If it were true, anyone could easily falsify their ID. Jinxmchue 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The suggestion itself is not entirely useful. Use of the proper name rather than pronouns is actually a fairly well-accepted way of avoiding the problem on a very small scale, but the article is already rather light on pronouns. Certainly, repetition of the name within a single sentence should be avoided as stylistically incredibly ugly. SamBC(talk) 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ways of rewriting sentences to avoid repetition. Jinxmchue 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree, per SamBC. We don't want to insult Midge Potts, should she see the article herself. That itself could open up a huge can of worms. Her MySpace page refers to herself as she, and if thats not a good enough reference, then where the heck can we get a better one? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when are facts that supposedly insulting a person a justification for the inclusion of exclusion of material on Wikipedia? Does that protection extend to someone like President George W. Bush or just people like Potts? Do you honestly think that if I were to make the "let's not insult them" argument in regards to this, it would fly? If Potts doesn't want to be insulted by facts, then maybe he should work on getting proven hormone treatments and a sex change operation. Let him sue if he wants, but the case isn't going to have any merit. Jinxmchue 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and we're back at square one.  Just when I thought we were getting somewhere, too.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed conflict resolution 

message: I have officially filed a request for mediation regarding the Midge Potts article. I have already notified the parties in the dispute on their talk pages, but if anyone wants to join in, your input would be appreciated on the case. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it okay for to add oneself as a party on the mediation page? I just got involved recently since the issue was raised at WT:MOS. SamBC(talk) 21:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not... SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and join in. The more minds we have, the better. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation filed 

message: Since Jinxmchue refused the mediation request, I want a vote on whether or not I should file an arbcomm case. This will be a majority vote, not a unanimous one. Majority decision will strongly influence whether or not I file a case.
#Agree. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then consider a user RFC filed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fabulous, stick the link here and I'll stick my name on it as well, so that it's accepted. SamBC(talk) 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is completely unnecessary. I was willing to go along with the mediation if my position were correctly stated (without being insulting). Siddhartha H. Buddha! This is not worth it. Keep the bloody pronouns. I'm not wasting any more time on this issue. Happy now? You got your way. Hurray for forced consensus! Jinxmchue 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, we told you to state your own position... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for arbitration (now a request for comment) 

message: Since Jinxmchue has backed down from his position, shall we close the RFCs and request that Midge Potts be unprotected? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider the dispute closed? 

message: Although I personally consider the admitted actions of the US in places like Guantanamo to be torture, it's my understanding that this is still not fully determined in any legal sense; a CNN article certainly counts only as an allegation, while a UN report has more weight but is still not a legal judgement.
Would we describe someone as a murderer if they were accused, awaiting trial, but denied the accusation? Certainly here in the UK the media would never do so - they would use the term "alleged", as this article did until very recently.
Now, the addition of the CNN article as a source is a good thing, but I think we should try to maintain some semblance of neutrality here, and one of the best ways to ensure neutrality is to lean slightly against one's own opinions, especially when there is no voice for the other side. So, what should we do - alleged, or not? SamBC(talk) 10:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I threw an "alleged" back in there, since (A) it's not a settled matter, and (B) won't be a settled matter for the foreseeable future.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture - alleged or not 

message: This is the potential source in question:
* http://ky3.blogspot.com/2009/11/potts-arrested-in-liebermans-office.html
It would provide a citation for the last paragraph in the article.  The blog isn't normally considered a reliable source, but the Kansas City Star, which would normally be considered sufficiently reliable, reports on the blog's article in question on their "Around the political blogosphere" bit:
* http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/20466
So the question to the group is: Does the blog article's appearance in the reliable source lend the blog article any more credibility - enough to make it citable for our purposes?  That is the question.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Midge Potts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121020163611/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070407/us_nm/iraq_usa_pink_dc_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070407/us_nm/iraq_usa_pink_dc_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If that's what he's identified (self-identified, apparently) in an official court document, then that's what this article needs to reflect. 71.55.142.16 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to being a man/Mitchell Eugene Potts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Midge Potts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070720073828/http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/19/un.torture/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/19/un.torture/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Midge Potts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008201656/http://www.gp.org/candidates/display-pr.php?ID=3 to http://www.gp.org/candidates/display-pr.php?ID=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified