Jump to content

Talk:Chelsea Manning: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1,811: Line 1,811:
::::::This has been a repeated argument with some people here, they cite [[WP:BLP]] as the issue but when it comes to explaining why they fall short with a response. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::This has been a repeated argument with some people here, they cite [[WP:BLP]] as the issue but when it comes to explaining why they fall short with a response. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Rannpháirtí anaithnid}} Agree completely. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Rannpháirtí anaithnid}} Agree completely. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::Because claiming the wording of MOS:IDENTITY doesn't include titles comes across as wikilawyering to avoid the spirit of WP:BLP. Because gratuitously misgendering people is gratuitously offensive, and that violates WP:BLP. That was the reasoning. But I eagerly await the next round of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]], because the fundamental problem is that you don't agree, so no amount of explanation as to the reasoning will be considered comprensible or sufficient.
::::::(I'm beginning to see why it took Bertrand Russell a whole book to prove that 1+1=2 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 16:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC))


== Time for formal mediation? ==
== Time for formal mediation? ==

Revision as of 16:38, 25 August 2013

Template:Stable version

Good articleChelsea Manning has been listed as one of the 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 11, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Template:BLP noticeboard

Toolbox


Requested move

Chelsea Manning → Bradley Manning – I am requesting that this page be moved back to its previous title of Bradley Manning so a thorough discussion can take place.

Wikipedia:Requested moves makes it clear that the "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" process should be used in the following circumstance:

"Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested."

Additionally, Wikipedia:Article titles states the following:

"Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made."

MOS:IDENTITY also states that a person should be referred to using his or her preferred name only when there is no dispute:

"When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself [...]"

Note that my move request is not a comment on what the page should eventually be called (I personally believe Chelsea is the proper title), but rather a recognition of the short-term term need to follow policy.

My move request is also not a suggestion of which pronoun should be used. MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that in this case we should use the "she" pronoun. Pronouns are a separate issue from the page title. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Administrative note: Since I have no interest in the outcome of this discussion, I have volunteered to shepherd it for the duration, and close it in seven days (or after any extension of time beyond that sought by the community). I am going to umpire, and make sure things stay civil and the discussion stays on topic. That said, please do try to keep things civil and on topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that someone tried to edit the bot's page to force a link to the section title. There is a deficiency in the bot's regex pattern matching, in that it doesn't find the section title when text is entered above the RM template. I'm trying to fix that, but as a stopgap, I'm moving this text below the template. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (bot operator)[reply]

Survey

Today is 12 November 2024 (UTC); new comments belong to today's section on basis of the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Replies are still welcome in collapsed sections.

22 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
  • Sorry, saved too quickly. WP:BLP means we must be immediate, and don't have the luxury of eventualism; you note in your RM that Chelsea Manning is the right place and that it will eventually end up there, but if you already know that then that's where it should be already. MOS:IDENTITY is clear: the subject's claimed identity is not a matter of controversy (third-party controversy is not the consideration there). Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines interprets MOS:IDENTITY in practice as "The Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." I think this is all overwhelmingly clear - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that the formal RM procedure mandates a 7-day discussion period, making the request doubly weird if you already think the outcome will be to keep it where it is - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Gerard: You saying this is bordering on grating. You reverted the technical move back to Bradley Manning, which is essentially what this request is, and here you are waving the seven-day period in our faces. As you can see below, very few people think this is a BLP issue; most supporters of the current name cite MOS:IDENTITY. At what point will you acknowledge that your invocation of BLP was off-base, and restore the original title? -- tariqabjotu 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:IDENTITY flows directly from WP:BLP, and accordingly is, by its very nature, a BLP issue. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, it's a BLP issue in that this is a Biography of a Living Person. However, that does not explain how the title Bradley Manning is a violation of the policy. People keep throwing around those letters knowing they're a trump card, but they have continually failed to articulate what part of that policy applies here and is violated by the prior name. If it was as blatant as some, including Josh below, would like it to be (Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harrassment), we wouldn't need to have this conversation. So you're going to have to, you know, converse. -- tariqabjotu 04:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP requires that we write our articles with sensitivity to issues of identity, and respecting a person's right to change the name that they're known by is probably the single most basic example of such that it's even possible to come up with. If a woman with a Wikipedia article under her married name wanted to go back to being known by her maiden name following her divorce, we wouldn't keep the article at her married name just because most of the old sources about her, written before she even made that announcement, had used the old name instead of the new one. When the Canadian politician Candice Hoeppner did so, for instance, we immediately complied with her wishes and moved the article to Candice Bergen (politician) (and yes, that really was her maiden name, I'm not kidding), even though you could still point to old sources which had used "Hoeppner" because that was the name she was using at the time those sources were written. I'm sure a few people might make a fuss about such a thing in some cases, but I'm also sure it wouldn't generate this volume of commentary — because most people would quickly accept that it was pretty much a no-brainer to respect her wishes. The only way this case can possibly be seen as any different from that one is if you don't accept the basic validity of transgenderism in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we're talking about BLP violations. If not moving the article in accordance with the name change immediately is a BLP violation, you should have just moved the article. Of course, that's not actually a BLP violation. -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are BLP issues in her article, then by all means somebody should clean it up — but considering that I have so little interest in her article that I didn't even know she existed until her article was pointed to in this discussion, I'm under no obligation to personally volunteer to be the cleaner. Bearcat (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) (Can you, perhaps, use the preview feature a bit more? I feel like I'm shooting at a moving target.)
BLP requires that we write our articles with sensitivity to issues of identity, and respecting a person's right to change the name that they're known by is probably the single most basic example of such that it's even possible to come up with.
Please quote a part of the BLP policy that says that. We have a number of examples of people's articles not at their preferred names, living (Lily Allen, Snoop Dogg) or dead (Malcolm X). We have to be judicious about name changes, and that is no different here.
If a woman with a Wikipedia article under her married name wanted to go back to being known by her maiden name following her divorce, we wouldn't keep the article at her married name just because most of the old sources about her, written before she even made that announcement, had used the old name instead of the new one.
C'mon now. No one has ever suggested anything so silly. When the article was first moved, there were, what, ten minutes of sources since Manning announced the new name? We still have less than twenty-four hours. Almost all the sources that mention the name Chelsea Manning at this point are in the context of the gender identity change. No one is saying that we should hold fast to sources prior to today. The problem is we currently have very, very few sources since the name change talking about anything other the name change itself, and so we don't have enough information to decide that Chelsea Manning is the name the subject is most commonly called in reliable sources. -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the move of Candice Hoeppner, which receives forty views on a good day, received no objections, so obviously there would be no reason to move it back. However, had a couple people objected, the move should have, and probably would have, been reverted while a move discussion took place, without any accusation of BLP violation. It might have ultimately ended up at Candice Bergen (politician), but that doesn't mean that the former name constituted, or constitutes now, a BLP violation. Same here; the person who started this move request actually feels it should be at Chelsea Manning, but acknowledged that until consensus for that is attained, it should be back at Bradley Manning (of course, that technical move request isn't going to happen now, but that was the original aim of the request). -- tariqabjotu 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that nobody raised an objection at all was kind of my point about her. You could have made the exact same argument about her, that she was still known as "Candice Hoeppner" in all of the existing sources, that's being made here — but the fact that nobody did make that argument, the fact that no objection was raised at all to the move, speaks volumes in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what point you're trying to make. Very few people view that article, so I'm not shocked that no one objected. If the move request on that page was permitted to see a full seven days, I doubt you'd get many people even supporting. Sure, it wasn't controversial there (an article that received 1/1000th the number of views as this article the day of the name change), but so what? It's controversial here (and at Lily Allen [not moved] and Ron Artest [moved], etc.), and so the proper protocol is to maintain the original name while a move request takes place. You still have yet cite where BLP prohibits this generally accepted process (although I'd appreciate it if David did that himself... not holding my breath). -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Gerard is correct. This is a clear case of BLP, and additionally a ton of other Wikipedia policies dictate that we use the name and pronoun she uses herself. Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harrassment of the subject. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, give us time to catch our breath and do this the right way. Moncrief (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree There is no evidence of any legal name change or even the contemplation of any legal name change, nor do the US documents about him use the "alternative name" for which no legal documentation exists. Where the legal judgment is against "Bradley Manning" it would be confusing to readers to use a name which is not found in the sources about the criminal acts of which he was found guilty. Thus the prior title is correct, is what his own identification says, and should be gone back to. WP:BLP does not support "use the name the person wants even where there is no sign that such a name has been used by that person" else we could have "George Gnarph" say he wants his Wikipedia page to have the name "Jimbo Wales", even where he has never used that name in any legal sense. If the subject obtains any legal documentation in the alternative name, then that might fall under BLP, but the case at hand does not. Collect (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, what you seem to want is a technical move done, something which can be done without discussion and immediately. However, considering my technical move wasreversed by David on the grounds of BLP (which he might see as rationale to continue to revert any technical move back to Bradley Manning), this request is a bit futile. (I, of course, dispute the idea that titling the article Bradley Manning, the subject's legal name, is at all a violation of BLP.) I feel it's better for you to just repurpose this as a standard move request back to Bradley Manning and register your opposition (since you state you prefer Chelsea Manning). -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bad move. Wikipedia:Article titles is the relevant policy page. Specifically, the criteria for recognizability, naturalness, and the general criteria for use common names for article titles. We do not name articles based on official names or a subjects own preferred name. Within the article, the subject may be referred to by different name, but the title ought to be Bradley Manning until another name becomes more common for the subject. --RA (✍) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move on WP:IAR grounds. There is plenty of context to avoid confusing readers, there are plenty of sources for Manning wanting to be called Chelsea, so I see no good reason to not respect Manning's wishes. —me_and 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A person's gender identity is their choice to make. We are not at liberty to refer to them by anything else, and the reasoning on display in the comments above is incredibly short-sighted, rules-bound, sympathy-deficient, and, frankly, ignorant. — Scott • talk 15:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the discussion can often turn ignorant and I appreciate you pointing out instances of such when they occur. At the same time, I believe we need to follow Wikipedia policy as best we can. Perhaps that does make us "rules-bound," but I do think policy is important. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree: I think we are all on the same page—namely, if any of us met her from now on, we'd call her Chelsea, but it seems Wikipedia rules don't make naming articles quite so straightforward. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The move to the current title was premature. Bradley Manning is the common name used by sources at this point. If / when a majority of sources refer to him by his preferred name, we can have a discussion to move the article back here. This is not a BLP issue. wctaiwan (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to ask editors who say this is a BLP (as opposed to style) issue to justify that claim. Unless there really is a BLP issue, the old title before the undiscussed move should take precedence until consensus can be established. wctaiwan (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Should be moved back to Bradley Manning. When reputable sources refer to him as "Chelsea Manning" then it can be moved over. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. MOS: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." I put forward this goes for name too. --151.230.243.44 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their name is a proper noun, not a gendered noun, pronoun, or possessive adjective.--v/r - TP 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You live in a world where names aren't gendered? The rest of us sure don't. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The MOS gives examples of gendered nouns, such as man/woman and waiter/waitress. Neither "Bradley Manning" nor "Chelsea Manning" is a gendered noun. -- tariqabjotu 06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • A noun can be both "proper" and "gendered"; most given names, in fact, are simultaneously both of those things. While admittedly there are some names that are non-gendered, such that they can be used for both males and females, neither "Bradley" nor "Chelsea" fall within that grouping. Most given names — including both "Bradley" and "Chelsea" — are gendered nouns. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For reasons stated above jj (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "WP:BLP does not support 'use the name the person wants even where there is no sign that such a name has been used by that person' …"
    You are begging the question.

    "… else we could have 'George Gnarph' say he wants his Wikipedia page to have the name 'Jimbo Wales', even where he has never used that name in any legal sense."
    Again, I don't find this insistence on legality germane. The Wales --> Gnarph is also invalid: Manning did not ask for her article to be changed, but expressed a wish for people to call her Chelsea. We are debating whether the article is going to reflect her wish. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a site designed to protect people's "feelings". 91.153.87.155 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument seems to be that it's "rude" or "hurtful" or "mean" to use he to refer to Bradley. 91.153.87.155 (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (obviously, but I might as well say it). Lots of the arguments here appear to completely ignore the word MOS:IDENTITY. Manning has requested quite unambiguously to be known as Chelsea and for female pronouns to be used. MOS:IDENTITY says we should give priority to such requests, regardless of her physical transition state. Lots of people here really misunderstand transition - social transition - which is what Chelsea is doing here at her first real opportunity to do so - is generally always necessary before SRS - indeed it was often a precondition for access to HRT. "he" on Manning violates long-established practice, policy and is frankly just *rude*, even on the talk page.) Morwen (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving back; support the new title and changing the pronoun to "she". Manning has issued a statement, via her lawyer on NBC's Today show, that she is a woman, has asked to be known as Chelsea, and will be seeking hormone therapy. Several reliable sources have respected this, calling her "she". The NBC presenter and Manning's lawyer called Manning "she" after the statement was made; other sources using "she" include The Guardian and Reuters.

    MOS:IDENTITY is clear on this point: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." SlimVirgin (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note this request move is with regards to the page title only. Pronouns are a separate issue, and the policies on pronouns are somewhat different than those for page titles. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason to make the pronoun a separate issue. Manning has said she is a woman and will be using a woman's name from now on, and her lawyer and the sources are following suit by using "she," so we may as well decide both issues in the same discussion. Otherwise we'll end up with odd writing, trying to avoid using pronouns or using "they," which has been tried before in this article and ended up looking very strange. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouns are a separate issue SV, so we should not mix these two up. I'd suggest opening a separate discussion about pronouns (I think there's one above). That has nothing to do with article title however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've always started such a discussion at the bottom of that page. jj (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:IDENTITY is clear on the matter of gendered pronouns; in this case, there is no reasonable separation between the change in pronouns and the change in name, as the change request was made in the same statement (and almost the same sentence). It would be incongruous at best to preserve the use of feminine pronouns but return the page to a name that is no longer in use, particularly when numerous referenced sources are starting to correctly recognise the new one. Unless anyone seriously expects Manning to recant on her decision, there's nothing controversial involved in the move.Longsight (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to MOS:IDENTITY. Psychonaut & SlimVirgin have put the opposition argument particularly eloquently above, and I agree with them. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Manning identified herself as Chelsea, and any call to "catch our breath" is irrelevant, since your deficiency in keeping up can be remedied with a redirect to the new name and you actually reading the article. ViniTheHat (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per Collect. MOS:IDENTITY does not support keeping it at the current title in any way. That MOS:IDENTITY advises on gendered nouns is completely different than the person's name, let alone the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. Arguing about the use of "he" or "she" is irrelevant to the title of the article, which is a different matter covered by different criteria. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. I think a redirect from Bradley Manning and a mention of her legal name is sufficient to avoid confusion. We should take care to respect the wishes of anyone who chooses to change the pronouns or name by which they are referred. Manning's hormone levels, biological sex, etc. are irrelevant to this discussion, and using them to argue that Manning should be referred to as "Bradley" or with male pronouns is ignorant of transgender issues. This page has been moved enough already—I think this discussion should be used to decide its final location. I don't see much point in moving the page back to Bradley Manning and then restarting this whole discussion. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)][reply]
To expand on this, from GLAAD Media Reference Guide: Transgender Glossary of Terms, "Always use a transgender person's chosen name. Often transgender people cannot afford a legal name change or are not yet old enough to change their name legally. They should be afforded the same respect for their chosen name as anyone else who lives by a name other than their birth name (e.g., celebrities)." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We should absolutely respect this person's wishes, this person is now a 'she', so we should respect her wishes. We should not be calling the subject of an article by anything other than the name they wish to be known, upto and including the title of the page itself. It's not even like we're stopping readers from finding the article or disrupting their reading, they still find it through the redirect, it still contains the same information on Chelsea as it did when she was known as Bradley, it is of no real consequence what the article title really is from an operational/usability standpoint, so there's no compelling reason not to call her by the name she has chosen anyway. If it created a 404, you might, just might have a point, but otherwise it really doesn't matter, so deference to the subject and respect for their wishes must come first. Nick (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and it would be good if CaseyPenk could leave the page alone for a while, in order that those of us who want to comment can do, getting repeated edit conflicts stemming from one line argumentative prose is bloody irritating. Nick (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is still very much a developing story, and as far as I can tell the original move was done with little to no discussion. Untill there is some clarity and consistancy in the events and sources, and untill there is a more clear consensus, things should stay as they were. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This sort of activist stupidity is bringing WP into disrepute. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. WP:COMMONNAME. How it has gone this far the wrong direction is a little shocking. If there is transgender surgery and a legal name change, then the article should change. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A transgender person's surgical status is irrelevant to the matter (and very often not actually verifiable in reliable sources anyway, because it's subject to the same medical privacy issues as any other surgery.) As noted elsewhere, in most cases the process requires that a person "socially" transition for a period of time before they're even allowed to "surgically" do so — so the fact that they haven't had the surgery yet is irrelevant to the question of what name is more appropriate to use. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Benjamin Standards of Care; IIRC the patient must live 24/7 as their intended gender for a minimum of one full year before doctors will even consider sexual reassignment surgery. K7L (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, could you please post some examples of how this change is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute? All the major coverage I've seen about it so far has been uniformly positive [1] [2]. Your post implies you've seen a lot of negative commentary from established media outlets, so I'd be interested in seeing the list. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is itself quite explicit that there are numerous considerations in which the "common name" can be overridden if there are good reasons to do so. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Bradley Manning is (apparently) still his legal name, and it is as Bradley Manning that he is known in the media and to the court. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the grounds that it was not an uncontroversial move and a discussion should've happened beforehand. I very rarely support bureaucratic nonsense, but the way this page was moved and then protected to enforce that move tainted any kind of support I could have had for WP:IAR here. On the whole, I'd probably support this move given a proper discussion and less angry accusations of ignorance.--v/r - TP 16:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would draw everyone's attention to the last paragraph of my move request (I added it after I posted the original move request so it might have been missed): "My move request is also not a suggestion of which pronoun should be used. MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that in this case we should use the "she" pronoun. Pronouns are a separate issue from the page title."
Again, let me emphasize that my move request covers the page title and the page title only. Pronoun considerations are not part of my move request. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just quote policy without reading it. BLP and MOS:IDENTITY say nothing about immediately using a "new" name that someone has decided on for themselves. We use WP:AT to name articles, not MOS:IDENTITY.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The subject of the article is a living person, therefore it describes a person's present as well as their past. In sentences or titles that use the present tense, the present mode of gender presentation takes precedence. Since the announcement, most responsible media outlets have been using "Chelsea" and "she" consistently. This AP Stylebook-recommended usage reflects a unique concern with the wellbeing of transgender people.
    "Chelsea" is more than a stage name or a married name, because transgender people who have often struggled with gender identity for all of their lives wish (as the linked media advisory notes) to have their backgrounds described consistently, which may require retroactive changes in names and pronouns. Wikipedia is not the gender police, and it should not demand legal documents or surgeries. There is no controversy about how Manning identifies herself, since she clearly stated what her name and gender is. Shrigley (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would those making arguments based on Manning's "legal name" please note that in her jurisdiction it is almost certainly the case that one's "legal name" is determined by usage alone. In most cases no official paperwork, procedure, or government recognition is legally required to effect the change. Manning's published proclamation therefore seems to fulfill the requirements for a legal name change in the United States. Further details are available on our articles legal name and name change. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, but only because the controversial move should not have taken place without discussion. I don't understand why WP:BRD isn't being used here. The bold move should have been reverted, then discussion started. It should be moved back, then a proper requested move discussion to move it to Chelsea Manning should take place, even if it is pretty clear that Chelsea Manning will be the eventual name of the article. Trinitresque (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and also MOS:IDENTITY which says that using the subject's preferred name should only apply when there is no dispute. Walterego (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this was premature, per my comments up above and Carrite's usual eloquence. ThemFromSpace 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article was moved without consensus/RMs on three separate occasions in a very short time-span by two editors who seemingly had no interest ([3]) in consulting with the wider WP community (perhaps so that they could get the name change through before this article was locked). Thus the previous move was arbitrary and should be reversed. --Tocino, 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME says that when a name changes, "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change" - we don't need to wait for new sources to outnumber the historical ones, we started from a blank slate as soon as Manning's announcement was made. Beyond opening sentences putting the name into context for readers unfamiliar with the story, I can't see that any news sources are insisting on referring to Manning as "Bradley". --McGeddon (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY, and per GorillaWarfare and McGeddon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia policy about expressed identity is clear, we have multiple reputable sources, and Chelsea's preferences are extremely clear. --Mispy (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Bradley Manning still dresses as a man (wears the male military dress uniform,) and is still legally known (in name and otherwise) to the U.S. Army as Bradley - a male. Changing the name to Chelsea should not occur before hormone therapy has even begun (it it ever even will occur) or before a legal name change. I also support reverting all of the pronouns to "he." He is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFreedom1212 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't think referring to Chelsea as "mentally unstable" is a civil way to approach this issue. CaseyPenk (talk) 9:26 am, Today (UTC−7)
  • I interpreted his comment of "Mentally unstable" as an analysis of the situation, not as a BLP attack. Please don't be so keen to jump on him like that, and assume good faith on his behalf. Picture it this way: He has been taken into custody; what's to say that the CIA hasn't psychologically tinkered with his mind and "broken" him? There has been a long, recorded history of psychological operations conducted by the CIA and other agencies during the Cold War. See Project MKUltra for an example of what US agencies are capable of. It is not farfetched to speculate mental instability, given that trial ordeals tend to be traumatic situations for people, even for non-political cases such as convicted robbers or murderers. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now. The move should have been put to a vote in the first place, and a consensus based on WP:COMMONNAME needs to be established. Other sources may or may not reflect the change in the long term, but there's no reason to rush to pre-empt them. StuartH (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC). Retract, since my argument was rushing to the move rather than waiting, and in seven days it will be more clear. While it was a mistake to rush to the move (as the articles citing wikipedia itself as taking the lead on this show - not the right way around!) and admins revert warring and settling on a new title without citations or consensus isn't ideal, but that mistake can't be undone now. StuartH (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I accept that the people voting in support are doing so in good faith, and that most (if not all) recognize that this is going to become a Chelsea Manning article in the long term anyway. But Chelsea made this statement about her gender in no uncertain terms and that is to be respected under MOS:IDENTITY. Hormone therapy is incidental to that desire, and those following this know this has been a long time coming for her. I would also make a request that people in this discussion use the correct pronouns to address her – regardless as to whether you feel the move to Chelsea Manning has been a breach of policy, you must accept that this is what she is asking of you. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my biggest problem with this whole debate is people telling me what I have to do. There is no framework for issues like this and it should be discussed and figured out, but I am not a person that likes to be told "you have to do it this way" especially when their reason is "I want it to be that way" or "It makes me feel better". Please stop implying that all gender identity issues have been worked out and that everyone agreees with you, some people are uncomfertable calling people who are genetically and physically male "her" and "she" for any number of reasons, not because we want them to feel bad, but because there are broad social and legal implications to letting someone decide for themselves as to how they are refered.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, for more clarity, consider how we would handle it if Manning said he'd always felt that he was blue-skinned, and was thinking of getting a full-skin tattoo to match his body image. Would we mangle the article so as to imply that his skin was always blue? 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - also per MOS:IDENTITY. It doesn't matter what their legal name is, we should be respectful and refer to them by their new name. We can, and currently do, mention their legal name in the article. Also, legal names, frankly, do not matter. The article on Bill Gates is not called "William Henry Gates III", nor is Lady Gaga called "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta". Let's called them how they wish to be called and how people will now know them. - AJF (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- this page should be moved back to its previous title of Bradley Manning so a thorough discussion can take place. Haxwell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – obviously, he has not yet become a "she". Further stories about the "sex change" thing are not yet made. I cannot ignore all rules, right? That would imply that we could or could NOT change or keep "Bradley" and leave this case to ourselves. In fact, we misused Bradley's words about his future as "Chelsea" by changing pronouns and the article title. And we created a cheap gossip that is no different from tabloids. And we are entering a huge crisis/dilemma, putting Wikipedia into shame. Don't tell me that MOS:IDENTITY is violated; the guideline is very vague about this case. --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Strongly Of course this needs a proper discussion before making this major and problematic change. Atshal (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—No offense intended to the transgendered, who I'm sure have a rough time of it. My reading of MOS:IDENTITY says the name in common usage. The first page of Google News shows "Bradley" 18 times, and "Chelsea" three times. Obviously this may change in the future, and at that point I would support a move back. DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:IDENTITY and the basic principle that people are entitled to choose their own identity and name. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - legal name changes are irrelevant according to MOS:IDENTITY; even then, she's made such a change by declaring it publicly. It is not 'common sense' to use Bradley, nor should further sources be required when her gender change was made without any ambiguity. -Kairi Izumi (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is who she is. There's a reason the Identity policy is in place--transgendered people really do belong with the gender they identify themselves with. AJF makes an excellent point about the legal names, and those who say Manning is "definitely male" or whatever just don't know what they're talking about. Brettalan (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This move was incredibly premature, and seems to be done only to please the social justice warriors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, not a forum to push your gender politics. 142.161.97.237 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:IDENTITY. As I have already stated, I think it was unwise to have made the initial move without discussion, but Wikipedia's position on this seems clear enough - We identify Manning by the latest expressed self-identification. I opposed previous attempts to move the article on the basis that Manning had not at that time made any public statement asserting a wish to be identified as female. Such a statement has now been made, and so far all objections made to the change seem to ignore the intent of MOS:IDENTITY - which is to defer to the publicly-expressed wishes of the individual concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a compromise; qualify the person as their original sex chronologically up to the point at which they assume/come out in a new gender role. The person was a male/female up until that point as a matter of fact.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.4.11 (talk • contribs)

  • Support Per CaseyPenk. When media outlets refer to Manning by his preferred name the title should change. What is taking place is a political battle over trans issues. Wikipedia is not and should not be the place to have that. While I'm sure all in opposition to the change mean well I can't realistically believe that this is not politically motivated. This is a controversial move and until a real discussion takes place I find it completely inappropriate to keep the article under "Chelsea Manning". --71.179.167.242 (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes: "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. ... Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. ... In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." This policy speaks for itself (and MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline not a policy). Richard75 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Please move back to previous (stable) title. As a note of order, the move to new title was made without proper discussion and consensus, and therefore it should be moved back simply by default (per rules), regardless to this voting. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Burma would rather be called Myanmar, but we don't, since (many) reliable sources still call it Burma.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Lily Allen (wants to now go by Lily Rose Cooper) or Jay-Z (wants to now go by Jay Z) or Snoop Dogg (wants to now go by Snoop Lion) or Sean Combs (wants to now go by Diddy... I think). As opposed to the examples you listed, there are professional names we don't move articles to because they haven't caught on in reliable sources. So, in fact, I imagine if Manning chose Edward Manning, we'd be less likely to have this conversation, as we wouldn't have the hot-button gender identity issues floating around. It's been six hours since this announcement; we have no evidence of the name shift, at least not yet. -- tariqabjotu 18:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It likely wouldn't be as much of a flamewar but the argument would be the same. Manning would say that she wanted to be called Edward, and we still wouldn't move the article until reliable sources started referring to her by that name. What if Manning expressed a desire to be referred to as "National Hero", would we move the article to that just because she desired that name? WP:COMMONNAME is the overriding policy here. Oren0 (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Oren0: I think you misunderstood me. My comment was in response to GenericBob (as the indentation shows). I provided examples of articles at titles different from the subjects' preferred names. My point is that, had there not been this contentious issue (gender identity) involved, this would have been an obvious case of moving back to the original title while attaining consensus for the new title (which, after all, is the impetus of this move request). You said nothing that I disagree with. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I apologize for misconstruing your statement. Oren0 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving back. First, this move was improperly done without consensus. Second, MOS:IDENTITY does not provide prescriptive guidance in this case regardless of repeated assertions to the contrary. It would suggest changing to the use of female pronouns, but it says nothing about names. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the page should be located at Bradley Manning until such time as her name is legally changed and/or reliable sources primarily refer to her by that name. Oren0 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The subject is still male in every meaningful sense. He is widely known as Bradley Manning and that is the name that he had while he had the majority of the notable experiences that this article covers. There has been no proper discussion of this move either. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On procedural grounds, the move back is obvious. Those who have cited WP:BLP as an exception here have yet to back it up. And on merits, I'd probably support going back as well. Unfortunately, because the subject has also changed his gender identity, this has turned into a transgender rights issue. No, I don't see it that way. Manning could have kept his name and changed his gender identity. Manning also could have changed his name without changing his gender identity. Manning has decided to both change his name and his gender identity, but that doesn't mean they aren't two separate issues. Per MOS:IDENTITY, it seems we should call Manning by female pronouns, as that's her preferred gender identity. However, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA, the article should be titled "Bradley Manning", as that is what's more natural and recognizable. Her stated preference doesn't require an immediate article title change. We haven't dropped the hyphen in Jay-Z yet over the past month. It took three weeks to move Ron Artest to Metta World Peace. Lily Allen still hasn't moved, despite her changing her legaland professional name to Lily Rose Cooper a year ago. It's been six hours since the big announcement for Manning; there is no evidence that this name has truly caught on in the mainstream media and in common parlance, and it hasn't been legally changed. This move was hasty and shouldn't be made until usage changes. The issue of gender identity should not obfuscate that point. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:UCN: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." This is why we didn't rename Snoop Dogg's article when he changed his name willy nilly to Snoop Lion. There will have to be evidence that news sources start referring to her as Chelsea before a move discussion can take place. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per tariqabjotu. Precedent and policy dictates that the article title should use the most common name used to refer to the subject, and "Bradley" is the common name in this instance. The pronouns and name used in the article content are an entirely separate issue. --Dorsal Axe 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For a trans person, prononus and name is not a separate issue. In cases like this, the name change is very much part of the gender transition. Either we respect the gender identification of a subject, which includes both name and pronouns or we don't respect it at all. -- KTC (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the correct ultimate title is Chelsea, I don't see the point of moving back to Bradley just for further discussion. Discussion is already occurring, and a 7 day RM will give plenty of time to discuss the issue thoroughly. A lot of people are raising the legal name as an issue; it is entirely irrelevant to our guidelines and policies. It also makes no sense to suggest that we would wait for Manning to undergo sex reassignment surgery; you do that, if at all, after having socially transitioned in other ways, such as adopting a new name. The issue is an ostensible conflict between using the most common name and respecting the subject's gender presentation. While according to COMMONNAME we generally prefer the most common name, there are exceptions. I believe that the BLP ramifications of disrespecting a subject's expressed gender identity weigh heavily towards using the title Chelsea Manning for the article.--Trystan (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Move the article back to the name that's recognized. WP:COMMONNAME can be kicked around, but in a simple WP:IAR application, we shouldn't be abruptly and unrecognizably renaming an article based on a very recent revelation. Who s/he is may as well be irrelevant to an encyclopedia article, s/he performed the act that generated notability using one name, was legally charged under the same name, has been a very public discussion under that name, and so on and so forth. While the content of the article can be modified to reflect recognition of the person's choices, the title of the article should be something that someone who's not an avid newshound would actually recognize. The name of the article and the names and pronouns used in the article do not need to match if we want to recognize the person's choices. WP:NOTDIRECTORY could also be cited - the reason we have an encyclopedia article is not to better know the person, but to recognize what reliable secondary sources have said and present it in a reasonable fashion. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This seems like a no-brainer. WP:COMMONNAME holds sway here. This subject is still commonly known as Bradley Manning. The article title should reflect that. Moving to Chelsea at some future date might be appropriate, but certainly not now. NickCT (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - Back when this all started, I would've favored keeping the title Bradley Manning per WP:AT, but also changing the pronouns to she/her/herself per MOS:IDENTITY. However, now that multiple media outlets have weighed in specifically to commend Wikipedia for having moved this article to "Chelsea Manning", moving it back to "Bradley Manning" would end up being seen as some kind of political statement against trans folks. So although I wish Wikipedia had never injected itself into the wider cultural discussion about this, it has, and the best thing to do is leave the article where it is and wait for the dust to settle. RSes look to be starting to transition toward referring to Manning as Chelsea, so hopefully this will all be moot soon. In future, though, we should wait for reliable sources per WP:AT, but change pronouns immediately per WP:AT and respect for the subjects of WP:BLP who are trans. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, although I can see why you might think that from what I wrote. My preference is for Wikipedia to avoid controversy that might harm the project. Initially, that would've meant waiting for reliable sources to start referring to Manning as Chelsea before moving the article, per WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME. But now that this article has itself become a political football in the media, the quickest way for Wikipedia to regain the low profile that keeps it out of trouble is to just keep our heads down and leave well enough alone. I would not have favored the initial change, but now that this article is a rallying point for transgender/transsexual advocacy, I'd prefer that we just leave well enough alone. In brief: my position is that when we're in a hole, we should stop digging. The sooner Wikipedia is out of the limelight, the happier I am. This is an encyclopedia: it should be describing the world, not intervening in it. Right now, the easiest way to get out of the limelight is to leave the article where it is. Otherwise, there will be a spate of "Intolerant (mostly male) editors at Wikipedia move Manning article" pieces all over the media. Do you want that? I don't. I also have no desire to offend the many trans people for whom this issue is a pretty big deal, for obvious reasons. I would've opposed the move, but it's done now. Leave it. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the style reasons given above and because sources determine content, i.e. that Manning identifies as a woman named Chelsea, not style, i.e. how to refer to Manning given this information. Labellementeuse (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Labellementeuse - That's shenenigans. Of course sources determine content. And we can certainly include the content that Manning identifies as a woman. But sources also determine names. And the GROSS GROSS majority of sources here call this subject Bradley. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME, "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." There are plenty of sources (the Guardian, the Independent, apparently about half of the New York Times) referring to Manning as Chelsea (and using female pronouns although I agree that the pronoun issue is distinct from the name issue); whether this is a majority might not even be relevant, considering the policy also states "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Combined with WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", I conclude there is a significant problem with titling the page Bradley Manning because of the harm done in misgendering trans individuals. Labellementeuse (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable policy citation, but WP:COMMONNAME unfortunately doesn't identify what a "name change" is. I mean, is it simply enough for an individual to say "My name is changing" for it to be so. Some folks might argue there is a legal process involved...... NickCT (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support 'I know that Manning (I won't use the forename for reasons that'll become clear in a minute) wants to become a woman, and has thus changed forenames to Chelsea, but that does not mean that we should rename the article, for two reasons:

1) Manning has not yet undergone gender reassignment (he is still male, and I have read and heard somewhere that reassignment therapy isn't available in army facilities) 2) He does not wish to be known as Chelsea in everything he does - as part of the statement he issued, it clearly states:

"I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility)." (my emphasis). This means that Manning is still male, and until he undergoes full reassignment therapy, and agrees to be referred to as a female IN EVERYTHING he does or pertaining to him, I think the renaming of the article to "Chelsea Manning" was unnecessary. --The Historian (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not in any way mean that "Manning is still male." Instead, it means that Manning is bowing to the unfortunate reality that the military won't deliver the mail to his preferred name.
Moreover, you are ignoring the fact that sexual reassignment surgery is the last step in a transgender transition. It is only performed after the person has begun living as the opposite sex for a lengthy period of time, has changed their name, undergone hormone therapy, etc. To demand that a person not be referred to as their gender identity until the last step in their transition process is utterly nonsensical and flies in the face of sexual identity science and common decency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the first characteristic of a good Wikipedia article title is recognizability. It is obvious that, for now at least, Manning is recognized by his birth name. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing in WP:BLP or MOS:IDENTITY requires Wikipedia to change the title of an article of a convicted criminal (or anyone else for that matter) to a less recognizable name just because they say they prefer that name. If over time reliable sources describe this person as "Chelsea" and this person becomes better known as "Chelsea" (and presumably continues to prefer and use the name Chelsea) then it will be appropriate to name the article "Chelsea Manning." Until then it is rather ridiculous. That is not to say that the lede should not note that Bradley Manning now uses the name Chelsea or even prevent using female pronouns in the article. But it is way premature to name the article anything but the name this person is by far best known as, which is Bradley Manning. Rlendog (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - WP:COMMONNAME makes clear the policy on sourcing titles. Unless I am wildly misinterpreting, the intention of MOS:IDENTITY is clearly with regards to usage of pronouns and descriptive nouns in the article text (see the examples). The usage of female pronouns for Manning in the article is correct (according to current guidelines), but the change to a less commonly used name for the article title is in clear violation of policy. Yourself In Person (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Wikipedia should follow the preponderance of reliable sources. When and if the majority of such sources begin referring to Bradley as Chelsey, we can gather consensus for another move. But for now the article should be under Bradley. Andrew327 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" - Bradley Manning is now an inaccurate name, as Manning no longer identifies as Bradley; therefore, as stated, the name Bradley should be avoided even though it is still used by many media outlets. WP:COMMONNAME also states "if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change" - although this only specifically refers to organisations, I believe the same principle should be applied to people. Furthermore, WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY mean the content of the article should use the name Chelsea and the pronoun "she"; it would be somewhat odd if the title of the article did not reflect the content. 86.16.146.123 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a political statement against wikipedia's identity policy and the idea that a person can demand which pronoun another person uses. I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.230.213 (talk • contribs)
  • STRONGLY SUPPORT "The military medical system does not cover gender transformation procedures. It's not medically necessary," he said. "The military will say, 'You enlisted as a male. You're a male and you're going to be incarcerated as such.'" Source (S)He is a male, was through the entire trial, and will be throughout the entire prison sentence. (S)He has been and will be a male for everything that (s)he is notable for. Fightin' Phillie 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:COMMONNAME informs cases like Malcolm X who changed his name and "identity" late in life, and it should inform this too. Shii (tock) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. It is common courtesy to address and to speak of someone in the manner which they reasonably request to be addressed. Manning has asked to be referred to with the female pronoun and has apparently changed her name to Chelsea Manning. It is both simple and courteous to do these things upon the individual's request and announcement of intent to transition. Any other criteria are arbitrary and not set by the individual. BFWB (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think Wikipedia respects "common courtesy" in any way, shape, or form, you've obviously never participated in the discussions about images of Muhammad, etc. Shii (tock) 21:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT. Per WP:COMMONNAME. When all major sources refer to "Chelsea", Wikipedia should reflect this. Until then it's "Bradley". A Chelsea Manning -> Bradley Manning redirect makes sense to me, a rename/move of the Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning article does not (yet). Encyclopediae shouldn't be front-runners. Yintan  21:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. Even leaving aside common courtesy and the obvious ethical issues, calling her by an inaccurate name is against policy, regardless of how common that might be in older sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE This is a matter of gender identity, not how one's reproductive organs are identified at birth. Federal agencies will in many cases refer to an individual by the name of their choosing. The article should be titled "Chelsea Manning". Dmarquard (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit - re "we should call people what they want to be called" - Ummmm... Do you base that on some established policy or is that just your own idle musing? NickCT (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Idle musing mostly. WP:COMMONNAME would come down on the side of keeping the name Bradly. But we also should, per other MOS:IDENTITY refer to the subject as "she"--something that would, IMO, make it very jarring to read the article. In any case, Metta World Peace would be a pretty good example where we use the desired name. So we have, IMO, policies that don't work together. Going with the IAR of "do the right thing" and call people what they want to be called. As a BLP issue, I think calling someone by a name they prefer not to go by is a problem. We don't have an article on "octamom" for a reason... Hobit (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hobit - Though we seem have opposing viewpoints here, I strongly agree with what you've said re "So we have, IMO, policies that don't work together". Frankly, my sentiment is that WP:COMMONNAME is the dominant policy here, because WP:MOSIDENTITY is basically a policy about style rather than firm rules about content. Anyways, though we stand opposed I respect you reasoning. NickCT (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this is largely an issue of style not of content, no one is suggesting we throw out all mention of the name Bradley, simply that we title the article Chelsea which when it comes down to it is largely an issue of style. I would note some MoSes (I expect most where it's an issue) suggest we should use a persons preferred romanisation of their own name where it's known, regardless of what may be more common, as far as I know, this is normally respected when it comes up (although I think there's still a lot of controversy over accents particularly for cases where the name is already romanised) when it comes to article titles, so it's not like there's no precedence for an MoS to supercede COMMONNAME. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. WP is an encyclopedia which relies on facts, in this case on the name in manning's passport. not on wishes. Maximilian (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia rules and guidelines, including MOS and BLP, explicitly require us to respect her wish to be referred to as female and use the name she prefers. It would be a blatant BLP violation to do otherwise, and well as violate MOS. These rules overrule the opinions of individual editors on this talk page too, it is not allowed to ignore BLP. Regardless of this discussion and its outcome, the article is not going to be moved anywhere because it would violate BLP which takes precedence. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Josh Gorand - Look..... It's pretty obvious your POV is that Manning is a she. It's also pretty obvious that's just a POV and not something there is consensus for. So do you have a valid argument, or are you just stretching policy to fit your POV. NickCT (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Josh: As things currently stand, Manning has yet to undergo any kind of therapy which would make him, by flexible definition, a "woman". As a fairly conservative person, I believe that the definition of a woman is someone with XX chromosomes and a vagina, however I do acknowledge that there are people out there with opinions that differ to mine, that Wikipedia is neutral and built upon consensus, and therefore, I am willing to give leeway to definitions of what "male" and "female" are based on Wikipedia community consensus, and what reliable sources affirm. If the community accepts a different definition of "woman", then I will not protest it. However, Manning has yet to undergo the full process towards his transition, and it is my personal opinion that using "she" and "her' throughout this article, as of present, is completely inappropriate. Regarding your statement "Referring to her as "he" is a BLP violation and gross sexual harrassment", that is merely your personal opinion, based on your own POV, just like I have my own personal POVs and opinions, and I really think you shouldn't force your POV on others like you have. It is also very confusing for Wikipedia readers who are not from Western countries, and do not share your ideas and culture. Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not have a sole readership of the United States, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Many cultures, including Eastern European Slavic, Islamic, Sub-Saharan African, Central Asian, South Asian and East Asian cultures do not share the same views on gender identity. Forcing the American definition onto others may be a form of systemic bias. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, this issue is largely offtopic but what about someone who has XY chromosomes but despite no surgery or hormone therapy has a vagina such as many women with Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? While you didn't mention South East Asian, as someone with connections to both Southeast Asian an East Asian culture I would say that many people from such cultures are capable of understanding science and recognising that gender identity is clearly far more complex than what chromosomes you have as the problems with your personal definition demonstrates. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This isn't even a close call. This isn't an issue of gender identity. It's about notability. Bradley Manning is notable, "Chelsea" is not. An encyclopedia shouldn't change because a person decides they want to be called something else. If Bill Clinton announced he'd much rather be known as "Billy," are we really going to change the page? JCO312 (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Oh come on, let's be real here. Who the hell is Chelsea Manning? What he chooses to call himself now is utterly irrelevant. He is known to the world, very well-known in fact, as Bradley Manning and per WP:COMMONNAME until he/she becomes better known as Chelsea Manning then that's the name we should use. This is an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Manning's request to be identified as a woman named Chelsea is simply a request. Until such time that Manning's identity is legally shifted from Bradley to Chelsea, the article should be identified as Bradley Manning. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not a request. People decide for themselves what their names are, and which gender. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • A request has no legal standing. I can't simply "request" to be a crown prince of the Japanese imperial household and expect to be handed the position on a platter; I have to go out of my way to seduce a princess first. In Manning's case, he has to apply for a legal name change, and that name change needs to be approved by the appropriate authorities. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a difference between a name, an identity, and a position. "Bradley Manning" and "Chelsea Manning" are names; "male" and "female" are identities; "Private" and "Crown Prince" are positions. You can request to be called by any name you like -- based on your innate identity -- , and it's common courtesy to comply. You don't get to have any position you like, though. DS (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I think there's nothing wrong with being transgender, the level of activism here that has nothing to do with Manning makes me want to vomit. Please take your struggle for recognition elsewhere.Wasmachien (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It seems the main argument for moving back is that it's controversial and there needs to be a discussion first. I don't see how moving is a prerequisite for discussion. While I do think that it was improper to move it without a discussion, I don't think there's a clear reason to move it *back*. We're having the discussion now. As mentioned elsewhere, "legal name change" is irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME states that for changed names, sources after the name change should be given weight. The name change basically just happened. We'll see in a few days whether news sources follow suit with the new name, which I guess they will, WP:BALL notwithstanding. PenguiN42 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A person's name and a person's gender are two separate questions. It does not matter whether or not Manning is transgender or whether or not Manning has had sex reassignment sugery. Those are entirely separate questions from the question of Manning's name. The name a person chooses to use, their legal name, and their "common name" can be three different things. For Wikipedia's article naming purposes, it is only the "common name" that counts, not the self-chosen name nor the legal name. As such, for Manning her "common name" is still "Bradley Manning". That might change in the future, but today, it is still "Bradley". WP:COMMONNAME is clear. Her article should be called "Bradley Manning". 99.192.64.222 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Bearcat, GorillaWarfare and SV put it well: a clear public statement + RS shift. It would have been smoother to make the change in a few steps, while adding sources and addressing in the article the suddenness of the shift in the mainstream media. But there's nothing to be gained now by moving back. – SJ +
    A more thorough discussion - for the benefit of this and similar cases in the future - should address the RS, timing, legal name and other style guide issues cleanly in one place. We could use a guideline specifically on how & how quickly a biography article should change its name, and what level of sourcing to require, during a public identity change: for different sorts of changes. I think at some point (before enough sources have transitioned) you'd want both names bolded in the first sentence, with explanation in the lede; later shifting to both names bolded in the other order w/ a title shift; even later going back through "What links here" and updating some of the inbound links, depending on context. The question for me is when we cross those lines. For an identity change w/ gender change, it makes sense to change the name at the same time as you change the pronouns - the alternative is simply confusing. I can't think of a case where we made these changes at different times. – SJ + 22:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. First, an initial matter, the appeal to WP:BLP as a reason to keep the article at Chelsea Manning (and to immediately undo any reversion to Bradley Manning is baseless. The BLP policy has nothing to do with the use of Bradley in the article title. The BLP policy is about protecting Wikipedia from defamation suits. It's about reliability. It is clear that subject of the article has commonly (and legally been known as Bradley Manning). This article name change dispute isn't affected by the BLP policy at all. There's no basis for applying it. Imagine if hypothetically, Manning had always been known as Chelsea Manning, and had never been referred to as Bradley Manning. Then imagine someone change the name to Bradley Manning based on original research or an unreliable gossip site claiming Manning had been known as Bradley. Then, WP:BLP might conceivably have something to do with it, as there wouldn't be any reliable sourcing that the subject had been commonly known as Bradley. That's not even remotely relevant to this situation. The WP:MOSIDENTITY very clearly puts titles and and gendered nouns under different rules. The existing policy very clearly states that Manning should be referred to by her latest expressed gender for pronouns, possessive, etc. (thus female in this case). It clearly sets titles by another standard, including policies for article titles. Manning is commonly known as Bradley Manning. Her expressed preference for Chelsea just happened. Until such a point that Chelsea becomes the common name for the bio subject, the title should be Bradley Manning. --JamesAM (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Inclined to agree that the initial move might have been a little premature. For someone who has been referred to as "Bradley Manning" by all and sundry for three years now, it seems unlikely to me that "Chelsea Manning" would be how they are now best known after only one day. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This was a straightforward application of policy. Sources in the media are going both ways, but there's plenty of "Chelsea Manning" sources out there. In the end, existing policy supports the change. The redirect means there is no practical confusion to be had - anybody looking for Bradley Manning will end up here. The case against following existing policy on trans people is specious at best. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Until the name is legally changed by the courts, the legal name is the one on the birth certificate. 5minutes (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This page was moved prematurely without any discussion whatsoever. Bradley Manning may wish to be called Chelsea, but before he wanted to be called Breanna. What if he wants to change his name again? Katana Geldar (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Keep in mind that we've known Manning to be a transperson for a long time. However, when Manning named herself as "Brianna (Breanna?) Manning" we didn't change the article name, so why should we do so now?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.34.11 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

23 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
Just a note, people are using Support to both support keeping this article titled Chelsea Manning and others to support reverting it back to Bradley. You can't take a straight vote without reading the remarks accompanying them.Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Fervenlty Support the move to THE real name "Bradley Manning" adhering to the Wikipedia rules. I mean, seriously? Really? AYFKM?! Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not only under NPOV, but further I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left. Whether you agree or not, this is not something that is widely accepted, even in the left-leaning media, and Wikipedia is a place for neutrality, not Righting Great Wrongs. Further, the 'musician' example that everyone brings up - 'Calvin Broadus' redirects to 'Snoop Dogg' despite the fact that he changed his performing name to Snoop Lion years ago, because the bulk of his mainstream success was as Snoop Dogg. Bradley Manning leaked documents to Wikileaks, not Chelsea Manning. Bradley Manning was tried in a military court, not Chelsea Manning, and without the leak and the trial, there would be no Notability. Clinton (talk)
  • Support. NPOV: Manning's name hasn't officially changed, nor has his gender. The article title should change when he legally does so. This article is a joke. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid rationale as explained on this page a few hundred times now. Her gender has changed because she says so. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that'd hold up in court. "Your honor, I couldn't have raped that woman, because you see, I'm a woman." "But I can see the outline of your penis through your pants!" "OBJECTION! He said he's a woman, that makes him a woman!" Well guess what? I said I'm a millionaire, but I'm checking my bank account right now and still only seeing about 30k. "His gender has changed because he said so." What is he, a whistleblower or a psychic? Clinton (talk)
  • Support. I have no problem with noting that Bradley Manning would prefer to be known as "Chelsea Manning." But the name under which Manning gained notoriety is Bradley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per MOS:IDENTITY, and per the arguments above of Morwen and SlimVirgin. Manning's clearly stated gender identity trumps some Wikipedia editors simplistic arguments about the name and gender stated on Manning's legal documents, and their lame appeals to chromosomes or genitalia as incontrovertible indices of gender. Manning is a pre-op transsexual and per WP:BLP should be treated as such. As of this moment, Google news has53,000 results for "Chelsea Manning," such as MSNBC saying "Bradley Manning is now Chelsea Manning"so we do not have to strain to find reliable secondary sources. We will be following the mainstream media by using the female name and pronouns. Edison (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird, I clicked on that link and it only turns up 26,300. Shouldn't the number be increasing? Ileanadu (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I say all of his statements after incarceration be considered statements under extreme duress and not be used as a basis to change his page. You can just have a section on the Chelsea stuff under his original name... User:Jburman, (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2013
  • Support. There are several other articles on real people using names they did not like or use for themselves. For example, Pretty Boy Floyd, which doesn't even have the excuse of being Charles Arthur Floyd's legal name at any time in his life; and Chad Johnson (wide receiver) who had his name changed legally to Chad Ochocinco. The mission of Wikipedia to provide information would seem to dictate that the articles be titled (and referenced on the Main Page, in this case) with the person's commonly-known name. Miraculouschaos (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda. Daniel32708 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Manning is a living person who has said that her preferred name is Chelsea. Manning is notable under the name 'Bradley', but Chaz Bono was notible under the name 'Chastity' as well, so I don't see how that argument holds. The use of a redirect means that no one is going to miss the article using her former name, so the wish to change the name back comes less from a place of editor concern and more from a place of personal ideology.Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think Chaz Bono goes as far as supporting the issue of titling the Manning article. The key issue would be when was the title changed to Chaz Bono? If it was changed to that only after he had been known for a while with that name, then it would indicate changing the title of this article is premature. On the other hand, if the title of the article was changed in 2009 as soon as Chaz, or his publicist, made a clear statement of preference then it would support your point. At that time, Chaz was in the process of a gender transition. In May of 2010 he legally changed his name. Does anyone know? My guess is that it didn't change until sometime after when Bono had become known as Chaz. Bono even made a documentary. Ileanadu (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wikipedia is not a soap-box for trans people to play with, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should value quality over political correctness ten times out of ten. Coming into the page and seeing "her" and "she" all over the place while the picture is of a young soldier is laughable, and unthinkable in a Wikipedia just a short year ago. Josepharari (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "I am a girl, call me Chelsea" is the worst move rational I've heard in a while. This page is currently laughable and embarrassing. I think some people need to settle down. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY make it clear that the most reliable source for a person's name is that person. Manning has made a clear statement that they wish to be known as "Chelsea Manning", and this statement is verifiable in multiple reliable sources. It is thus factual that the subject of this article is named "Chelsea Manning". As the titles of article should match the name of their subject and there are no technical restrictions or disambiguation issues, the correct title of this article is Chelsea Manning. Someone asked whether we would respect a name change to "Barrak Obama", and the answer is we would and the article would be renamed to "Barrak Obama (soldier)" or some other suitably disambiguated title. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While Manning's legal name remains "Bradley", Chelsea should only be treated as a nickname. I would be okay with with a title reading: Bradley "Chelsea" Manning, or something of that nature though. Mpgviolist (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose move. Chelsea has mad a clear and articulate statement as to what her gender identity is and why she chose to wait until after the first trial's judgement to make that statement public - as to not distract from the immensely reported-on trial. Clearly this is not anew issue and she has made a plan for starting her transitioning as soon as the military will conform to how the rest of US population already operates. Her gender identity is not a vote, it is her decision. As long as we also denote her former name there is no valid reason to counter her wishes except those who don't want to follow the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportfan5000 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose in the strongest terms as a matter of libel, which overrides every Wikipedia policy. The subject has clearly stated her intentions to transition and the name she intends to go by, and anyone remotely familiar with trans issues will know that it is unacceptable and much more than an issue of pseudonyms or nicknames to refer to someone by their pre-transition name or with the wrong pronouns. The "born as Bradley Manning" qualifier at the top of the article and quotations bearing that name are acceptable as they are pertinent to notable events, but routinely misgendering the subject throughout the article against their explicit wishes is not. Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libel? Seriously? Which fact is being misstated by titling the article Bradley Manning? Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that it is no longer her chosen name. Using such a name (and pronouns) in a manner that misrepresents the subject as she currently is could be perceived as an attempt to slander the subject. Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is not libel. "Libel" is an important word in Wikipedia policies, so I'd suggest you use it with more care. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, policies are irrelevant in the face of the law. Libel is neither clear-cut nor defined by Wikipedia, and therefore Wikipedia editors are legally obliged to avoid publishing material that could be so. Given what numerous sources state, it is her explicit wish to be referred to as Chelsea and with she/her pronouns and it would be tempting fate to do so otherwise. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harrassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate, to refer to someone who self-identifies as a woman, by insisting on using their former name with which they no longer identifies. And her gender identity issues have been known for years. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mean to be offensive here, but are you joking? It's hard to tell. Either way, there is no way that this would be libel. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh, no... it would be a blatant BLP violation at least, and that carries with it inherent legal complications. Even if it doesn't violate the law, which I doubt anyone here knows for sure, using the wrong name and pronouns would violate the BLP policy, which is held above practically everything else on this site. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Come on. There are numerous reasonable alternative motivations beyond "transphobic hate" for referring to Bradley Manning (pre-Chelsea-announcement) as Bradley Manning. Here's one: clarity. The discussion on this page is whether it's appropriate to sacrifice clarity to comply with a person's personal desire--not a person's gender identity, but a person's preferred name. There is nothing sacred about a person's preferred name, and treating it like some kind of intrinsic aspect of that person's character is absurd. Dyrnych (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Their name matters when it carries an implication of gender, which is absolutely intrinsic here, extremely sensitive with regards to libel law and BLP policy, and, given that, paramount to any desire for "clarity". Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Libel requires falsity. There is nothing false in saying that a person legally named Bradley Manning wishes to be known as Chelsea Manning. Nor is there falsity in stating that that person was legally named Bradley Manning at the time of all pertinent events. Do you have any evidence beyond hand-waving that libel would attach to such claims? Also, would your argument apply if Manning's name had formerly been Pat and she now wished to be known as Jess? Would it be OK to refer to Manning--historically--as Pat? Dyrnych (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is not false to simply state what someone's legal name is, but to use it in a manner that misrepresents their identity or gender, which would certainly be the case here, is and would defame that individual. The title and contents of an article should represent its subject and its subject is no longer, according to sources, a male by the name of Bradley Manning. Haipa Doragon (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • As others have said, you really need to look up libel before you make ludicrous statements. It is certainly not libel to report someone's legal name. Throwing around legal terminology you clearly don't understand because you think it makes your case look stronger is very ill-advised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm very glad that the standard you've articulated is not the standard for defamation, because it would be entirely unworkable and, frankly, absurd. Would it be libelous to give a male-identified male child a name that's traditionally female and then refer to him by that name? Because, even though that's his legal name, that would arguably misrepresent his identity and gender. But the overall point is that according the significance that you do to Manning's fundamentally whimsical decision to change her name to Chelsea creates an unworkable model for Wikipedia, because it would be incumbent on Wikipedia editors to immediately reword entire articles every time someone decides to go by another name, regardless of the name under which they gained notoriety. That would lead to confusion for readers, misrepresentation of past factual matters, and (in your view) the potential for legal liability if the article isn't changed quickly enough. Note that I'm not calling Manning's gender identity whimsical. Dyrnych (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libel is a very strong term, especially considering that the name has not legally been changed - and ultimately it's not very accurate. It may not be polite, but it's not libel to refer to someone as their given name or even as their birth name, regardless of whether they are trans or not. 5minutes (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a lawyer and former law professor, Agreed. The laws of libel do not apply here. There is no legal risk to Wikipedia in using either name.
  • Strong oppose Per MOS:IDENTITY. Manning has clearly identified her gender in a highly public venue, and should be referred to accordingly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bradley Manning is his name and unless changed, that should be the title of the article especially in consideration that his notoriety occurred under that name. Talmage (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep article name Chelsea Manning This is a transgender rights issue. Right to self identify is a major demand of the transgender rights movement and the process of getting government recognition of a name change is a discriminatory barrier of great offense to many people who support the movement. Manning has said in the clearest terms to the media that she wishes to be referred to with feminine pronouns and to be called Chelsea. This is sufficient. The use of this person's former name is contrary to this person's rights. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, Move back for now. The move was premature and should wait until they officially get their name changed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a restoration to his actual name, which is "Bradley Manning", per "recognizability, naturalness, and the general criteria for use common names for article titles" of the article title policy. Really, this is just LGBT politics run amok. Tarc (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support and early close Is this some kind of a joke? His legal name is Bradley Manning and until this is reversed should stay that way per WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It seems to me that the spirit of WP:BLP trumps the other arguments. This isn't the same thing as when someone wants a different name for commercial reasons, and as for COMMONNAME, the new name is going to become widely recognized extremely soon. It doesn't matter whether there has been surgery or a legal name change yet. It matters what the subject wants herself to be called. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The move to Chelsea is premature, he/she is best known as Bradley Manning and that is currently his/her official name. Space simian (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I predict this move will confuse readers looking for information about Manning in the months to follow I think it would be unfortunate if we accidentaly set a precedent for a certain title at this moment in time. Considering Mannings recent statement and that the most commonly used name by reliable sources might change in the near future I don't see much point in moving the page back to Bradley in five days from now, therefore I retract my support.
    Instead I would like to add a protest over how this move has been handled. Normal procedure would have been to revert to the previously used (not controversial) name and then discuss the controversial move to Chelsea (see bold-revert-discuss). The way this has been handled is yet another example of Wikipedia admins abusing power and bullying in order to push their personal point of view. Space simian (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If Pvc Manning wishes to be known as Cheslea, then the article should note that. Maybe also, the article should note that Pvc Manning wishes to be know as a female and always use the female pronouns in the article itself. But the article title should be "Bradley Manning" (with a Chelsea Manning redirect) until Pvc Manning legal changes names. This was what occured with Chad Johnson (Ochocinco) and should apply here as well. Solarguy17 (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:MOS is clear on this issue and the reasoning behind that policy is sound. The argument that "the facts" are that Manning is a "man" are absurd. There is no such thing as someone having an "objectively factual gender"; the concept of gender (as opposed to biological sex) is completely subjective, varying among individuals in a culture, among different cultures, and among different time periods. Just like with everyone else, Manning's own subjective conclusions determine her gender. And the fact that some Wikipedians feel entitled to "vote" against her decision is disgusting and shameful. Seriously? Do you have nothing more constructive to do than to discuss how you think someone else should be labelled despite that person's objections? This entire discussion is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS at its finest. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - MOS:IDENTITY is not a novel invention and it is already specific enough for there not to be ambiguity in regards to what to do in this case. I don't understand the argument that users would have difficulty finding the article, as long as there is a redirect it would be enough to prevent that issue. Legal arguments are not relevant, wikipedia is not the United States system of law. Biological arguments contradict MOS:IDENTITY Vexorian (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I am willing to reconsider as more information comes in - The move was premature and should have been implemented only after clear consensus in this controversial issue. It also would be nice to wait until we see how the majority of reliable, secondary sources handle the issue. At this time, "Bradley Manning" is the more recognizable name, and readers are more likely to search for this name -- see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Edge3 (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm so confused. Don't we follow reliable sources? Support. Red Slash 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. I think WP:NOTNEWS has a role to play here too. There should not have been a rush in changing the title. Over time, the most common name in the sources may change to the female name, but it clearly has not changed as of this time. Further, as discussed above, MOS:IDENTITY is not about article titles, and I don't there is a BLP issue. BLP is about facts, and this person is currently known by two different names, and the article reports both of them. Neutron (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of WP:NOTNEWS is to exclude articles where the entire article topic is some briefly-notable event that's news today, forgotten tomorrow. It's not a call to keep clearly outdated information as if it were current nor to omit reliably-sourced info on a subject which already met the criteria for an article. K7L (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the purpose of WP:NOT#NEWS is varied, and includes events with no lasting coverage etc but is not limited to that. WP:ISNOT covers all information on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In every single one of those articles, she is referred to as "she" and "Chelsea." Phrases are used such as "formerly known as Bradley," "now known as Chelsea," "now Chelsea Manning," and "formerly known as Bradley Manning." The New York Times public editor closes with this sentence: "But given Ms. Manning’s preference, it may be best to quickly change to the feminine and to explain that — rather than the other way around." I'd say they're good examples :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to moving back to Bradley. It feels weird to comment right after Sue (who made some of my thoughts redundant), but I'll add this: news articles and headlines have to start by identifying the subject. The world knows Chelsea right now as Bradley, so the headlines of reliable sources would logically refer to her as Bradley for coverage of the name change. Wikipedia is not bound by the same rules, as someone is proactively searching for Manning (and will find her via searches for either name). Her statement was made in a reputable location, and is well-grounded in context. In this instance, the policies on pronouns should also apply to the article title. --\/\/slack (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly moving back (that is, we should keep it at Chelsea Manning). There's a lot of editors I've had disagreements with in the past who are making very strong arguments for this, but I think Sue Gardner's comment right above just sums it all up better than I could. (And we do have redirects, these days.) Abeg92contribs 04:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While it's fine to note that Manning now identifies as female, per WP:COMMONNAME it should obviously be at "Bradley Manning". Muhammad Ali's page is not at "The Greatest of All Time". Idi Amin's page is not at "The Last King of Scotland". Joefromrandb (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sue Gardner, SJ, GorillaWarfare and others. The place where the most careful consideration of the question of "How does an encyclopedia handle it when an article subject comes out as trans?" has been the development of the MOS:IDENTITY guideline. In my opinion, editors arguing such things as "policy trumps guidelines" and "MOS:IDENTITY only covers pronouns not article titles" are arguing the letter rather than the spirit of the most relevant and thoughtful guideline (with regard to respecting BLP issues) that we have about this dilemma. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that WP:POVNAME and WP:TITLECHANGES also apply and are policies under Wikipedia:Article titles, there was No consensus to move this page to Chelsea Manning in the first place, what happened as a result? A stable good article was ruined from it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Past precedent and WP:BLP is quite clear on this. We go by gender identity name. It's as simple as that. SilverserenC 05:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to MOS:IDENTITY. K7L (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving back to Bradley Manning for many of the reasons cited above; not only is it the common name and there are no independent sources citing "Chelsea" in a context other than the recent change, but I find WP:COMMONNAME to be most appropriate and most compelling at this time. Additionally, I find the move to Chelsea was without the necessary consensus and should be reverted unless and until the necessary consensus develops. JasonCNJ (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know I am completely unsure about this. We need more time to see how things pan out. One thing I would say. The Chelsea article is being edited at he moment. Should it become Bradley again, the Chelsea article should be editted rather to change the "her" to "his" and of course "Chelsea" to "Bradley". There should not be a switch back to the original Bradley article, as all subsequent edits would be lost. I am inclinded to think the article will remain under "Chelsea", as people get used to the concept. People are a bit afraid of transgender, although the actions of Bradley/Chelsea show that they do great things. If Bradley is known as Chelsea in future, which seems will be the case, then an article called Bradley Manning will be confusing to say the least. Wallie (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The discussion can happen on a page named as per Chelsea's wishes (which are the ones we use in the article as per MOS:IDENTITY), and redirects will keep everything sane until the situation stabilizes. I think it's important for Wikipedia to use the name currently in use in the media and as chosen by Chelsea herself, a living person. Unless there are good reasons not to, such as evidence of coercion or if the majority switches back to using her previous name, the new page title can be discussed within the article itself or here, not at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Gaurav (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There was insufficient consensus for the previous move, and there was not enough opportunity for opponents to voice their objections. As of present Manning has yet to even make the first surgical/therapeutic step towards transwomanhood or whatever the new, fancy term people use nowadays. He has not requested an official name change, and his legal name remains to be Bradley. Until the proper changes have been made, this article should reflect the de jure AND de facto realities. Furthermore, per WP:COMMONNAME we use the name most commonly used in English-language reliable sources - most RSes have yet to make the change, and still use the name Bradley. Wikipedia should not be the "first" or a "trendsetter", as that would be in contrary with the purpose of Wikipedia, which only should describe things that are proven by existing sources. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1) Gender change currently is just a wish and not official. 2) Gender change is not carried out physically. 3) MOS:IDENTITY is well meant but certainly a stumbling block in this case: “…a person's latest expressed gender self-identification.” It should not trump the facts and be understood as the guideline it is and not as a hard rule. Alandeus (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Slate, a "left" leaning publication is applauding the speed at which Wikipedia moved to Chelsea Manning. A writer for the National Review, a "right" leaning publication, does not approve, quoting someone complaining that the "mainstream media" lagged Wikipedia in order to criticize the quote and declare "We need structure here and a proper legal process." Wikipedia should not end up lined up with the "left" media like this. But having said that, I say "Oppose" because to those who support a move back to Bradley Manning I have to advise you that we lost this battle long ago. The prompt renaming of this article to Chelsea is the natural outcome of years of Wikipedia's political evolution, and you are not going to roll that back overnight. I also don't think it SHOULD be rolled back overnight, hence my "Oppose." Look, while we should not be advancing the LGBT agenda or any other agenda in the media, the fact is that the development of the WP:BLP policy brought the desires of Wikipedia's article subjects into relevance. The sovereignty of the individual to determine how he or she is perceived is still not total on Wikipedia, but it is pretty close to total when it comes to the identification of trans people. There is a strong lean among Wikipedia's editors towards opposing attempts to channel individual sexuality or sexual identity into collectively mediated "norms." With all due respect to transgendered persons, what's happened here is going to be perceived by non-Wikipedians as the "trans lobby" having unchecked control over Wikipedia. I understand that according to the 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey only 21% of trans people have updated all of their legal documents, but there is a cost to Wikipedia to actively righting this wrong as opposed to remaining passive and just drifting with the flow of reliable sources. Those of us who have WP:NPOV concerns lost our ability to keep Wikipedia out of the news long before last year's blackout in support of a political campaign against legislation before Congress. In the name of transparency I suggest letting this go through so the public understands the state of Wikipedia 2013. A flip back to Bradley Manning would amount to a revolution against Wikipedia 2013 and those of us who are "conservatives" should look for less radical options like pushing back more against the policies, guidelines, and Wikimedia Foundation statements that have have evolved to collectively make inevitable Wikipedia's pioneering in terms of the speed and degree to which it rewrites articles about Manning from top to bottom in the feminine pronoun.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I've already proposed that use of the subject's latest expressed gender self-identification be limited to occasions where there is a reasonable expectation that the subjective self-identification will be objectively verified by means of acceptance by the legal system and adoption by most reliable sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we defer to organizational name changes, then so should we for personal name changes too. And even per WP:COMMONNAME, we should give greater weight to reliable sources published after Pfc. Manning's name change, which in this news cycle, are all focusing on Manning's name change to Chelsea. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MOS:IDENTITY addresses the gender pronoun, so referring to him as "she" in the article seems appropriate due to that. The name, however, is only if no dispute is associated and there is definitely dispute so his legal name of Bradley Manning should be used in the article and as the title. A redirect from Chelsea and a note about it in the article would be sensible, but even so we don't know what name he will feel like using the next time he talks to somebody. He's already given more than one female name. --Sam Bingner \ talk / 08:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support returning to the most common name I do not see how this is different from Cat Stevens. Both are notable under their former names not the presently chosen names. Regarding WP:BLP. It is policy that require us to minimize damage to a living person by hiding damaging or doubtful information. What information we are trying to hide by renaming article to Chelsea? That she was ever known as Bradely? The only way to hide is to completely delete article because everything this person is notable was done under name of Bradeley. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose MOS:IDENTITY is clear on this and tates that "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. The pronoun should also be a she because of it. I dont have any personal feelings on this but we should abide by policy and i recently asked a similar question to Jimbo Wales, the founder of this website. Hee said that self-affiliation is paramount. Therefore the title should remain. Also, this is a WP:BLP issue because your calling a trans person by the pre-trans name. You might as well cal Muhamad Ali Cassius Clay. I also believe that WP:NPOV is applicablew here. All the centrist or moderate newspapers i can think of off the top of my head use Chelsea and she as a pronoun i.e. Washington Post, US. , The Telegraph, UK. , Daily Mail, UK.. Business newspapers can also be relied upon sine they usually don't have socially conservative biases nor sociallly liberal biases so International Business Times, US. uses Chelsea and feminine pronouns as well. Pass a Method talk 08:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pass a Method: Or Yusuf Islam Cat Stevens? Or Lily Rose Cooper Lily Allen? The interpretation of BLP in this manner runs counter to consensus on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 23:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:Commonname. The move was very premature and without consensus. All kind of media outlets are obviously in a process of discussing how to refer to Manning in the future. Wikipedia is WP:Notnews and should not lead in a name change, but wait and see what reliable sources choose. There is some summary of the discussion here (with regard to gender pronoum). New York Times is for the time being sticking with Bradley/“he” for the following reason: “Generally speaking we call people by their new name when they ask us to, and when they actually begin their new lives. In this case we made the judgment readers would be totally confused if we turned on a dime overnight and changed the name and gender of a person in the middle of a major running news story. That’s not a political decision. It is one aimed at our primary constituency — our readers.” Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, official name is official until it has been changed. --Stryn (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be titled by the most common name. Even a cursory search of reliable sources demonstrates that the most common name in English for this article's topic is Bradley Manning. This is a no brainer. It clearly needs to be changed back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In this case (and, what is also very important: in this moment), I see no overriding encyclopedic principle that would trump WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:IDENTITY certainly doesn't - for one, it doesn't say anything about the title. In particular, the NYT quote supplied by Iselilja above strikes me as more or less the only possible common sense approach to the issue. GregorB (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The move has been premature and should be reverted. This person is known for being involved in the WikiLeaks affair, and throughout these events was known as Bradley Manning. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME, this should also be reflected in the title of the Wikipedia article. I only learned of his name/gender change from the Wikipedia main page, so it can not be considered to be common knowledge (yet). Also, I think User:Alex Bakharev brought forth quite a good argument when comparing the Manning case with Cat Stevens.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like many others above, I see WP:COMMONNAME as the most salient policy here. A quick google search of news in the last day suggests that a great deal of sources still refer to Manning as Bradley, e.g. "Bradley Manning: 'I am a female.'" The Independent is happy to consider Manning as female, using "she" etc. throughout, but still initially names the article's subject as Bradley, who now wishes to be called Chelsea. The only major outlet that is identifying Manning as Chelsea over Bradley in its headlines appears to be the Guardian. Until that changes (which it absolutely might in the next few days), this move is premature and the article should be at Bradley Manning. (And, from what I can see about the history of this move, a lack of consensus on the issue should result in a reversion to Bradley Manning also.) U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: An admin should have reverted this immediately since it was done out of process. (Since others are opining also: Per WP:CommonName, plus just too soon. Do put it in the first sentence as "who prefers to be known as Chelsea E. Manning" for now. When it becomes clear that Manning wants to continue using the name and a number of sources are in fact using it, it would be appropriate to change. Also, considering this is an important legal case and most of the events of importance to American history will have happened before the announcement, it seems strange that Manning would be called a she for most of the article, even if Manning preferred that. If a person who was blond all their notable life, nicknamed the "blond brainiac" or whatever, became a brunette and wanted to be re-described as a brunette in their Wikipedia bio, that would seem to be a questionable rewriting of history. In the personal section, if there was a discussion Manning's experiences as a closet transgender person, or whatever, it would be appropriate to describe Manning as "she" since it would be a description of Manning's objective emotional state.) User:Carolmooredc 11:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IDENTITY is a style guide concerning the content of an article, whereas WP:COMMONNAME is policy regarding the title of articles. That is what is being discussed here. Support votes here are not votes of support for describing Manning as "he" in the prose of the article. U-Mos (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes Title change to Chelsea Manning is being discussed. The title change breaks Wikipedia policy. Agreed, it seems pretty black and white. Note that MOS:IDENTITY states "When there is no dispute". There is a dispute, making it void. Sovetus (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "dispute" is not as to the claim itself; that is undisputed. That others want to claim it doesn't count (because of no attestation of hormone levels, or whatever) does not make it a "dispute" for that purpose - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the type of dispute is not specified. There is a dispute, so again, it's void. Sovetus (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "when there is no dispute" is in reference to what's in the first bullet point, not the second. — Richard BB 11:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that is what I was referring to. Keep in mind that it's a guideline and not a policy though. Sovetus (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. MOS:IDENTITY says what it says, and I see this as no different to the generally undisputed name changes frequently requested by musicians. I suspect that most of the objection, even if veiled in terms of interpreting Wikipedia policy, really boils down to "I don't want to change my gender, nobody I can relate to wants to change their gender, so if somebody wants to change their gender they're weird and strange and it shouldn't be allowed". Please, let's get over that. The fact that people are different is awesome, and I for one celebrate the chance to find out about people who are, truly and deeply, different to me in some way. It keeps things interesting. I'm a bit disappointed at the number of "support" votes from folks not giving a damn about Wikipedia policy, and simply saying variations on "But he's still got a penis and is says Bradley on his documents..." As documented elsewhere, these facts are irrelevant in this case. Alaric (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If, as I gather from the above comments, gender is something that you can change by declaring that you do, it is something utterly subjective. Therefore, as an encyclopedia based upon the pillar of NPOV, we should take the path of least resistance (in this case, least likely to be thought of as non-neutral) and categorise persons by their sex as opposed to their gender, given that the first is far less controversial than the second (unless anybody wants to claim that Bradley Manning is of the female sex now, which would constitute either a falsehood or a radical redefinition of the verb "is"). -Anagogist (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:UCN and MOS:IDENTITY demand it revert to Bradley. He grows up for 20-some-odd years at Bradley Manning, He commits acts against the country as Bradley Manning, gets convicted and sentenced as Bradley Manning. And for one day says "Call me Chelsea" and we jump? No. If Charles Manson wanted to be called Veronica Manson, we wouldn't trade a one-day circus freak show with the years and significance under his own name. We will always have to qualify this article by reference to his history under where he gained notability/notoriety...as Bradley Manning, and it would be just as ridiculous as that phrase "The Artist formerly known as Prince." --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose They have explicitly asked to be referred to as "Chelsea Manning" and "She". The fact the mass media are constantly misgendering her is not an excuse to perpetuate the transmisogyny. --Dee Earley (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some exceptions aside, there are plenty of media outlets who are not misgendering Manning. Almost all reports since her identification as female are about that very act, and so or the time being the principal name used in such reports is naturally going to be Bradley. If and when that changes, Wikipedia can and should follow suit. U-Mos (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, she said she is now using the name X, therefore we should use the name X. My point about the media is that just because they're ignoring it doesn't mean WP should too. --Dee Earley (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"My point about the media is that just because they're ignoring it doesn't mean WP should too" - again, the purpose of Wikipedia is not what you might think it is. This website exists not to introduce new ideas, but to repeat ideas that exist elsewhere. Have a look at what Wikipedia is about. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that adhering to its own MOS:IDENTITY policy is something else Wikipedia is not for. --Dee Earley (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a RM discussion about the article title, and that the "she" shenanigans that MOS:IDENTITY deals with are discussed in a section below. Turns out that this isn't a RM discussion, huh? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She owns her name, she has explicitly stated intention to legally change it and pursue physical gender reassignment, and while the likelihood that the entire media will refer to Manning as "Chelsea" anytime soon is essentially nil, there are already numerous major media sources referring to Manning as Chelsea. The combination of Manning's stated intention/preferences and substantial, if not universal, pickup outweighs any other concerns. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MoS and the subject's clearly stated preference. I understand that some may support the move on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, but the amount of pure, policy-unrelated bigotry displayed by a vocal minority is appalling. I thought, obviously naively, that all such people had moved to Conservapedia, concerning themselves there with proving that women's rights movements cause cancer or whatever. What's even worse is that some of these users are minors. Anyway, I'd be willing to bet that many of those who favour Bradley Manning over Chelsea Manning [would have] opposed moving Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, despite claiming here that common name trumps preferred name. An example off the top of my head - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, called Kate Middleton by an overwhelmingly large majority of sources, has stated that she wishes to be known as Catherine, and we respect her wish. Why doesn't the subject of this article deserve that we respect her wish? Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try to stick to the top parts of the pyramid when making an argument.
  • You really shouldn't use ad hominem attacks against other people simply because they disagree with you. By saying that we're all crazy right-wing neo-cons that belong at Conservapedia, you're essentially making a personal attack against other contributors. Address the content, and not the person. Also, why should people with different views to you have to leave for Conservapedia? Is Wikipedia your super secret clubhouse, for like-minded pro-(whatever) people only? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't misunderstand me, Benlisquare. I never said that you are all "crazy right-wing neo-cons". In fact, I never said that about anyone. I clearly said that I understand those who support the proposal on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and who thus have different views than I. I do understand them, although I disagree with them (as explained above using examples of women who are referred to by their preferred name rather than by their overhwelmingly more common name). Please note the conjuction "but", which seperates these users from those that "I thought [...] had moved to Conservapedia". Instead of citing valid arguments, the latter only shout out that Manning has a penis. Nothing more, unless you include repeatedly and as prominently as possible pointing out that they consider her a "he". Therefore, I have addressed the content, and I have clearly distinguished people with reasonable arguments from people with purely bigoted screeching. Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, MOS:IDENTITY is not a naming convention; it is a guideline for article content, and WP:COMMONNAME often overrides respect for article subjects' wishes. Many good examples have already been given: late in life, Malcolm X adopted the name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, but he is still referred to as Malcolm X, so that is what we call him. Cat Stevens adopted Yusuf Islam as his personal, professional, and legal name 35 years ago, but it is as Cat Stevens that people will look for information about him. If we want to follow policies and guidelines, the title should be Bradley Manning, but the content should begin "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning) is..." and use feminine pronouns. - Cal Engime (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia not a "Have your wishes granted here" sort of thing, if the media is calling the person "Bradley Manning" then we follow and call the person Bradley Manning its simple as that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just named two women who got their wishes granted despite the fact that the media only seldom uses their preferred names. It's obviously not as simple as you claim it is. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move back to Bradley Manning per WP:COMMONNAME Eopsid (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it at Chelsea Manning As others have said, MoS:Identity is clear on the pronoun issue. While it doesn't directly speak on the title issue, the principles remain the same when a person has clearly expressed a desire to be known by a different name for reasons of gender identity. Similarly the basic ideal of BLP strongly supports us sticking with the subject's preference. IMO, as I mentioned above, these two do ultimately supercede COMMONNAME in this as they do in other cases. I originally planned to support a move back to Bradley Manning in the event of no consensus based on our normal practice is to stick with the earlier version in the event of no consensus of a disputed change but on further consideration I think that shouldn't apply here. In the event of no consensus a subject's clear preference should be the default option. I do not consider this similar to the case of Burma/Myanmar or Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire (where incidentally I support both Myanmar and Côte d'Ivoire) because although the government has expressed a clear preference for the name in English, the issue is on a far lesser scale than a person's gender preference. Similarly for case like a mildly offensive but common nickname. This seems to be similar for Chad Johnson although I don't really get the relevance of that case anyway, our article was titled Chad Ochocinco for most of the time he was known as that, when he changed back his name we changed it back as well. It's true we didn't have the space for a year or two and we never followed the 'Hachi Go' which from what I can tell, wasn't even seriously followed by Chad. A more comparable example I can think of would be something like Malcolm X, where someone abandons their former surname because of their extreme dislike of how they came to have that surname. (Similar examples may be a kidnapping victim or someone abandoning a name given to them by abusive parent/s or where say a person who finds out they're descendent from someone who renamed themselves to try and escape persecution and choses to completely embrace their ancestral name.) While some may suggest this means we should name the article Malcolm Shabazz or Malik el-Shabazz, from what I can tell although that name was used and may have been preferred, they didn't have similar hostile feelings towards the name Malcolm X. In any case, I consider this whole discussion somewhat of a waste of time. I'm reasonably sure within a few weeks, if not in the 7 days of a normal RM, it's going to become clear Chelsea Manning is her common name so the issue will be moot. I only bothered to reply in the hope it will help clarify the issue for future cases where the limited number of reliable sources and interest may make it more difficult. BTW, on the Brianna issue, if she later decides she would prefer Brianna but most sources still use Chelsea, I would have no problem sticking with Chelsea unless there is similarly a very good reason to use Brianna. (The same of it had been in reverse.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Because, for one, MOS:IDENTITY requires Wikipedia to respect the gender identity of biographical subjects, and two, legal names and biological sex has no bearing on how a subject is identified by the encyclopedia. "Norma Jean Mortenson" is listed as Marilyn Monroe, and Joshua Abraham Norton, the self-proclaimed Emperor of San Francisco, is called Emperor Norton. Gender identity is not comparable to those two examples, of course, but they do demonstrate that the encyclopedia's commitment to "fact" doesn't require it to use legal recognition as an all-important criteria. theBOBbobato (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport Bradley Manning is the common name, and also the name used for all the most notable activity (I haven't seen a source that refers to Chelsea Manning without mentioning Bradley Manning). Manning also went by Brianna Manning before as the above notes. If Chelsea becomes Manning's established name then we can change at that point, but at the moment this move violates WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs; change the world, and it will eventually be reflected in this article, not the other way around, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She has made clear her desire to be known as Chelsea Manning and we should respect that. The redirect from her old name to her new name is sufficient. edd (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support until such time that the majority of reliable sources begin to refer to him as Chelsea and/or he legally changes his name to Chelsea. Even then, there seems to be no reason to change the gender of pronouns in the article until Manning undergoes some kind of sexual reassignment surgery. His body is clearly still male, referring to him as "she", while respectful of his wishes, only serves to confuse the reader. Which do we value more, having a factual and easy-to-understand article on Manning, or going to great lengths to respect Manning's wishes. What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human, that we should refer to him as Rover, and use "it" instead of "he/she"? Manning can say that he wants to be a girl all he wants, but the fact remains that he's not. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just saying that Manning is asking people to refer to him as something that he is not. If he asked us to refer to him in the same way that we'd refer to a single-celled amoeba, I doubt we'd oblige. I'm obviously not inferring that transgendered people (or whatever the correct term is) are equivalent to dogs or amoebas, I'm just making a comparison to illustrate my point. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although I may contradict my last comment on this page, unless "Chelsea" is Manning's nickname I oppose the move. He's still a man, and he's still named Bradley legally speaking. There's no documents about his name and sex change... yet. But for now the title should be named "Bradley Manning". Just use his custom name as a sidenote. Hitmonchan (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support return to "Bradley Manning" (with "Chelsea as a redirect) - At the moment, reliable sources are still overwhelmingly calling the subject "Bradley". So, per WP:COMMONNAME "Bradley" should continue to be the title of the article. That said... we should re-evaluate the situation in a month or so. If it can be established that sources are changing their usage to reflect Manning's preference, then I would heartily support a new RM to move the title to "Chelsea". Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:COMMONNAME "the new name is going to become widely recognized extremely soon" means it is not recognized now. Therefore the move to change the title from the one users of Wikipedia are expected to know was premature. We are responding to a statement made in the current news cycle. Apparently in the past Manning has expressed a desire to have a different first name and Manning can pick a different name to be called tomorrow. That should not govern how an encyclopedia, even a wiki-pedia titles its articles. Within the article itself there can be clarification as to the person's chosen name. I think this issue is similar to that of countries wanting to be called by another name than the one recognized by the rest of the world. I am not making light of the feelings and frustrations relating to gender identity, and I understand that country names don't concern gender identity, but issues of identity, including ethnic and religious identity, are very strongly felt. Using [WP:COMMONNAME]] can give great offense in a number of areas, but the purpose of using the Common Name is to facilitate the user's ability to locate the correct article. The example of Cat Stevens, which is not his birth certificate name nor his preferred name, is one where the [WP:COMMONNAME]] has been kept. Whatever name is chosen will lead to some confusion, but that is to be expected any time a famous person changes their name; as in the Cat Stevens article, the confusion can be easily cleared up in the first sentence. Ileanadu (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revert to Bradley Manning. A move to Chelsea Manning may be in order soon, depending on whether the new name catches on, but doing this move precipitously on the day of his announcement of what he wants to be called was inappropriate. We don't retitle company or band or person articles just because they announce a new thing they want to be called. And while I respect the gender identity decision, we again need to wait and see just how real it is, as opposed to a sentencing-day stunt. Give it a few days at least and let's watch and talk about it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Bradley is still his name and he is still a he until he changes both his name and undergoes the necessary treatments to become a woman. In addition, until sources start solely printing his name as "Chelsea", it needs to stay as Bradley. For example, if my name is John (and I'm notable) and prefer to be called Johnny, but all the media prints it as John, then my wikipedia page should say John.--Giants27(T|C) 16:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can throw all the sources that you want out there are ones out there that use Bradley Manning as mentioned here numerous places one more being CNN:
  • CNN "Could Bradley become Chelsea? The answer is no, not without a fight" There are plenty of sources that state his name as "Bradley" per elsewhere in the argument here. As for BLP that is a broad statemen, are you saying that major news media are not treating this with respect when it is in the majority of sources? Since when is Wikipedia the authority on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really simple, knowledgekid. Manning wants to be known as a woman and as Chelsea. So we call her Chelsea. To do otherwise would be disrespectful. It gains nobody anything to continue using "Bradley" and is disrespectful to Manning. If you want to disrespect her, well, I guess that's your choice, but can you tell me why? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing I am taking this as a potential personal attack I will be the mature one and walk away here, don't assume things about other people please, the name Bradley is being used in the majority of sources if you cant see that then it's your problem not mine. I think you are taking this to heart rather than editing and looking at the policies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthonyhcole: That's not a reasonable question; that's a loaded question. -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tariqabjotu: @Knowledgekid87:: Mmm. It might be seen as such; so, let me rephrase it. Continuing to use Bradley and he when the subject wants to be known as Chelsea and she is disrespectful of the subject. Continuing to use Bradley and he gains nobody anything, since everybody can find the article, regardless of the search term they use. So, the net effect of continuing to use Bradley and he is harm. That's how I see this. Can you tell me the good I'm overlooking that comes from continuing to use Bradley and he that outweighs the harm of disrespecting our BLP subject? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthonyhcole: If Manning made a statement tomorrow that he now considers himself to be a golden retriever, and would like to be referred to as Rover, and would like people to use "it" as a pronoun when referring to him... would you argue that the title of this article should be Rover Manning, that we should change all pronouns to "it", and add a sentence to the lead that says "Rover Manning is a golden retriever." After all, that is what Rover wants, and it would be disrespectful of it to do otherwise. Obviously, that is a somewhat ridiculous analogy, but it is an equivalent circumstance. In both circumstances, Manning is asking to be called a different name, and he is asking to be referred to as a gender that is different from his actual gender. "Continuing to use Bradley and he gains nobody anything..." I disagree, it gains accuracy and clarity by referring to things as they actually are, not the way people want them to be. After all, this is an encyclopedia about facts, not Manning's personal diary. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 14:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scottywong. As far as the name goes, I disagree. If one of our subjects publicly announces they'd now prefer to be called Rover, the respectful response would be to call them that and arrange redirects and hatnotes accordingly (unless it's obviously ephemeral or frivolous - and there's no sign of that here.) Regarding the gender of the pronouns we use: when Manning says I'm a woman, she's not claiming to have a vagina or two X chromosomes; she's saying her gender identity is female, that she feels and responds as a woman. When a person feels and responds as a woman and desires to be recognised as a woman, I'm happy to recognise her as such. Gender identity often goes in lock-step with sex, but not always.
I acknowledge the existence and importance of your feeling self, that your manliness or womanliness is a part of it, that it is largely immutable, and that it is presently objectively unmeasurable (unlike a vagina, a hormone or a chromosome); and I'm happy to acknowledge you, the feeling you, for who you are, regardless of your anatomy, endocrinology or histology. YMMV. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't good logic, what if manning wanted to be known as "The baby killer" or "Jack the ripper" then? Do we follow suit? We as an encyclopedia go by what the media is calling this, and the name most widely used is "Bradley Manning" I understand if you have some personal feelings on this and what is right or what is wrong but it is what it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But she doesn't, does she? She is simply announcing that from now on she wishes to be known as Chelsea. We don't deliberately and for no good reason insult our BLP subjects by calling them their old name when they've made it very plain that they've changed their name. Get over it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The precedent I'll go by is Sears Tower, which redirects to some name I never heard of but apparently is used. The newest name generally wins in article titling. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use the old name wherever appropriate, just that the article is "about" the newest name, and the person using an old name is the one who expects to be updated. I say "for now", however, because the media mentions are still under 50%, the change isn't legal, and so there is considerable reason to wonder if the change will ever really catch on. It was premature to move the article but it's pointless to move it back unless we see reason to think "Bradley" will continue to be the COMMONNAME. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. As per the definitions of Transgender people, and as per Chelsea's declared wishes, the Chelsea Manning site should remain where it is. Hurtsmyears (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Putting other policies and guidelines aside for a moment, how did the R in WP:BRD get skipped? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that the article was moved, protected, and now we're discussing whether to move it back to the title at which it has been stable for, what, years now? Aren't we missing something in between moving and protecting? VoBEDD 17:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. It isn't a legal name change yet. If she gets a deed poll, fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonie148 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. I can't say that I read all of the above comments, but MOS:IDENTITY provides that we should be using pronouns that accord with their expressed gender. It's true that as some pointed out that the name "Chelsea Manning" isn't a pronoun, so obviously that guidance is in some regard tangential, but really, it would be ludicrous to have an article "Bradley Manning" that exclusively used female pronouns. Furthermore, even leaving this issue to one side, I believe that we should not necessarily follow the majority of reliable sources with respect to this particular sort of naming issue in the BLP context. Maybe this is a POV thing to say, but I think that following the majority of media sources on this point just promotes systemic bias against people with gender dysphoria. A lot of people just don't understand and haven't thought about the difference between gender and sex, or what it means to be transgender. Furthermore, some media outlets do agree with us; the AP style manual says "reporters should use the name and pronouns preferred by a transgender person" (see here) and the press appears to be evolving on this one (see here; NYT has been removing male pronouns, for instance). Finally, what I personally believe is that, if someone identifies themselves as a female and says that they've felt as though they were a female since birth – which is exactly what the soldier formerly known as Bradley Manning said – then who are we to say "Wrong! You have a penis, so you're a man!" AgnosticAphid talk 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This move discussion is about an article's title change not about it's content. - 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to Bradley Manning per WP:COMMONNAME. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to seek a technical Support / return to original title. It's noteworthy, though, that different news agencies seem to go different ways (with most still using the legal name for various reasons - some explained, some not):
    1. CNN's video on Manning's statement stated that it will keep using the current legal name (about 1 min into the video)
    2. A New York Times blogger referring to the NYT's MoS which has provision to keep a newsworthy name against the subject's wish (Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns (he, his, she, her, hers) preferred by the transgender person - original emphasis removed)
    3. Reuters uses the legal name
    4. ABC News reports kept the legal name usage as primary, but one of its opinion pieces supports the change
    5. CBS News also keeps the original legal name in use.
  • NBC News clearly has switched to preferred name by Manning in multiple articles published since Thursday afternoon. I think it's best if it gets summed up by this USA Today article: Media torn in Manning 'he' or 'she' pronoun debate - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. :: That she is "biologically" male is dubious as a categorical claim. She may have male genitals, but she has also been biologically determined to identify and act as a female in many ways. It's pretty clear to me that personal identification, particularly on a BLP, should trump wrongheaded notions of what we consider to be her "objective" gender. Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This should have been handled by BRD, instead it was Bold, Revert, Bold, Lock. In fact, the right thing to do here is move it back to Bradley, and then have a 7-day discussion about moving it to Chelsea. But since that's not happening, the argument that it should stay at Bradley for now is first WP:COMMONNAME, since Bradley is common, and second that reliable sources are still treating Manning as "Bradley, who wants to be called Chelsea". I've heard two radio news reports (CBS and an AP report) in the last half hour, which are still calling Manning a him, that wants to be a her. I'm sensitive of the plight of the transgendered to gain acceptance, but this article is not your WP:SOAPBOX. It's supposed to be a collection of human knowledge, and at the moment we have a lot more knowledge of Bradley than we do of Chelsea. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Livitup and Vobedd: As both of you seem to have made similar points, let me point you to the logs for this page. Following the protection, it was moved back [by me] to Bradley Manning (citing the original move being undiscussed and controversial) but returned to Chelsea Manning [by David Gerard (talk · contribs)] citing BLP. It's unlikely it's going to be moved back to Bradley Manning for the duration of this discussion. -- tariqabjotu 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The name should be Bradly Manning until such time that the name Chelsea becomes predominant in third party sources or it gets legally changed, if it does. The purpose of this article is to be useful, not to be written in a manner sensitive and pleasing to the subject. I find the tendency of opponents to put some Manual of Style paragraph and the wishes of the person involved (who is after all at this time a convicted criminal) above such core principles of wikipedia as neutral PoV and verifiability quite worrying. Ultimately anyone who isn't aware that Manning's lawyer just made a declaration about his gender might just stumble on this article and be completely confused about what the hell is going on and who the woman is. I'm not opposed to Bradly being referred as "she", "her", etc.. in the paragraph where his gender dysphoria is mentioned but if the article name is confusing that just makes it less useable and informative to anyone who is interested in the Manning case and not various editor's online activism. Helixdq (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rapidity of Wikipedia's response in moving the article to Chelsea is something to be proud of. Theodolite (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement Oppose Not only does MOS:IDENTITY make it clear that we should go by the subject. Further, outside organizations instruct that we should identify the transgender individual as they want to be addressed (see GLAAD's document here). The case of a transgender individual is not at all in the same universe as the above supporter's comparison of Snoop Dogg vs. Snoop Lion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY only addresses gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives in text; It does not cover article titles. Article titles are, as is stated in the policy, covered by other policies (Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles). It's a stretch to say MOS:IDENTITY covers this issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Until he/she gets a gender change they are still considered a male. Once that occurs then we should change it but not just based on the decleration that they want to be referred to as Chelsea. Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have "changed gender" (Or more correctly, affirmed their gender) by the very fact they have said "I am a female." Perhaps you are referring to the genitals? Not that they matter to anyone bar her and any partners. --Dee Earley (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Currently, the "Bradley Manning" name is more recognizable and natural. Unless and until reliable sources start referring to this person more often as "Chelsea Manning" than as "Bradley Manning", it is a WP:NOR violation to use the new name preferred by this person. Like it or not, Wikipedia should not be on the forefront of using the new name - we follow reliable sources with such changes, not lead them. We have no obligation to be more sensitive than the NY Times are any other mass media publisher. --B2C 21:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notwithstanding the haphazard use of moves to and lack of discussion to get the page here in the first place, there are several good reasons why it should be at Bradley Manning. First, the vast majority of sources, including the trial, use his original name. If and when it becomes the standard for major news outlets to use his name directly as Chelsea Manning in something other than the direct context of his gender change, then I might begin to support such a pagemove after a reasonable amount of time for solid evidence and consensus. Further, there is concern that, rather than following news articles on style and gender pronouns here, media is following Wikipedia. Simply put, Wikipedia is not meant to be a leader, but a follower. This is not a criticism against Wikipedia, its the way any impartial encyclopedia must work, if it is to maintain its standard of impartiality. Activism and advocacy has its place and time, but it isn't here or now. SodaAnt Talk 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Slightly depressing that it's actually necessary to vote on this. Formerip (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not voting and your contribution cites no basis or reasoning; it's WP:JDLI. --B2C 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're wrong on both counts. Like it or not, this probably will be treated substantially as a vote. The fact that it is slightly depressing to even need to debate the question is a valid rationale. However it might be dressed up, it boils down to a simple question to whether Wikipedia should respect a person's request regarding their gender identity. There are not two equally valid stances on that. Formerip (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • To even take primary source information like that into account would violate WP:NOR. Th editors of reliable sources should decide whether to respect a person's request regarding their gender identity - and WP editors should follow suit, just like we do on every other issue. --B2C 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The status quo ante belleum should be restored, then this discussion should take place.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As long as in official documents his name is Bradley and the common use is Bradley as well, it should be on that name. Obviously the recent news related to his gender-identity announcements take that into account, but we'll have to see if all of the common use switches to Chelsea. So it is too early to decise yet; Bradley Manning until that I believe should be the choice. --Pudeo' 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support His/her name is legally and commonly known as Bradley Manning. I realize this is a very emotional issue for certain editors but Wikipedia is a resource not a platform. We would be doing a disservice to the readers by naming it any way other than using WP:COMMONNAME. --BHC (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite all the gender bending excitement in the last week, readers are still ten times more likely to be searching for "Bradley Manning" than for "Chelsea Manning", according to Google Trends. Antonio Hazard (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
In 1964, world-famous boxer Cassius Clay won the heavyweight championship from Sonny Liston, but soon joined the Nation of Islam, and the world quickly accepted new name "Muhammad Ali". For 50 years, that is how the world has worked. -Wikid77 20:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY (a guideline), which has been cited many times above, is tightly related to BLP, the latter easily trumping COMMONNAME. I am confident that the spirit of BLP requires the current (feminine) title. -- Scray (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY which is yes a guideline has this in the lead, I have bolded the wording as it relates to the title move discussion: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no controversy over the verifiability of her name, and her choice trumps (redirects handle the rest). -- Scray (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion is to change the title of the article or keep it the way it is, if redirects handle the rest then what is the harm keeping it as Bradley Manning with Chelsea as the redirect when the majority of media sources are using the term? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is that we'd be violating the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY and BLP. Enough, already, with the badgering. -- Scray (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for jumping on this, but why exactly does "WP:BLP trump WP:ARTICLENAME"? Many participants use this argument (or a similar one) during this discussion, but I have to admit that I can't see any primary/secondary ranking of the Wikipedia policies. Quite the opposite: When it comes to page names, then (obviously) WP:ARTICLENAME should be the first policy to be consulted.--FoxyOrange (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not an expert on policies generally or BLP specifically, but I believe that BLP is seen as a sort of super-policy because it has real-life implications in a way that most policies about encyclopedia topics don't. YMMV. AgnosticAphid talk 07:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Agree. The fact is he can request to call himself "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" if he wants, however, there is also a legal name changing process that must be gone though to change a legal name. The page should be reverted back to "Bradley Manning" until he requests that name change and it is approved by a judge Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose due to MOS:IDENTITY open and shut case. Legality of name change is a red herring, such a public announcement suffices in some jurisdictions, not in others. What Manning's "real" sex is an ideological not biological issue. I happen to believe "female" based on neuro-anatomy which I believe defines identity, but others can reasonably differ. Zoe Brain (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Although I find the trans-phobic comments in support of the move pretty reprehensible, I have to admit that COMMONNAME and the principle of least surprise leads me to conclude that the article name should be "Bradley Manning" for the foreseeable future, while the article content should unambiguously use feminine pronouns and the name "Chelsea" in compliance with MOS:Identity. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we should certainly acknowledge that Chelsea is a woman, and given that we seem to have a media broadly recognizing her right to her female name (yes, some still call her Bradley, but her actual name is established in the media), WP:COMMONNAME seems less-than-decisive, and using WP:IDENTITY to acknowledge the name she explicitly told us to use seems the appropriate approach. On another note, Jesus Christ some of these comments are transphobic. Yes, she has a penis; that's one of the inconvenient aspects of being a pre-op trans woman. Yes, the US government is likely to ignore whatever official requests she tenders, because they are backwards on these sort of things always. She is still a woman, and Wikipedia should not veer into trans-hate for the sake of the news outlets and governments that have not internalized the message. An Editor With a Self-Referential Name (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not particularly happy with the support mind you but as I was thoroughly smacked around with when I first got here the policy is what is important not my personal beliefs. WP:COMMONNAME and Article Titles are more clear cut and BLP and the MOS:IDENTITY have tenuous options at best when you talk about the title (though they do explicitly say changing the gendered pronouns and nouns so I am all for that.) The more common title and search indication should reflect what this individual is known for, in this case it is the wikileaks federal prosecution case, and that is under the title of Bradley. Nothing else this individual has done (including the statement of gender identification) meets Notability and therefore we should use the name that is associated with that notability. Now if that notability starts linking to Chelsea I will be the first to jump up and start saying we need to change the title to reflect it but until that point I don't see it as being supported by policy as they currently stand. I would suggest someone make a request to change the policies (such as BLP) to include title name and see if that gains consensus as a work around but right now this doesn't meet the requirements. Tivanir2 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Manning's celebrity is based on his activity as a male; changing his identity is rewriting history. It's as bad as changing British names late in life to add pompous and pretentious titles. Manning's own statement was to apply from this time forward, and made no suggestion of retroactivity. So, if there is to be a Chelsea Manning article it should only apply to events taking place after her public statement. Eclecticology (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you point to any other person on Wikipedia whose life is divided into two completely separate articles based on their gender identity? If not, why are you suggesting that we start doing this with Chelsea Manning? Do you propose that we do the same for every other transgender person with a Wikipedia article? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:IDENTITY is pretty clear on this one; transgender people, including Manning, should be identified as their latest expressed gender self-identification, which extends to their names. It seems like a lot of the support !votes reflect a poor understanding of trans issues; it's not like she's going to change her self-identified gender back within the week, so the "premature" argument doesn't hold weight, and the people who are arguing that she hasn't changed her legal name/hasn't started hormones/etc. don't seem to really understand the transition process and how long it can take to get to the various steps. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. As Sue Gardner correctly pointed out earlier, MOS:IDENTITY is unambiguous in requiring that WP "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." We went through this already with the Wendy Carlos article. Wendy refers to those who refuse to refer to her as Wendy as having "cruel indifference to anyone's interests but their own. They have tried to turn me into a cliché, to treat me as an object for potential scorn, ridicule, or even physical violence by bigots (no joke in these dangerous times of beatings and deaths at the hands of the intolerant.) At best, they have arrogantly used me and abused me to grind their own prurient axes, to profit by and justify their own agendas. It's no fun to discover someone else's fetishistic hang-ups, to inadvertently confront an unsuspected slice of unwholesomeness in another. Even less amusing is to find yourself the target of painful bigotry and prejudice. [They] have caused me to wince involuntarily, and in some cases to spend sleepless hours at night. While I have never harmed or hurt any of them, they have chosen to hurt me. Is this deliberate nastiness, or just wanton insensitivity? Couldn't you wait until I'm dead? Have you no decency, no respect?" While this is clearly an emotional outpouring by someone who is deeply hurt, she makes a good point. I realize that this will generate a fair number of "please don't question the motives of those who disagree with you" responses, but I haven't seen any valid reason why so many here want to give Chelsea Manning the same shameful treatment that Wendy Carlos was subjected to. It's just wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having the page named Bradley Manning would not be refusing to call her by her chosen name (which would of course still be acknowledged in the lead), or subjecting her to ridicule because of her transgender status. It would only be Wikipedia fulfilling its role, as reflecting the way others have approached this issue. If the case is or becomes that media outlets come under fire for refusing to use the name Chelsea, and that causes controversy and talk about the attitudes that represents, then that would warrant inclusion in the article. But it wouldn't change the fact of her WP:COMMONNAME being Bradley Manning. Even if it's "Bradley Manning, known since August 2013 as Chelsea Manning, is a United States Army soldier..." U-Mos (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, simple as that. If we want to be wikilawyers, we can also argue that MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, while WP:COMMONNAME is policy, and that would be enough (Speaking of guidelines, I'd also throw in WP:SURPRISE, to support moving it back). But very simply, that's the name more than 90% of sources and readers know her. I surely do hope that sources slowly and steadily begin to refer to her by her new name, and that we can revisit the issue in 12 or 24 months. For now, if we want to provide a reasonable service to readers, better bring it back at Bradley Manning. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we want to be a Wikilawyerly, it would only be fair to point out that the policy in question uses language like "Wikipedia prefers", "Wikipedia does not necessarily", "Editors should also consider", "are often avoided", and "are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding". Compare this with policies such as WP:V, which uses language like "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" (emphasis in original) and "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME policy. Echoing above, that's the name 99% of sources and readers know her, period. Cavarrone 10:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think MOS:IDENTITY is all the more important when dealing with gender identity and particularly when dealing with primary naming; naturally it applies to article names just as to references within articles. While WP:COMMONNAME might seem to indicate the move, it is a rapidly decreasing factor; this is 2013, and society generally now accepts changes of gender identity happen and are real. The more reliable of sources are coming into line. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on grounds that a person's declared identity is a special case and should follow WP's last-publically-declared-identity stance along the same lines as use of gendered pronouns. In other words, unlike most statements made on WP which require a weight of reliable sources, determining an identity should require one RS documenting the assertion of identity (of course barring absurd assertions like "I am Elvis," with the obvious unresolved caveat w.r.t. who determines absurdity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smowton (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split (edit conflict) Two articles, one Bradley, one Chelsea. Bradley article covers events through and including the announcement with male pronouns, Chelsea article covers events including the announcement onwards with female pronouns. Each article links to the other. Once we're done pretending that Wikipedia is a newspaper, maybe we can have a merge discussion. This move was most poorly done, in my opinion, and we ought to give bd2412 T a mountain of thanks for stepping forward with a proper move discussion. htom (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the latter topic be notable enough to warrant an article? Manning is known for their actions as a (former) Private First Class by the name of Bradley who leaked certain documents, and not for any actions done whilst he assumed the name of Chelsea. If there is a split, how would you justify the existence of an article for the second topic? --benlisquareT•C•E 04:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move back to Bradley Manning per policy section WP:COMMONNAME which says, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Our BLP policy exists to prevent harm to living article subjects. That's what it's for. It's puzzling to me that users arguing COMMONNAME aren't even acknowledging that there is a conflict with other policies, let alone the fact that BLP frequently overrides other policies because of its goal of preventing harm to the subject. The argument that users won't be able to find the page they're looking for is extremely weak, since that's what we've always had redirects for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give the excerpt from WP:BLP that applies to this case? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --WP:BLP --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What harm, exactly, does this article title pose to the subject? It's a name Manning went by three days ago but now no longer wants to; that's all. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather easy to explain. If someone holds a position because of COMMONNAME, they would of course acknowledge that there is a conflict with other policies. If, on the other hand, they hold a position for some other reason that they would rather not admit, then they would look for a policy justifying their position, find COMMONNAME, and act as if none of the conflicting policies exist. its a pretty standard method of identifying a stalking horse. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear failure to assume good faith. Many supporters, as noted, do not believe any policy contradicts COMMONNAME here. Some have argued/pointed out that MOS:IDENTITY deals with pronouns, not article titles (in fact, the guideline says Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article.). Please don't ascribe ulterior motives to anyone. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, Thanks for the excerpt from WP:BLP. Unfortunately, the excerpt you gave was slightly misquoted because you capitalized "The" at the beginning when it is not a sentence by itself. Here it is along with the rest of the sentence from policy which gives the context,
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
So I think that this part of WP:BLP does not apply to our case and I continue to support the move back to Bradley Manning. If you have any other excerpts from WP:BLP that you think apply to this case, I would be interested in seeing them. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you reconsider your statement that someone being transgender is a "titillating" tabloid story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a restricting clause. In the English language restricting clauses have a different syntax. It also fails the sniff test; clearly we do not want to limit the harm to be considered to those specific situations, but rather any harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment. To do otherwise is simply evil. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're going beyond what policy says. However, I am interested about what harm you think would be done to Manning, or what harm Manning suffered in the past when the article was titled Bradley Manning. The question regarding what harm would be caused was posed to you previously by Tariqabjotu, but you didn't mention anything about harm in your response. Would you care to try again? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a crack at the question about harm. Recapping: BLP says the possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This matters because BLP trumps COMMONNAME. (I am setting aside the question of MOS:IDENTITY for the purposes of this comment.)
It is reasonable to believe there's a possibility Manning could be harmed by Wikipedia retitling the article Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning, because she made a formal announcement explicitly asking that "starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun." Wikipedia is an important site: the #5 most-popular in the world, read by a half-billion people every month, more widely-read than any other news or information site. If Wikipedia were to call its article Bradley Manning, Manning might believe that Wikipedia is rejecting her requested name and/or gender characterization. It is not uncommon for people who feel dissonance between their experienced gender identity and the gender they were assigned at birth to feel significant emotional distress, at least some of which is due to how they're treated by society. (See this article.) And indeed, in Manning's May 2010 chat logs she describes herself as having GID (gender identity disorder), as having had three breakdowns, as being "in an awkward state," "uncomfortable with my role in society," "scared of being misunderstood" and "isolated as fuck." She says: “i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…” I think it's clear that Chelsea Manning hopes and expects that people will use the name and pronoun she asked them to, and that to the extent people do not, they risk causing further trauma to someone who is clearly already significantly distressed. Sue Gardner (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like quite a stretch. And actually, you shoot yourself in the foot. You quote Manning saying "I wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy..." So... are pictures of Manning as, by most people's observation, a boy or a man [i.e. almost every picture of the subject in the article] also violations of BLP? I sure hope not. Either way, even if we were responsible for people misinterpreting what it means for something to be the title of an article, Manning is going to spend the next thirty-five years in a maximum-security prison, where, presumably, there is no Internet access; Manning will probably never experience the trauma of seeing a Wikipedia article with a title against one's wishes. -- tariqabjotu 03:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sue, thanks for your thoughtful commentary. I absolutely agree that the WORLD should, ideally, comply with Chelsea's request. But what if it doesn't, and in a years time, most outlets are back to calling her Bradley? I know Jimbo has argued for a bit of "editorializing" on this, and has proposed IAR in order to keep at Chelsea. IMHO, wikipedia should not LEAD the pack, or even necessarily be on the bleeding edge. We should follow the pack, and come in late to the party - otherwise we risk being a cause of citogenesis, and, by our actions, changing the way the world talks about and names things - that should not be our role - we are supposed to be neutral documentarians. There is reason to believe that there are LOTS of things in wikipedia articles that could cause harm to subjects that we righteously keep - for example, mentions of crimes they've committed, or indiscretions, or even minor things like birth dates (see recent Tammy Duckworth RFC, where, in spite of Duckworth's request, oodles of editors voted to add her birthday to the article). Another great example is Burma and Ivory Coast - both of these were subject of much debate, but have ended through consensus at what are seen to be COMMON english-language titles (which personally I don't agree with, but that's the way those cookies crumbled). In the case of Cote d'Ivoire, the government has formally requested, on several occasions, publicly, that the french name be used, but not all American/British media has followed suit, and since we follow media, we have "Ivory Coast" (but thankfully, we still have Costa Rica and not Rich Coast!) We risk offending millions of citizens of those countries, and officially pissing off their governments, but I don't see intervention from WMF on these matters. What I fail to understand is why TG people merit such a special exception to our article titling policy - I understand and agree with the pronoun issue, but the title is their to affirm to the user that they have arrived in the right place - so we need to balance that UI requirement for the user with the possibility to hurt the feelings of a BLP. A screenshot on this page demonstrates the silliness of the current article - when viewed on a mobile phone, the words "Bradley Manning" appear no-where on the first page - in spite of the fact that Bradley Manning is still searched 100s of times more frequently by Google users. Why would we not accede to Cat Steven's (30-year old) rename, or any of the other examples that have been trotted out - and the reason is, the article title and the article is first and foremost for the reader (while balancing BLP needs of course). The only way I can see implementing your ideas at scale is to say, there is a new change to the BLP policy, ONLY for trans* people - as soon as they announce a new name, the article is moved immediately - and it doesn't matter what reliable sources do (because if we do this, we should do this for everyone, not just Manning). But I don't think we should add such an exception, and I don't think the argument of harm to Manning is very strong in this case, especially if the first line says in bold "Chelsea Manning, (born Bradley Manning)" etc and clearly states that her preference is to be Chelsea and "she". Calling that "harm" is stretching the definition a bit too far, and equates the article title with the subject's legal/official/desired name (which is categorically not the case for other bios, and is also not what the article title MEANS). If we're so concerned about harm there is much lower and much harsher hanging fruit we should be going after - imagine if instead of this epic debate, people were removing unsourced bullshit from our hundreds of thousands of BLPs, or de-ghettoizing them in their categories, or any number of other things that are rampant and vicious (I'm sure you remember our friend Qworty and the damage he did - which is STILL not cleaned up fully). But an article title? We should be late on this, not early, and we should follow what the world does, and we should balance concerns for the BLP with concerns for our readers. If the world itself doesn't come to a clear conclusion, then we'll have to make a call, of course, but it should be informed BY reliable sources, not by a normative sense of justice. I just don't think it's our job to be progressive in these matters.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP does not apply, WP:MOSIDENTITY deals with pronouns not article titles, in fact it says in there to refer to policy when it comes to article titles. Are there any other arguments that people can make to keep this as Chelsea other than WP:ILIKEIT and "Its the right thing to do because I think it is wrong" type of comments? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Nick, Scott, and Slim (in alphabetical order :) Plus, like Anthony pointed out, there are now plenty of reliable sources. Also, this. DracoE 14:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. I think GorillaWarfare, Phil Sandifer, SlimVirgin, AJF, Sj, Bearcat, and User:Sue Gardner provided recommendations based on wisdom and a considered understanding of policy. So many additional well-written statements that it feels redundant to reiterate the same. Appreciate all comments made, but I oppose based on our BLP policy, as well as MOS:IDENTITY. I would also agree with Mark Joseph Stern in the Slate article, when sharing his opinion regarding our approach in changing this article to reflect Manning's identity. This time, we got it right. Cindy(talk) 15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - MOS:IDENTITY says a bunch of interesting things, but it can be changed, especially given that there is easily 10 times more input to this page than there has ever been to that MOS entry. My reasoning is based on the fact that this article covers this person during the period when they were a man named Bradley. While I take no issue with the way they wish to live their lives, I believe the reality here is that they ARE one thing, but IDENTIFY as another. Whether that identity is true, part of an ongoing series of self-discoveries, or a self-delusion due to an inability to connect well with any gender identity, it is still all contained within Chelsea's mind. In time, as the world around her (read:Not just the hardcore acceptance group) comes to adopt this new identity, this issue should be revisisted. However, the rush to be the first kid with their hand up is what led to such a blow-up. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The GTrends link posted below by IRWolfie- is the key factor - as of this month, the ratio of searches is 100:1 Bradley:Chelsea. WP:IDENTITY will of course affect how it is addressed within the article, but not the name of the article. Wikipedia does not need to be in front of the pack on this, we are an encyclopedia and report what others are saying. Currently that is the male name. There is also precedence for this, Cat Stevens comes to mind initially and I could list many others. If, over time, the trend changes, we can address that then. GregJackP Boomer! 15:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring WP:IDENTITY, as I noted above. WP:COMMONNAME is the more applicable policy, IMO. GregJackP Boomer! 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as moving back to Bradley would be POV pushing to make a point and we arent here to do that but to build an encyclopedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for three reasons: first, procedurally, because the page move the "Chelsea Manning" was a controversial move made without even attempting to obtain consensus, and such fait accompli maneuvers should be reversed until a contrary consensus is reached; second, because COMMONNAME is a substantive standard which, for encyclopedic content, should override stylistic standards; third, because, as the executive editor of the New York Times said in yesterday's paper, "we made the judgment readers would be totally confused if we turned on a dime overnight and changed the name and gender of a person in the middle of a major running news story. That’s not a political decision. It is one aimed at our primary constituency — our readers." The same principle should govern here; Manning's gender issues are at best a peripheral concern, unrelated to Manning's notability and most reader's interest in the matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because that's what they're known as. --TripleU (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support - Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender. Had (s)he been more vocal at an opportune time, (s)he might have saved the world of some idiotic espionage in recent history. DebashisMTalk 20:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CNN Still using Bradley Manning (News article made 30 minutes ago from this post)
Boston Herald (News article made 18 hours ago from this post)
USA Today (News article made 6 hours ago from this post)
Fox news (News article made 14 hours ago from this post)
BBC still referring him to Bradley (News article made 14 hours ago from this post)
All recent sources calling him Bradley Manning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CNN piece-- This provides no support for your claim.
The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) issued guidelines for reporting on Manning's transition, advising journalists to "use the name and pronouns that someone prefers," citing AP style and suggesting "that she be referenced as 'U.S. Army Private Chelsea Manning, who formerly went by the name Bradley. (emphasis mine)
The issue of pronouns and gender identity resurfaced this week when Army Pvt. Bradley Manning announced his intention to transition from male to female in a statement signed "Chelsea E. Manning."-- Neither this or the above quote is evidence of CNN calling Manning by either name, and the later is referring to the chain of events and using Bradley is necessary to describe the change.
Boston Herald - The Boston Herald is a tabloid newspaper, so this isn't exactly reliable on issues like this one.
US Today - This is an editorial piece, not something we can use to establish WP:COMMONNAME.
Fox News- The Army won't pay for Private Bradley Manning to become Chelsea Manning is the only sentence that uses Bradley. It doesn't call Manning one or the other definitively here. Later on, they quote the ACLU which calls him Chelsea. None of this supports your claim.
BBC Article - Green tickY
So, you've got one legitimate article that actually names the subject as Bradley, that's almost a day old. This is unconvincing, and my and many others' points about the MOS still stand. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm not even really convinced that WP:COMMONNAME is going to help us arrive at an answer. It's an unhelpful policy for determining the subject's name in this situation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Excerpted from my previous post (with apologies for the clutter; I've been away for some time and am a little rusty / didn't notice that there was a vote brewing):
I get that I'm probably the last person anyone wants to hear about Manning's gender identity from, but that's the nice thing about Wikipedia - the last person you want to hear from is still someone you may have to hear from.
As a realpolitik-loving, pragmatic kinda person, my gut reaction to the issue of the name change was similar to that represented in many posts prior "Oh what, if someone wakes up one morning and decides to identify as (whatever), that's notable & verifiable?"
But upon a second or two of longer consideration, that's not the case here. Manning being trans has been a matter of discussion for years now (which is partially my fault - sorry ;x) so while the name change is sudden, the concept is not. Instead, the question of Manning identifying as female has been a consistent and unwavering detail throughout this entire affair. Certainly during the trial the preference was that references be made using the male pronoun, but that's a rather split hair - asking to be formally referred to as one thing doesn't imply that the identification has changed. It's more of a "Let's not make an issue of this just now" sorta thing.
So given the aforementioned, this isn't a case of sudden whimsy. It's a longstanding conviction by a notable subject who was under no obligation to express a firm preference at any prior point. Moreover, having your legal counsel read a prepared statement on national TV isn't quite an arbitrary expression of opinion - it's probably the firmest way you could say something short of skywriting or full page ads in The New York Times.
/Legally/ the name remains Bradley Manning. But all things considered, at this late date the legal name carries less weight than the preferred one, and unless Manning makes an additional change at some future point, can probably be deemed permanent. With musicians or performance artists electing a stage name (which I know isn't exactly fungible here, but bear with me) some amount of acceptance in circulation may be needed in order to acknowledge it; in this case the name has been imprinted onto the public consciousness just as fully, but by other means. Why quibble?<<
The point at which a discussion such as this one becomes more about internal bylaws and less about providing timely and relevant information is the point at which discussion is no longer all that useful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and a place to bicker about technicalities second.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 23:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

25 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose I believe that any gender references should be applied after the date of the announcement, lest the changes give the impression that the events were performed by a woman which changes the nature and character of the conversation. Srlevine1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as he's more commonly known as Bradley, at least until he gets a legal name change. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP, and the arguments of Sue Gardner, Blue Raspberry, GorillaWarfare etc etc. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose it really is a matter for the transgendered subject to make. And for anyone to claim that Manning was "in a state of psychosis when he decided he was Chelsea" and that "He didn't know what he was saying" is not doing their research, is being very insensitive and perhaps even outright insulting. I had reverted the mention of the gender issue back before it was clear that the subject did identify as a female and that they had made a public declaration. This isn't a political or social issue...its personal. If the subject identifies, not only in regards to gender but to name as well, it is a part of the transformation. Since Manning is in Federal Prison it is unlikely that they will receive the gender reassignment surgery (although it is possible as there is some word that the state of California may allow this eventually), but I do believe that the hormone therapy has either begun or been requested to deal with this medical issue, which this is considered by the US government federal system I do believe.--Mark 01:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. A transgender person should be referred to by the gender the person truly is, as substantiated by WP:RS. The Guardian, for one, has also used female pronouns to refer to Manning, and has used her new name, as well. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of sources listed in this discussion that use the term "Bradley" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gender that Bradley Manning truly is, is male (until he undergoes sexual reassignment). A person may assert their gender to be anything but the true (true meaning actual, as in what physically exists in the real world and not exclusively in the conceptual sense) gender which they actually have in reality is that of their biological sex. Walterego (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has been said around a dozen times here, but Walter please read Sex_and_gender_distinction for the distinction between (physical) sex and (psychological) gender. The essential idea here is not accurately describing the person's genitals as a matter of fact, but accurately reflecting their chosen identity as a matter of etiquette. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I remember discussing the exact principles floating here, in a slightly less contentious manner at the RM for Talk:Laura Jane Grace. Participants of this discussion would have been better acquainted with propriety had they respected that a consensus for best practice had already been hammered out. Also notice if you are so compelled that in the midst of similar arguments, no homophobic labels were applied and no users were faced with AN bans or similar sanctions. :) John Cline (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the guidance for what to do in an article when someone declares their gender and name change should be covered specifically in a policy, to avoid any more of these types of long discussions in the future that seem to involve armies of editors, whose time might be more productively spent editing other articles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving back, on balance. Reasonable arguments can be made either way, but enough sources have made the change, and policy favours self-identification; together, these factors tip the scale. Andreas JN466 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving back for procedural reasons (the move to Chelsea Manning was not vetted) and per WP:UCN (use common names). Wikipedia follows what reliable sources use. (And MOS:IDENTITY says nothing to contradict that.) While usage may shift soon, it hasn't happened yet. Good luck to the admin who closes this one. —  AjaxSmack  05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reliable sources have already begun referring to her as Chelsea. While MOS:IDENTITY does not speak of article titles, it seems common sense that referring to "Bradley Manning" as "she" would be, at the very least, awkward and confusing. To fully comply with MOS:IDENTITY, the title needs to be changed. I don't see any point in reverting the article title if we're just going to use Chelsea anyway. The initial, bold move seems legit to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Manning is notable for actions undertaken when he was Bradley. The lead makes no sense now since it says Chelsea was convicted, but Bradley was convicted and the refs say so. Changing the whole article to use female gender and the chelsea name is just awkward. A subsection indicating the desire to be referred to as Chelsea makes more sense. He is not legally Chelsea, are we going to change the title again if he decides he wants to use the name Tammy next week? --Daffydavid (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Manning is indeed "notable for actions undertaken when he was Bradley". The article should only used "she" and "Chelsea" for actions undertaken before his announcement. We just cannot write things like "she was raised as a boy", "she joined the army...", "she gave documents to wikileaks", etc : it is just too confusing and IMHO unfortunate. I have no doubt that Manning's personal journey is something serious, which I respect ; but writing the article like that just makes him/her look silly. I don't think we want that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the actions for which Manning is famous (the leak, arrest, detention, trial) were carried out as "Bradley Manning". Manning's actions as "Chelsea Manning" have not eclipsed these. McPhail (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Wikipedia's actual clients -- you know, general readers not familiar wp-this and wp-that -- are going to expect to find an article on the name that's been in the news for months. During the notable part of the person's life they were know as Bradley so that's what the article should be titled. NE Ent 01:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's actual clients are going to find this article no matter which title they search on, because the redirect from her former name means they'll still get here anyway. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. However it's still interesting to look at what people are searching for: Bradley Manning vs Chelsea Manning Even with the front page ITN linking to Chelsea Manning, people are still using the Bradley search term more often by a significant magnitude. It might be something to look into a bit - perhaps it might represent what the majority still currently believe his name is? Before we make crystal ball predictions on whether this current trend may change, keep in mind that we make decisions based on the present, and not for the future. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects: Cheap, easy, free. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IDENTITY

For all those citing MOS:IDENTITY, that guideline relates to the content of the article not the the title of the article. This discussion is a move discussion. It relates solely to the title of the article, NOT the content of the article. The relevant policy page for this discussion is Wikipedia:Article titles.

I cannot even begin to imagine why people are citing WP:BLP. There are no BLP concerns affecting this discussion from what I can see.

--RA (✍) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general principle of BLP is that we have to have respect for individuals when we're smearing their names across the internet. I think it's misapplied here since we're confusing the reader to aggressively support the person's decisions, and that goes well beyond the dispassionate but polite concern expected for a Wikipedia article. Even if the policy says nothing specifically, the sense of the policy is correctly applied when being careful about how we talk about living people. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I think it's being applied correctly--even if Octamom is the most common name, we don't have an article by that name for a reason... Hobit (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, we have no need to look to BLP. Policy on article titles like Octomom is given in Wikipedia:Article titles (explicitly in that case). A title like "Bradley Manning" is not akin to "Octomom". Yesterday, there was no ambiguity about this person's name - or any sense that it may have carried offence. It was simply "Bradley Manning". Today, they asked to be called something else. We can mention that but we don't have to rename the article because of it. --RA (✍) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*.92, you raise a good point. I find something upsetting in the way the article was so aggressively altered and moved on the back of Manning's statement. It doesn't matter if the article is a little behind the latest tattle. We should be more sensitive before jumping and move with a greater degree of care on BLPs (where there is no urgent need for modification). --RA (✍) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is one of more than 6,000,000,000 people, he is just as special as everyone else. If he wanted to change his name to 'Barak Obama' we would not be having this discussion, the page would remain his legal name of Bradley Manning. VictusB (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define what you mean by "respect". It certainly doesn't, even as a general principle, mean that articles should only contain information that the living person would choose to have in the article. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to a trans woman using male-gendered names and and pronouns, including the title of the article, is deeply offensive and harmful. BLP asks us to consider harm to living subjects. I can think of few things more harmful to a subject than disrespecting their identification on deeply personal characteristics like gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. --Trystan (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emotional distress on the part of the subject is trumped by Wikipedia's mission to provide information in the easiest way possible to the largest number of people. The vast majority of the sources for the article refer to the subject as Bradley Manning, the vast majority of the pages that link to this article use the name Bradley Manning, and the vast majority of users of Wikipedia who look for this article know the person as Bradley Manning. Given that this is the person's current legal name and is not an inherently derogatory name, Manning's feelings on the matter are not enough to justify changing the name to Chelsea Manning. Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is profoundly degrading to transgender persons to refer to them using gender-inappropriate names and pronouns when they have expressed a clear preference to be addressed according to their gender identity. The harm from disrespecting gender identity is profund and can not be reduced to mere hurt feelings.--Trystan (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is profoundly disrespectful. I think that brings WP:BLP into this. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One would expect the title of an article to be consistent of its contents. Wikipedia:Article titles also states that the naming guidelines should be used be interpreted in conjunction with other policies Vexorian (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline and not policy, policies outweigh guidelines on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly in the section below on punctuation, applies to all parts of an article, including the title.

This would mean that MOS:IDENTITY applies to the article title. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS does indeed apply to the styling of all parts of the article, including the title. What it doesn't apply to is the substance of the title, that's what the naming policy is for. That being said, I think the more relevant point is that the MOS indisputably requires the article to use only feminine pronouns, and doing so is incongruent with an article title of "Bradley". (I also personally think more generally that there are other reasons, not relating to the MOS specifically, that the article should be under "Chelsea", but that's a different discussion.) AgnosticAphid talk 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it can be safely said that there is ten times more input on this particular article than there has EVER been to MOS:IDENTITY. The MOS can be changed; it should not be used as weight in this decision... and I won't even get into the fact that it was crafted by the LGBT wikiproject and obviously reflects their viewpoint. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To defend the MOS from your untoward suggestion – which you did make – that it somehow reflects only the interests of a biased cabal, I'd like to point out that every style manual that I've seen, if not every style guide that addresses the use of pronouns for transgender individuals, requires the use of a pronoun corresponding with the subject's chosen identity. The MOS is based on other style guides, not the whims of editors as informed by their views on matters of identity politics. You should go to the MOS talk page if you want to change the MOS. Until it does change, this article must use feminine pronouns and the extent to which that requirement affects the choice of title is a legitimate question. AgnosticAphid talk 15:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the close

Just noting here that I've asked on WP:AN/RFC [5] and WP:AN/I [6] for an admin to close this who has had no prior involvement with the page. Hopefully that will make the close as uncontentious as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity

Is Bradley legally a female or male? In the article United States v. Manning Bradley prefers to be known as a female, Chelsea Manning, so it seems Bradley is a male, but like to be refered to as a female, so should we refer to Bradley as a male of female in this and the United States v. Manning? Casey.Grim85 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley's legal status is actually irrelevant. The style guide states Wikipedia should refer to Manning using female pronouns. —me_and 17:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, there is debate as to what "The style guide" says, and how it applies, you should go read the debate yourself if you are truly interested. Many people are arguing that MOS:IDENTITY dosn't really apply in this case. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I was just wondering it all! Casey.Grim85 18:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it logical to refer to a person who is currently biologically male as "she", regardless of how they perceive themselves? Would this same rule apply to transvestites, who are generally referred to using the pronoun "he"? I think it would make more sense to use the term "he" until the time that he actually undergoes surgical procedures to make him a female; only after that point will it make sense to use the term "she". (Cf. Wendy Carlos, one of the more famous examples of gender-reassigned persons.) Otherwise, it's just confusing to the average reader at present. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are plenty of trans-women who still have male sexual organs, but consider themselves "women". Gender != biology. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no single identifier that makes a "biological female". Whatever identifier you use will exclude many women and include many men (and the opposite for "biological male"). Biology is not perfect. --Dee Earley (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He will serve his sentence in United States Disciplinary Barracks, which is a male prison. So in the eyes of the law he is definitely a man. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the United States, and we don't have to describe people only in terms of their relation to US law. A trans person does not detransition just because they move to a jurisdiction with inadequate legal provision for transition. Legal recognition, like surgery, is typically quite a late stage of transition. One must typically identify and live as one's chosen gender for some time before either becomes available. And let's not lose sight of the fact that Manning's access to female socialization, and to HRT, are artificially restricted by her status as a US federal prisoner. She's done about the only thing she currently can to signal to the world that this is her identity. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Wikipedia would dissolve a gay marriage just because the couple moved to "a jurisdiction with inadequate legal provision" but I believe there would still be the expectation that if there was a gay marriage then there had to have been a prior legally recognized marriage SOMEWHERE. If Manning is legally recognized as female in Canada that would likely satisfy most people currently objecting. I believe you are confusing is and ought with respect to Manning's confinement. Whatever ought to be the case, if it IS the case that there not only is not but cannot be any legal recognition this is relevant to whether the dispute between the subject and his society as to how he or she should be perceived should be resolved in the favour of the subject.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning's gender is female. She has clearly stated this. Her biological sex does not reflect her gender, but that does not change the fact that her gender is female. The pronouns we use should reflect gender, not sex; so yes, it does make sense to refer to Manning as "she". 86.16.146.123 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning is male. He might decide that he "identifies with" a oblique Vulcan transhuman tomale, but that doesn't make it true. Kotowing to the latest politically correct fad impresses very few and does little for wikipedias already shaky credibility.

And throwing in your biased opinion without even signing your name does absolutely nothing for your credibility whatsoever. As such, we're quite in our rights to ignore your post completely until you learn how to use the signature. Like so: Blackbird_4 11:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would any female allow Manning to use the women’s locker room at the local swimming pool, fitness centre, or public toilet? I doubt any typical female would be comfortable sharing facilities with Manning, would they? If females don’t accept Manning as female, then the name change is absurd. If women don't accept Manning as female nor let "her" use/share their facilities, then end of story. --BrianJ34 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. That's not how gender identity works. California just passed a law allowing transgender children to choose which restroom they use in public schools. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think my young brother switched his gender a few times... then he grew up. What a stupid premise. "I'm a girl today. Tomorrow I'm gonna be a dinosaur."

So, I can just choose my gender by making a public statement? "Hey everybody, I'm female today!" What if Manning decided to issue a public statement every day at sunrise, toggling his gender each time. Would we have to retitle the article and change all the pronouns on a daily basis? It seems to me that determining someone's gender by asking them is not terribly scientific. Let's put the question this way: If we got a panel of physicians or biologists to examine Manning, would they conclude that he is male or female? ‑Scottywong| spout _ 14:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they'd decline the request as stupid. Formerip (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As and when Manning does toggle her gender in that way we can have that discussion; at the moment I don't think we need to consider that. FormerIP, there have been numerous levelheaded requests for people to keep hold of their emotions even in face of a flood of repetitive contributions, and those requesters are right - would you mind avoiding describing people's contributions as "stupid", and give detail as to why? 7daysahead (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Support" comments riddled with transphobic commentary

Please keep the discussion ontopic w.r.t. the page name and proper pronouns to use. Accusations of editor misbehavior belong elsewhere. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The comments in support of moving the article on the individual who self-identifies as Chelsea Manning to her former name in the above survey are riddled with transphobic hate commentary (e.g. "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog"), that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, such as MOS:IDENTITY, and that should be completely discarded. As someone said, the move was a straightforward application of Wikipedia policy such as MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP, WP:RS and other relevant policies, and there is really nothing to discuss. There is no way this article is going to be moved anywhere. Filling this talk page with hate commntary and transphobia also violates WP:BLP, which also applies on talk pages. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last I knew, Wikipedia policy applications were on a consensus basis, not the decision of one editor or even a group of editors. The move decision has not yet been made so there is plenty to discuss.Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, I am deeply troubled by the idea of factoring visibly transphobic reasoning into any decision. The comments that are various forms of "but I reject trans identities" are problematic on several levels. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the sole stated rationale for moving back to Bradley Manning is that the voter does not like transgendered people, I tend to agree that that vote should be ignored, as it's a nonsensical rationale. However, if there is rational argument mixed in with bigotry, the rational argument should not be ignored -- even bigots can have good points once you filter out the bigotry. The implication by many opposing the move that anyone supporting the move is transphobic ipso facto is not helpful either. Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" doesn't overrule policy, and especially not BLP. Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people who completely ignore Wikipedia policy. We don't move articles because some people hate transgendered people, it's that simple. Josh Gorand (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some of us, though I only speak for myself, really do not put any weight or credence in this sort of gender-bending stuff. Not every person on the planet subscribes to a liberal/progressive ideology, and I know it may ruffle your feathers but being conservative-minded is not thoughtcrime nor is it a disease or a mental disorder; our beliefs and ideology are just as soundly held as yours are. This guy is "Bradley Manning", a man and a male, both sex and gender. Period. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe y'know. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to that belief, and to your apparent belief that Manning is comparable to various farm animals. This does not, however, mean that Wikipedia policy should be influenced by the rejection of trans identities. We decided to take trans identities seriously a long time ago. Challenge that if you like, but the challenge is to existing policy, not to this specific article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying you don't put any weight or credence in the theory of gravity. Your political leanings don't and shouldn't influence observable fact. Countered (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ad hominem bullshit responses, how surprising. WP:Article titles, a policy page that trumps MOS:IDENTITY is in my favor, however. Tarc (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PA is not; denouncing people by referring to their "bullshit responses" is unacceptable no matter the situation and not a great way for you to remain a part of this project. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Article titles stresses that one ought consider post-renaming consensus, which is currently mixed and capable of supporting either viewpoint. There are many policies in play here, and trying to think of them in terms of which one reigns supreme is difficult at best. But the discussion here, at least, is about our policies as they are, not about trying to change them to fit someone's personal POV on trans issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, say you get married and you change your name? Should articles about you be kept in the old name? Many places don't have any concept of a legal name, it's purely what you want to be known as. Ignoring that is just rude. --Dee Earley (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Gorand: I'd appreciate you not repeatedly labeling those who don't agree with you as "transphobic". If you have an issue with certain editors, feel free to discuss the matter with them individually. But broadly declaring those who support the return back to Bradley Manning as intolerant and prejudiced is unjustified, insulting, and unproductive. Most of the supporters of this move have cited various applicable policies and refrained from resorting to attacks on the subject's chosen identity. What you feel is a "straightforward application of Wikipedia policy" is not so to others; please respect that your opinion is not the only one. -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Gorand: People are coming up with examples of when it must be allowed that the community plays a role in how an individual is identified. If one's subjective experience of oneself can trump any and all contrary objective presentation this can lead to absurd results, and people are merely pointing that out.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This IDENTITY thing is, and undoubtedly will be for some time to come, just wishful thinking. It is too weak in this case’s stage. If the change were from Manning to ‘Womanning’, now that would have been a different story… Alandeus (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh Gorand: I don't see how having a different opinion to a loud minority makes me the big bad boogeymonster. Should a cis scum like me have to check my cis privilege, simply because I have an certain opinion? I don't see how I have done anything wrong; last time I checked, my civil liberties were something that were guaranteed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for demonstrating why comments by people like yourself need to be ignored in the decision making process, and for providing a fine example of what I and several other editors have now pointed out ("Should a cis scum like me have to check my cis privilege"). In fact, I see extremely few "support" comments that are policy based, as the current title is the only acceptable title per Wikipedia policy for the reasons pointed out, eg., by Sue Gardner in this discussion. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And "oppose" arguments aren't often based on emotions and feelings? Also, you can ad hominem all you like and ignore any of my points, but in the end it only makes you more unreasonable and stubborn. You seem pretty keen, after all, in trying to avoid any criticism that other people bring to you. The world isn't a walled garden where only things you like exist - people with different opinions do exist, and it's foolish how you are forcing everybody to ignore those who think differently. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS is only a guideline. WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Policies always trump guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bigotry, Knowing and Otherwise

I would like to point out that an alarming number of comments in this discussion are upsettingly dismissive of trans people. Comments that equate being trans to declaring one's self some other species or fictional concept abound, as does a focus on legal names that, while presumably well-meaning, demonstrate a painful lack of awareness of the realities of gender transitions and gender identity.

I would respectfully ask that whoever ends up making the final decision on this - and I don't envy you in the least - dismiss these comments entirely. Reasoning motivated by transphobia, whether borne of genuine ignorance or active malice, has no place in the decision-making of this project. While my view is straightforward - the issue of how to handle trans people's identities was settled ages ago, and relitigating it as part of a large and heated political issue is unwise - I would ask that whatever criteria this issue is ultimately decided on, arguments based on ignorance and bigotry not be given any serious consideration. The underlying principles to consider are existing policy - the Manual of Style, our sourcing policies, our policies regarding respect for living people, and whatever other policies that existed before August 22nd, 2013 are relevant.

Efforts to alter those policies on this talk page are inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful your comments aren't otherkin-phobic themselves. In my opinion, the issues of name and pronouns have gotten mixed up. The article name issue is not really about whether Manning is male or female, but about whether Manning is "Bradley" or "Chelsea". Having said that, I appreciate that for many transgender people, the change of name is an important thing. StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to congratulate Manning on successfully trolling Wikipedia, mass media, and even own supporters at http://www.bradleymanning.org/ --Niemti (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query over renaming of the article

Please stop creating new sections. there is an active RM discussion above, please add your thoughts there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know that Manning (I won't use the forename, for reasons to become obvious) wishes to become female, but I don't think we should rename the article yet, since:

1) He has not undergone gender reassignment therapy, and it's unlikely he will do any time soon, since I read and heard that such therapy wasn't available in army facilities 2) He does not wish to be known as a female in official correspondence - see here: "I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility).

Until such time as he has officially become a female, and instructed that he be addressed as "she" in EVERYTHING he does or that involves him, I think that renaming the article "Chelsea Manning" is unwarranted, and I beg to move that the article be reverted to "Bradley Manning".

I support this contention by stating that "Chelsea Manning" does not appear in search results - one must search "Bradley Manning", at which point there is an automatic redirect to the article. Further, Wikipedia's "in the news" section states "(legally Bradley Manning)" when referring to him. --The Historian (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that today's declaration was not a legally valid change of name? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you starting a new section, instead of contributing to the current discussion at Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the USA, legal name changes are made by the courts upon petition by the subject of the proposed name change. You can call yourself anything you want, but a legal name change (other than taking the "husband's" last name) is done by the courts (and in marriage, that's the State instead of a court.) For example, I call myself HTom, but that is not my legal name. htom (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of that matters to the advocate-admins who have hijacked the page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet look at the names of many of our articles: Thomas James Gabel, Brian Hugh Warner, and Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr., to name a few... I'm not sure where this sudden insurgence of "article name must match legal name" is coming from, but neither policy nor precedent supports it. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those names were announced by a lawyer the day after their client was convicted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How are entertainers' stage names relevant to the whims of a convicted criminal? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are the names by which they wish to be known, and they are names that came quickly to my mind. Would Vincenzo D'Ambrosio, Charles Arthur Floyd, or Alvin Clarence Thomas be more convincing? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Arthur Floyd never referred to himself as Pretty Boy Floyd, and indeed hated that nickname, which proves the pro-Bradley side's point: Wikipedia does not respect people's choice of names in other articles, so why start now? Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has always respected them (AFAIK) with regards to trans people; such issues are not on the same level as nicknames and are much more sensitive. As Manning is now probably the most high-profile trans person in the world, Wikipedia should be more vigilant towards these issues, not less. Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that Charles Floyd was at least as emotionally upset by being called "Pretty Boy" as Manning will ever be when called "Bradley". Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're a very good gauge for the emotions of a gangster (without gender or mental health issues) who's been dead eighty years. He's not covered by libel laws, I don't think, either. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page should be Bradley Manning until he LEGALLY changes his name to Chelsea. The current page is inaccurate IMO. I suppose you could edit his name so that it says Bradley "Chelsea" Manning though.
I have admittedly not actively edited the project in a while, but did we pass some policy that means that convicted criminals get different treatment than other people while I wasn't looking? If not, Baseball Bugs's harping on this point seems spectacularly irrelevant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Past precedent

For the record, what we did in previous and less politically charged cases:

  • Chaz Bono - announced transition on June 11th, article was moved the same day. Surgery was not completed at that time, and the change was made based on his publicist's reports of his preferred identity.
  • Lana Wachowski - Edit warred over the course of a year, but changed in December of 2011, months before Lana's first public appearance as a woman.
  • Laura Jane Grace - Announced plans to transition in May of 2012. Article was only touched by one editor for several weeks, who opposed moving. Consensus quickly formed to move the article, and it was done within a month of transition with only the original editor objecting.

Those are the three people I can think of who made transitions after they were already notable enough for articles. In all cases the article was moved quickly, prior to surgery, and upon the public announcement of a gender transition. Precedent, of course, is not binding, but it seems to me helpful to consider what we did in less politically charged circumstances. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that there were far fewer eyes on those articles, so the renaming slipped by. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There are lots of possibilities, and as I said, precedent isn't binding. That said, the fact that this is tied to a contentious political issue is a reason to be cautious about the attention this one is getting. In many ways I trust the project's judgment more when there isn't a huge crowd gawking at a topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, my arguments for the page being at Bradley Manning have absolutely nothing to do with her not having transitioned yet, or the name change not being "official" or whatever. The situation is simply whether she is better known as Bradley or Chelsea at this moment in time. U-Mos (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion from reddit

I was wondering why I saw so many usernames I've seen in the past involved with edit wars and this is why - there has been three separate links on reddit to communities vested in seeing this page reverted to its original name. While new users are encouraged, this very vote seems to be a form of vandalism perpetrated by a much larger community of users disinterested in the way wikipedia works. It also begs the question as to whether consensus can be reached with so much outside influence. This is actually a fight that's existed on reddit for quite some time - whether gender can be self identified or not. There is a large group of people on reddit who would like nothing better than to tell the rest of the world what they can and can not do with their own self identification. Outside of giving a rundown on the complexities of gender in relation to biological function, and the system in place created to give gender "meaning", I don't think this argument should be on whether gender identity is "real" or not - and that's what this vote has actually become, a way for people on all sides of the issue to soapbox on whether or not they think a person can change their gender identification. This vote is in my mind a farce, and in no way represents the method in which wikipedia reaches consensus. Honestly, outside of the fact that I personally see this fight as an affront to a group of people that have to struggle to maintain their personal identities every day, and outside of the lack of knowledge when it comes to how gender identity works, I am appalled at what a shitshow this has become. Countered (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the Reddit thread/posts in question? Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  http://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/1kw14d/a_wikipedia_edit_war_has_started_brace_yourselves
  http://www.reddit.com/r/sjsucks/comments/1kwdp1/the_sjws_are_having_a_field_day_on_bradley/
  http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/1kvria/i_was_browsing_the_wikipedia_page_of_chelsea/
  http://www.reddit.com/r/editwars/comments/1kw0s2/chelsea_manning_vs_bradley_manning/
  http://www.reddit.com/r/TransphobiaProject/comments/1kx9ji/wikipedians_sure_are_mad_that_bradley_manning_got/
The /r/wikipedia page alone has more than enough votes to have completely shifted the vote on whether or not the name should be changed, and it's clear from the comments which they support. Countered (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue. None of those links are particularly popular (by Reddit standards), the wordings of the link text are neutral, and the discussion on Reddit is two-sided. On the /r/wikipedia page, there seems to be a slight preference for Bradley, but, so what? No one, anywhere, is telling people to vote in the RM discussion (I don't even think it's linked directly), and those few who do/did come here have every right to participate. Considering this talk page is now semi-protected, I doubt this is having much of an effect. -- tariqabjotu 07:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your point of view has been supported by the influx of reddit users, of course you don't mind it. Regardless of which way they are swaying it - they are swaying it none-the-less. If they had been supporting my point of view, I would (and have) linked to their posts (see the last post I linked). Countered (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is a high profile and immediate issue in American history so hardly surprising editors would show here to opine. People care more about individuals who have had an effect on history, as opposed to celebrities or musicians. If Bill Clinton decided he was the female Clarissa Clinton would we automatically change that article's title and call Clinton a "she" when it was alleged he was raping and assaulting women? Not unless his defense at the time was he really was a woman so how could he have done so, which of course was not his defense. User:Carolmooredc 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith; I responded the way I did because that's how I assessed the situation, not because that served my position. I similarly did not accuse you of bringing this up because you want supporting remarks discounted (which is an easy accusation to make). You have no evidence that Reddit has been funneling lots of traffic here, other than "so many usernames I've seen in the past involved with edit wars". I don't follow how that shows an influx of Redditors. And, as you even admit, there are posts that also promote the Chelsea Manning title... so I don't see what the problem is. As I said, most of the posts are worded neutrally, and there are Redditors with a variety of positions, even in the most popular of the posts you linked; in fact, the top-rated comment here that expresses an opinion is rather tame, and sparks a remarkably decent debate about the title that doesn't devolve into the patent soapboxing and prejudice you fear. -- tariqabjotu 13:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect in the belief that influx of users via a third party campaign will help your position. Quite the contrary, the views of new users recruited to support a particular POV will be ignored, and not help their cause at all. I see very few support posts worded "neutrally", but tons of posts with what User:Surtsicna above called "pure, policy-unrelated bigotry." I think this discussion was finally settled by Sue Gardner's comment, there can be no reasonable doubt as to what Wikipedia policy dictates. This talk page is not the right venue for proposing changes to Wikipedia policy. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment had nothing to do with what I said. I, for example, never argued that a third-party campaign helps my position. And I would never say that. Believe it or not, I would like this to be settled by consensus, fair and square. I don't care if this article stays at Chelsea Manning; that outcome would have zero effect on my life, and I understand there are acceptable reasons to do so (now and/or as time goes on). You don't seem to understand this, but discussions on Wikipedia are not wars or battles to be won. They're attempts to find out what we should do about a particular issue, given our vast number of guidelines and policies. And, despite your insistence that this is a black-and-white issue, where "there can be no reasonable doubt as to what Wikipedia policy dictates", there remains enough ambiguity in our set of policies and guidelines that reasonable people may still have disagreements. As has been pointed out a number of times, your eagerness to resort to labels and attacks on, and condescension toward, those who disagree with you is extremely unhelpful. -- tariqabjotu 15:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per my new subsection below, it would help if people mentioned what Wikiprojects they mentioned it to on Wikipedia itself. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing an article based on a subject's "personal preferences" or "self-identification" seems a weak argument, and possibly a dangerous precedent. I wonder, if a politician changed from being a Republican to a Democrat would we refer to them as a Democrat during the period in which they were a Republican? If a white person self-identifies as black or Native-American should Wikipedia do so? Chris Fynn (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion

Early close

Let's drop this. The admin shepherding this discussion has stated it will last 7 days, so I think we should leave it at that. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

... suggested at ANI. --RA (✍) 01:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denied, as we are treating this process no differently from any other move request. This is hardly the most contentious discussion that Wikipedia has experienced. bd2412 T 02:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:TITLECHANGES? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: wonderful. I'm all for that. Let's treat this process no differently. For a start let's follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page."
That was done but it was moved again to Chelsea Manning without discussion citing unstated BLP issues. So, for a start, let's get it back to Bradley Manning and conduct this move request "no differently from any other move request". --RA (✍) 08:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have seem too many move requests like this, why bother having a policy when it's not used? Then again the process would just begin again with people wanting to change it to Chelsea Manning so the admin are looking at it like this is redundant? Yes it may be but keeping it the way it is without having consensus in the first place for Chelsea just kind of seems wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now a days people flout the voluntarily imposed rules and few seem willing to stand up for them. Thus the bad editors drive out the good. User:Carolmooredc 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear, the page was moved back and forth several times, and then move-locked prior to my volunteering to oversee the discussion. That was a decision of another administrator, and one that I do not believe I can address without a consensus; however, it would be redundant to seek consensus on a title change for the duration of a discussion seeking a title change. No matter what title the page is at for the next few days, a large contingent will be unhappy about it, but in the long run it is the outcome that matters, not the location of the page while that outcome is decided. bd2412 T 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, I think the discussion is veering in so many different (and sometimes contradictory) directions because of the fact that the page "wound up" at a title that was not the original title. As such, the move request I initiated is to revert back to the original name.. but this would simply be followed by a move request to the new name. So there are two completely different threads to the move request discussion: (1) should the article be moved back to its original title -- in the short term? and (2) what should the article eventually be called -- in the long term? I find it difficult to have a productive discussion when the debate is at such cross purposes. I believe very strongly that the article should have "wound up" at its original title so we can have one single move discussion to the new name, and so people (including myself) weren't frustrated at the fact that the page "wound up" at the new name without consensus. I don't see eye to eye with you on the idea that "in the long run it is the outcome that matters, not the location of the page while that outcome is decided"; in fact, I think moving this page to the new title has skewed the discussion by setting the new name as the de facto standard. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of policy, specifically of WP:BRD and WP:RM, is that the discussion must be considered in light of the title as it was prior to any contested moves being made. bd2412 T 15:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...what should the article eventually be called -- in the long term?" I think this is the significant question about this whole debacle. The move to Chelsea Manning was so premature that it comes before reliable sources and readers have the opportunity to catch up with Manning's announcement. Even if the result of this RM is to return to Bradley Manning, one held in the future (even next week, if RS catch up) might be different.
But what are we to do? We can't look into our crystal balls today and second guess what sources are going to say next week. Neither can we run straight from one divisive RM in one direction to another. So just as the article now finds itself locked at Chelsea Manning when consensus is otherwise. Next week it might find itself locked at Bradley Manning when consensus is otherwise.
The more philosophically minded might also want to consider how the move here, that came ahead of a change in reliable sources, may affect how RS handle the question. Not how to write an encyclopaedia.
The best thing we can do is move the article back now and continue discussion on Bradley vs. Chelsea, as should have been done yesterday. --RA (✍) 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason that this is such a contentious deliberation is that proper procedure was not followed in the first instance. The solution is not to make the same error in the last instance; the solution is to right the ship by letting this discussion run its course. bd2412 T 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My argument above is (to continue your metaphor) that the ship has been put off course. The solution is not to continue off course for 7 days. We right it now by returning to our previous course. Then we discuss what our heading should be. --RA (✍) 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed this is improper, why does this have to lag on for 7 days? When there is a move war I have seen it in the past where the admin revert it to it's pervous state per policy why is this any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand BD2412's call to not move it back during the discussion, I now think there is an argument to be made for closing this early. This isn't going to be a snow one way or the other, and there aren't many new arguments being brought forth. I think an announcement of a closing in 24 hours could be made, then shut down the discussion, make a call. Then we could say, no matter what happens, an additional RM could be put forth in two week's time, at which point there will be sufficient settlement in the media for us to determine commonNAME and other issues more clearly. For now it's muddled, and waiting another 4 days probably won't fix it - so take what we've got, close it early, and then let another RM happen in the near future.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think early close solves problems. Three of you (Obi-Wan, RA, and Knowledgekid) want the move request closed right now. However, amount of votes aren't slowing down at this time. Oh yes, arguments aren't that new, votes are humongous, and rules used to support their argument are vague... Whatever! Also, we are still awaiting more news about this... person. But closing early won't help matters. I'll find the prior version about "him", which is what I find a stable version. --George Ho (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I have been asked both for early closure, and to extend the discussion by extra days. I see no reason to invite controversy by deviating from our standard seven day RM discussion period. bd2412 T 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:COMMONAME

WP:COMMONNAME says that when a name changes, "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". Hence most support votes above are premature and ignorant of what the text actually says since its too early to notice a trend. Therefore, when editors use this argument I hope they search properly by counting search returns dating from after the name-change announcement. Any admin closure should take al this into account and disregard any votes which count pre-transition announcement sources. Pass a Method talk 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the post alluding to 270 odd recent mentions of "Chelsea Manning" so opining here. Obviously this is big news this week and there will be 270 returns. However, what matters is what Manning is being called a month from now (with this and next week filtered out) and six months from now, and in books to be written in the future. Not to mention if Manning in fact sticks with that name, having changed it once before, or adopts another. User:Carolmooredc 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. The article was moved within minutes of the announcement of the new name, so there were no sources to support the idea that sources call the subject Chelsea. We've seen a number of sources use the name in the context of the gender identity switch, but we're still left with inconsistent information about the use of the name in standard articles. As this article from the USA Today shows, the media has not had the seismic shift some people have prophesied. Among the sources that apparently have not switched over to Chelsea Manning (at least yet) are Reuters, BBC News, The New York Times, CBS News. -- tariqabjotu 03:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article refers this person as "she" because the editors did so. The content may be changed again into "he". By the way, you might want to refrain from calling votes "premature and ignorant" just because of content changes and of people's views about name change. --George Ho (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "Chelsea Manning" has had 36,000 views yesterday while "Bradley Manning" had 16,000. So "Chelsea Manning" is twice as popular as "Bradley Manning". So if we go by popularity on wikipedia, Chelsea would be the obvious choice. Pass a Method talk 14:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because Bradley Manning redirects to Chelsea Manning, only 20,000 of those 36,000 views came directly to Chelsea Manning without going through Bradley Manning. It's impossible to say what the source of that difference is. Perhaps it's because people looking for information about this subject are more likely to search for or type in "Chelsea Manning".
However, it's also possible the difference is influenced by the fact that several articles in the media (as listed at the top of this page) link to Chelsea Manning. It could be because there are a number of people involved on this talk page and various discussions about the naming issue repeatedly looking at the article Chelsea Manning (myself included), which would not require me to go via Bradley Manning (remember, these are individual, not unique, views we're talking about). Perhaps it's because the Main Page links directly to Chelsea Manning. Or perhaps it's because people have heard the name "Chelsea Manning" in the news and have decided to search for that, even though when looking for information on this person they would otherwise search for "Bradley Manning". We just don't know, and I don't think we can read too much into these figures with all the publicity at the moment.
From the Stats FAQ, "I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats." -- tariqabjotu 15:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikiprojects that have been alerted

I don't see any mention of this, per WP:Canvass. I looked in a couple likely places and found below. Perhaps people could share if they posted it anywhere so that others can decide if they want to post it on other relevant projects. Feel free to add to list below. User:Carolmooredc 16:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References to Manning in sources

Sue Gardner mentioned several sources supposedly switching over to Manning's new name. However, they appeared to be mostly blogs and viewpoints that people should accept and use Manning's chosen name. As I said in response to her, it seems better to look at how sources actually refer to Manning in ordinary stories and articles, particularly outside of the announcement of Manning's new identity. (Doing that, we see a direct contradiction to the wishes of the New York Times' public editor, for example, as explained here.) So, I've begun compiling a list; feel free to add to it. (I must say that, at the current time, it is very difficult to find sources from after the announcement that refer to Manning in a context other than the announcement itself, so I hope that, at least over time, this can grow.) -- tariqabjotu 16:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using Bradley
  • The Independent (dated August 23): "It came just days after a judge at Fort Meade, in Maryland, sentenced Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison [...]"
  • The New York Times (dated August 22 online, August 23 in print): "[...] just as the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning included charges [...]"
  • Reuters (dated August 23): "U.S. soldier Bradley Manning, who was sentenced on Wednesday [...]"
  • BBC (dated August 22 afternoon): "Profile: Bradley Manning"
  • AP (dated August 24): "Insider threats have troubled the administration and Congress, particularly in the wake of Bradley Manning [...]"


Using Chelsea
  • The Huffington Post (dated August 24): "Americans have reached no consensus on the fairness of the prison sentence given to Chelsea Manning"

Re-posting what I said above in the other section about the usages I found... (reorganized a bit to match what tariqabjotu did.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using Bradley
  • CNN's video " (dated August 22) [...] CNN will continue to refer to him as Bradley Manning since he has not yet legally changed his name [...]"
  • Margaret Sullivan's blog, while talking about why the media should change, linked to the New York Times Manual of Styles which has provision to keep a newsworthy name against the subject's wish (Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns (he, his, she, her, hers) preferred by the transgender person - original emphasis removed)
  • Reuters (dated August 23) "Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier sentenced this week for leaking 700,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks in the biggest breach of secret data in the country's history, could soon be entangled in another legal showdown [...]" (the rest of article only uses Manning, and apart from stating Manning's wish to live as Chelsea, has no mention of either of the first names)
  • ABC News (dated August 22) "[...] Military officials say Bradley Manning has returned to a prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., to serve his 35-year prison sentence for giving mountains of classified material to WikiLeaks [...]" (also mentions Manning's wish to live as Chelsea)
  • CBS News (dated August 23) title: "Bradley Manning identifies as transgender: Transitioning explained"
Using Chelsea

I think it's best if it gets summed up by this USA Today article: Media torn in Manning 'he' or 'she' pronoun debate

WP:BLP Issue

I have seen the issue of WP:BLP pop up time and time again in the move discussion so I want to know is it valid to say that the article's title move violates WP:BLP? If so where does it state this or if not where do people see it as saying it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please move subpages along with article

2 edit conflicts made me decide to make a subsection. This is just a quick FYI, there are a LOT of sub-pages attached to this article and I just moved all the ones I could find. IF you decide to move again, please make sure that all the relevant pages are attached. Thank you, Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Somebody seems to have done this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromising the facts for political correctness

Why is Wikipedia referring to a biological male who identified as a male for the periods of time which are most relevant to the article as a female throughout? "Chelsea" was a boy when he was born, he was a boy throughout school, he was a man when he served in the army, he was a man when he did the leaks, he was a man when he was arrested, he was a man for much of his stay in prison.

We should not rewrite her past because she prefers to be seen as a woman now. Wikipedia should not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of political correctness. I think that we should refer to Chelsea as Bradley during the periods which she was named Bradley, and we should use the appropriate pronouns when we do so.

Let me list some examples of where political correctness results in things not making sense:

"Manning was regarded as small for her age – as an adult, she reached just 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed 105 lb (47.6 kg) " As someone brought up before, small for a man -- but not so much as a woman. Understanding that she was small while identifying as male helps give insight into her life while she lived as a man.

"Manning was by then living as an openly gay man. Her relationship with her father was apparently good" Why are we misgendering a gay man?

"She gave an anonymous interview to a high-school reporter during a rally in Syracuse in support of gay marriage ..." Women do not get kicked out of their homes and lose their jobs for wanting to marry men.

These are just a few situations where misgendering Bradley can lead to misunderstandings. I understand why people wish to respect Chelsea's recent transition, but we should not treat her transition as if it took place retroactively. I believe that we should refer to Chelsea as Bradley and use the male pronoun following the introduction up until the section "Gender reassignment".

Am I a massive trans-hating bigot, or am I raising a fair point?

24.22.47.95 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does this because Wikipedia's style guide says we should. —me_and 17:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem. Per WP:IAR we should do precisely what the IP suggests immediately. jj (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing rules override any "style guide" wikipedians have invented. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to bring the same idea. Per WP:PG, policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Currently Manning is both legally and biologically male since, to my knowledge, his identity document and other official documents refer to him as a male. The present state of the article is indeed confusing. Brandmeistertalk 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement is nothing more than part of the attorney's negotation process for the appeal. This PC-driven move lowers wikipedia's credibility even further (if that's possible). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very difficult to reconcile your use of the phrase "PC-driven" with an assumption of good faith. Morwen (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your throwing around the term "transphobic" destroys your "good faith" argument. This story is nothing more than a lawyer's negotiation tactic, and you all have swallowed the bait, making wikipedia look even more stupid than it already does. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Women don't get kicked out of their homes for loving men, but trans women get kicked out of their homes for being "gay" (i.e., people not respecting their gender identity and calling them gay for being male-bodied and being sexually interested in "other" men. this is a very common issue amongst the trans populace.) 71.90.172.117 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Manning did identify himself as a gay man at one point of his life: "Amidst the disintegration of his family, pubescent Brad was coming to terms with his own sexuality. [...] He also told his two best friends he was gay. [...] “I was kicked out of my home, and I once lost my job [because I am gay],” he told her". Source Now some ideologically motivated people are anachronistically trying to rewrite his entire personal history by using the pronoun "she" at all times of his life. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gender doesn't change over night. It is not the case that she was a man up until her announcement then suddenly became a woman. Her gender will have always been female, but it is only now that Manning became certain of her gender and that we have found out. 86.16.146.123 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads: "She will serve her time at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas in the United States Disciplinary Barracks." While the article on United States Disciplinary Barracks reads: "The USDB is the U.S. military's only maximum-security facility and houses male service members convicted at court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice"¨ By claiming that Manning is a "she", this article is essentially claiming that the USDB were a mixed-sex prison, which it is not... And anachronistically rewriting Manning's personal history so that all references are in the form of "she" or "her" seems kind of Orwellian: "We've always been at war with Eastasia"! This is insane. Political correctness shouldn't trump facts. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the historical rewrites, it makes the article really incoherent. I'm not sure why her declaration that she's a woman now should require changing past events when she wasn't a woman - there doesn't seem to be an issue in articles where people have just changed their names, they just use the identity that they had at the time they did stuff (e.g. Szmuel Gelbfisz was born in Warsaw, Samuel Goldfish was the Chairman of the board of Famous Players-Lasky, and Samuel Goldwyn started Goldwyn pictures) --Jeude54cartes (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a matter of perspective. I don't know Manning's particular story, but I do know that some trans people, say those born male, feel like "women" for much of their lives. So while we may say "Manning WAS a man when he was arrested", you don't know how Manning himself/herself felt at that point in time. So the revisionism is odd, but it does seem to hew a bit more closely in some cases to the actual inner identity of the person in question. --Obi-Wan Kenobi ([[User talk:::biwankenobi|talk]]) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another instance of 'political correctness' being used as justification to launch an ad hominem attack on editors acting in good faith. If you say 'politeness' or 'common courtesy' instead of 'political correctness', the complaint disappears. 'Political correctness' is simply emotive language, an I-don't-like-it objection dressed up as a real argument. If you've got something useful to say, say it - all you show by objecting to decency is that you are unkind. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The moment somebody trots out "you people are just adhering to political correctness" as their line of argument, I immediately know that they're not a person whose opinions I need to accord any respect or consideration at all, because it's not a real argument. "Political correctness" for its own sake is not a motivation that anybody adheres to; it's a pejorative way of dismissing other people's motivations as automatically invalid without actually making a substantive or reasoned argument for another position. This is a real issue that actually has real effects on the real life of real people — it is not just a meaningless abstraction that people are arguing about for "politically correct" reasons, and it is not a trivial discussion that people are robotically joining in because George Soros' Magic Laser Mind Control Beam told us to. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you think calling people "transphobic" (as you are doing below) is a real argument? It's not – it's a pejorative way of dismissing people, who disagree with you. A phobia is defined as an anxiety disorder based on irrational fear. Diagnoses on phobias are made by psychiatrists based on careful examination – they are not made anonymously on Wikipedia talk pages. If you read the examples given in the first comment in this subsection and the follow-ups to them, you will see that referring to Manning as a female throughout his life creates very real problems. The "considered to be small" thing is one example: Manning was considered small on the male scale (since he is male), yet the article insists on writing "small for her age" even there – even though nobody called Manning by the female pronoun at the time in question, and even though the height in question would not have been considered to be that small on the female scale (which, again, was not used, since no one considered him to be a female). --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transphobia is a real thing — and I didn't call anybody that either; saying that an argument is coming across as transphobic is not the same thing as saying that a person is transphobic. Maybe other people crossed that line; I did not. Political correctness is not a real thing. That's the difference. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia had better hope that the general public doesn't learn that this "debate" is going on here; the result would be the total discrediting of Wikipedia--facts are being tossed aside for the sake of Manning's emotional needs. Facts: Manning's legal name is Bradley, official paperwork continues to refer to him as male, he will be incarcerated in a male-only prison, and for the next 35 years he will not be seeing a gynecologist. There is simply no question as to his maleness--except in his own head--and there for no basis for invoking MOS:IDENTITY. Manning's emotional needs, important though they are, do not override facts. He should be referred to as Bradley Manning, and as a male, until the appropriate changes are actually made in official legal documentation. At best, "Chelsea Manning" can be regarded as something like a pseudonym. This isn't transphobia; this is common sense. 208.163.239.119 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In exactly the same way as it is almost entirely impossible to verify in reliable sources whether a transgender person is "pre-operative" or "post-operative" in regards to the surgery itself, it is very rarely ever properly verifiable in reliable sources whether their legal name change has or hasn't taken place: there are privacy laws preventing that information from becoming available on the public record at all. And for the same reasons that a trans person may not even be able to actually have the surgery in the first place, the legal name change may not be available to them either — not being able to afford it, not being old enough to be legally allowed to make their own consenting decisions about surgical or legal procedures, etc.
Many transgender people are unemployed or underemployed, for instance, because discrimination against them as trans people is sufficiently strong that they're not always able to keep a job, even if they're outstanding workers, just because people aren't willing to hire "freaks" — and because of this, a considerable number of them are forced to accept unsafe and/or low-paying jobs, or end up having to live on social assistance. And while some places cover the surgery under health insurance programs, many do not. So actually having the surgery, or filing the paperwork to have their name and documents legally changed, may be a luxury that not all trans people can actually afford right away.
It is, therefore, transphobic to insist that recognition and acceptance of a trans person's identity is or should be conditional on her success in jumping through these extra hoops: she may not have the financial resources to do so, and there's very rarely any way at all for us to ever properly verify in reliable sources if and when she's successfully jumped through any of them anyway. And even years down the road, there will always still be people who insist that those changes still aren't enough, and that we should still describe her by her birth gender and birth name on the grounds that transgenderism is a fundamentally illegitimate phenomenon in the first place.
Which is why a transgender person's name and gender identity have to be accepted at face value as soon as those things have been announced on the public record, ABSOLUTELY, UNCONDITIONALLY REGARDLESS of how far along in the process she is or isn't. No matter what excuses you use to justify yourself, there is no non-transphobic way to take any other position. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather impervious to say that all arguments again this are transphobic. Many of us have expressed no disregard for Chelsea's expressed gender beyond this point, but rather feel that the retroactive application of this (ie "She was always a woman but just figured it out now", maybe she hasn't fully figured it out yet, or maybe it is a psychological issue where she can't identify with gender) is both confusing, illogical, and against the record. - Floydian τ ¢ 08:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that attitude is transphobic. We don't treat people with a psychological condition as being "illogical," nor do we somehow separate them into two different people. We deal with them as they are - transgendered. A biographical article about the person *today* must reflect their expressed gender. There is likely to be a time and place within the article to discuss their personal history and transition, if it is a significant public event (as I would agree it is in Manning's case).
Is the issue confusing? Quite possibly. That is something to work out through the editorial process, through educating the reader as to Manning's gender identity and transition. That does not in any way suggest that we should deny Manning's self-identified gender or persist with the use of a name and gender she rejects out of some concern about "confusion."
It may be "confusing" to some readers that we describe two men as being married. They'll just have to get educated about same-sex marriage and stop being confused about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether you're being deliberately transphobic or not. A transgender person does not go through life happily and comfortably living as one gender and then just suddenly decide on a whim to transition to the other one — rather, there are virtually always some early signs of gender dysphoria visible in childhood. Some kids do understand what's going on quite young but it takes them until their teen years or adulthood before they have the courage, resources and ability to actually come out about it, while other kids don't actually put all the pieces together in the first place until they're much older — but signs of a mismatch between a person's internal gender identity and their external genitalia typically start to emerge as early as the age of two, three or four (i.e. as soon as they're old enough to even begin engaging in distinctively gendered behaviour at all), and do not just suddenly show up out of the blue in adulthood in someone whose internal identity formerly did match up with their body. That's why pronouns have to be converted all the way back to birth: whether you understand it or not, whether she had the comprehension to put a name to it yet or not, a transgender person's internal gender identity has always been that of the target gender.
This is not a rule that Wikipedia made up on its own to be tendentious or confusing, but rather it's the exact same rule that applies to any other media outlet, any other book, anywhere at all: either you follow GLAAD's Media Reference Guide to the letter, or you are being transphobic whether you meant to be or not. Sure, you have the right to make up your own different way of handling the topic if you want — but you don't get to make up a different rule and then call it not transphobic. There are only two possibilities — GLAAD rules or transphobic — and there is not so much as one single solitary hair of wiggle room between those two things. Bearcat (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BC, I have a lot of respect for you, but when you make these categorical statements like "not so much as one single solitary hair of wiggle room", it does not contribute helpfully to the discourse and consensus building on this page. I'm sure you realize that TG is a complex constellation of identity, and Manning's own experience of being TG has been complex and nuanced and perhaps fraught with confusion. Stomping in and saying "Follow GLAAD or you're a transphobic asshole" does not permit discussion of these delicate and nuanced matters, especially when there is a seeming conflict between Wikipedia's long-established article titling policies and your GLAAD rules, for example. This confusion has manifested itself in how the news media has reacted, with similar waffling. Going around and saying all of those news media editors are transphobic is an abuse of the term and trivializes real transphobia, which likely led to a trans-person being recently killed in NY. You are welcome to say that, in YOUR personal opinion, not keeping the page title as Chelsea is insensitive to Manning's expressed wishes, but tarring everyone who opposes with a transphobic brush, simply isn't helpful. If there are particularly odious comments, please engage with the editor in question directly or refer to ANI.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, I didn't say "asshole"; you inserted that yourself, while I left open the possibility that some transphobia could be committed by well-meaning people who aren't intentionally being transphobic and thus are probably not fully informed rather than actually being assholes. But the reality is that while you do see a variety of ways in which media outlets actually write about transgender people, there is only one way to write about transgender people that is correct, only one way to do it that is appropriately considerate of all the BLP issues involved and appropriately respectful of a transgender person's right to define and name themselves — and that way is GLAAD's rules. Not all published sources actually follow them, true, but only the published sources that do follow them are writing about transgender issues correctly. There's no nuance to be had on that question; a transgender person has the same right as anybody else does to define their identity (their name, etc.) for themselves, and by definition you're taking that right away from them (and thus being transphobic, intentionally or not) if you don't follow the GLAAD rules. "Transphobia" does not only cover acts of physical violence against transgender people, any more than "homophobia" is limited to acts of physical violence against gays or lesbians — it means anything, physical or verbal or non-verbal, malicious or well-intentioned, which has the result of subjecting them to different treatment than the "normal" (note the quotation marks) people get, and that does include discounting or withholding acceptance of the person's preferred name. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, you've just painted yourself into a corner. Those arguing based on COMMONNAME are making that exact point you just made - we should not treat Manning's name change and differently than that of Cat Stevens or Snoop Dogg. OTOH, you are arguing for exceptionalism here. For the pronouns, that's fine, I'm not arguing that. I shouldn't have added "asshole" above, thats just the way I read some of the comments by you and others, but I apologize. If we met Manning in the street, common decency would require that we call her Chelsea (and I'm sure Snoop's friends call him Lion), but until that is the search term people use, and that is the way major media refer to her, I don't see why Manning should be treated differently. That's the problem with the categorical language you're using - you're saying "It's GLAAD's rule or you're transphobic", but our policies are intended for recognizability for users, while balancing BLP concerns. In this case, it's a pendulum and can swing either way, but there are reasoned arguments and reasoned people on both sides.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For any example you could come up with where an article about a performer who changed his or her stage name wasn't moved, I can point to others where an article was changed immediately upon or very soon after a name change announcement, regardless of the volume of old sourcing that used the old name — so Snoop Dogg and Cat Stevens prove nothing except that we have conflicting precedents in different circumstances. And we'll never mind that both Snoop Dogg and Cat Stevens were stage names for people whose legal names were entirely different in the first place — I'm pretty sure, for instance, that Snoop's personal friends call him Calvin, not "Dogg" or "Lion", in day-to-day interaction — and thus are not comparable to the matter of a person changing their legal given name (or their public gender identity) anyway.
And again, I never said that Wikipedia is under an obligation to follow GLAAD's rules; yes, it can make up its own different rules if it really wants to. But the GLAAD rules are the only option that is not inherently disrespectful to and dismissive of transgender people — so what you do not get to do is make up your own alternative rules and then demand that people refrain from calling that choice what it is. I'm using categorical language because it is a categorical issue — whether you mean to be transphobic or not, titling this article anything other than Chelsea Manning is, in and of itself, an act of transphobia no matter what reasoning you use to make that decision. There simply is no such thing as a non-transphobic way to discount, disregard, circumvent or undermine a transgender person's right to define her gender identity for herself and to have her chosen name privileged over her former one — you may believe that you have non-transphobic reasons for doing so, but the act of doing so is itself a transphobic thing to do. I'd love to be able to tell you there's a way around that fact, so that this discussion can settle down, but there just isn't one. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The way this particular person's transition has unfolded is the source of scrutiny. To announce it to the world the day after receiving a harsh sentence seems very ironic at best and manipulative at worst. It is also worth considering that this is a biography, and not quite journalism, but that's semantics really. I understand the need to be supportive of transgendered individuals due to the way they are ridiculed by a large segment of the population. However, acceptance shouldn't compromise honesty or curiosity under the banner of "transphobia", nor should it imply absolute obedience to one particular viewpoint and shut out any constructive criticism that while possibly ignorant, is made in good faith and without malicious intent upon the person themselves. It is fair to ask questions such as whether the timing is meant to garner public sympathy, whether the identity is legit or if she doesn't believe she fits in with any gender identity completely, or whether this person will change their name on a regular basis given that they wanted to be referred to as Breanna just 3 months ago. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I didn't imply a lack of good faith; rather, I acknowledged that it is possible to be accidentally transphobic without meaning to be. But no, for the record, it's not "fair" to ask questions which suggest that she might not be on the level — those, by their very nature, are speculative questions which cannot be answered without some kind of magical access to what's going on inside her head (i.e. there's no verifiable answer that can be gained by focusing on them until she says something about them herself.) Sure, any of them could be true — yes, a small minority of transgender people do find that actually living as the target gender doesn't actually turn out to fit them as well as they thought it would or to make their lives any better than their birth gender did, and thus either transition back or adopt a new "genderless" identity; yes, transgender people do sometimes opt to change their names again, just like some of us cisgendered folk do too; and yes, there have probably been a few people (but you could count them on the fingers of one hand) in history who have had ulterior or fraudulent motives for claiming a transgender identity that they had no real intention of actually following through on. But there's nothing to be gained by speculating about those things right now. If something about her identity (which gender she chooses to identify with, if either at all; what name she uses; etc.) changes again in the future, then we can deal with that when it happens — but until one of them actually does happen, it's crystal-balling to suggest that the fact that they could happen is a valid reason to withhold acceptance of the name and gender identity that she has professed as of today. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slate blog post about pronouns here

This is fairly recent coverage of the issue as it pertains to this Wikipedia article.

Chelsea E. Manning

And we're done here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What does the E stand for? Presumably not Edward any more?

A good point, and why is the E even there? Has Manning expressed a desire to keep using her middle name? If so, link/source? Without that expressed interest, who are we to include it? Moncrief (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as though Chelsea signed the letter, "Chelsea E. Manning." CaseyPenk (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a photo of the letter. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edwardine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of comment is not called for.Jbower47 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw it in the Guardian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think so. And I don't think you saw it anywhere else. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the Talk page. I would recommend you reread wiki policy. This is not a forum or a place for inappropriate "humor".Jbower47 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth. News for "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" Appropriate humor is okay: e.g. Jesus wept. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sneering, transphobic sarcasm is not my idea of humour, but each to their own. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Politicized trash is not my idea of an encyclopedia. Deal with it. Clinton (talk)
Your insistence on this having anything to do with politics merely betrays your ignorance. You need to deal with that. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the very word "transphobia", even when applied to blatant bigotry. Not recognizing/agreeing with/being ignorant of/being insensitive towards gender identity issues and preferences has NOTHING to do with "irrational fear" (the definition of "phobia"). It is in itself a bigoted term meant to diminish, intimidate and silence the target, and should not be allowed here.Cowcharge (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the standard term for "bigotry against trans people." Take your objections up with the English language. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Not recognizing/agreeing with/being ignorant of/being insensitive towards gender identity issues and preferences has NOTHING to do with 'irrational fear' (the definition of 'phobia')."
Are you suggesting there is such a thing as a rational fear of trans people, or a rational reason to dislike them, etc.? If not, whatever are you talking about? LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this arguement? It started as a question then went into jokes and accusations of people being transphobic? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing can be deleted without loss. Would have been better to have simply performed a don't-feed-the-trolls silence after "Bugs" decided to unpleasantly express (redacted). LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Better reference for war logs leak

The 2nd paragraph of the lead section says Manning leaked, among other things, the Afghan War logs and Iraq War logs. I think Manning being the source of the war logs leak was long assumed, but it wasn't confirmed until Manning's admission on page 16 of his 29 January 2013 statement to the court.

The only citation currently given for the entire set of leaked materials is "Leigh and Harding 2011, pp. 194ff, 211. For Manning's referring to the documents, see Poulsen and Zetter, 6 June 2010." Well, those sources don't seem to support the portion of the claim pertaining to the war logs. The latter reference is a Wired article that makes no mention of the war logs; it only discusses the Baghdad video, the Granai video, the 2008 Army report blasting Wikileaks, and the diplomatic cables. Leigh & Harding's book likewise, as far as I can tell from skimming the relevant chapter, doesn't explicitly tie Manning to the war logs, either.

So, I feel we should modify the placement and content of the existing reference so that it doesn't apply to the war logs, and then use Manning's own statement as the reference for the war logs—i.e., change this:

The material included videos of the [[July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike]] and the 2009 [[Granai airstrike]] in Afghanistan; 250,000 [[United States diplomatic cables leak|United States diplomatic cables]]; and 500,000 army reports that came to be known as the [[Iraq War documents leak|Iraq War logs]] and [[Afghan War documents leak|Afghan War logs]].<ref name=Leigh2011p194/> Much of the material was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010.<ref name=Leigh2011p194>Leigh and Harding 2011, pp. 194ff, 211. * For Manning's referring to the documents, see [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ Poulsen and Zetter, 6 June 2010].</ref>

to this:

The material included videos of the [[July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike]] and the 2009 [[Granai airstrike]] in Afghanistan; 250,000 [[United States diplomatic cables leak|United States diplomatic cables]];<ref name=Leigh2011p194/><ref>Poulsen and Zetter, 6 June 2010</ref> and 500,000 army reports that came to be known as the [[Iraq War documents leak|Iraq War logs]] and [[Afghan War documents leak|Afghan War logs]].<ref name=ProvidenceStatement>{{cite web|url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_zC44SBaZPoQmJUYURBUnBycUk/edit?pli=1 |title=Statement in Support of Providence Inquiry |date=29 January 2013}}</ref> Much of the material was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010.<ref name=Leigh2011p194>Leigh and Harding 2011, pp. 194ff, 211.</ref>

Then, in the "Granai airstrike" section, replace the first reference with <ref name=ProvidenceStatement/>.

—mjb (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone ok with this change? If there is no opposition in the next couple of days, I will add it to the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 August 2013: Categorize him as "transsexual"?

Please add Category:Transgender and transsexual military personnel to the list of categories, per the recent announcement by Manning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was undone somehow. @Mark Arsten: can you do again? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "editprotected" tag because I don't support addition of it. Please revert the addition of trans-related categories. He is NOT yet a "transsexual" or "transvestite". --George Ho (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true George. Manning was diagnosed with gender identity disorder many years ago, and this information was discussed many times during his trial. In the transcripts from 2010 (I think), Manning discussed his desire to transition. As such, with the now public declaration that he is a she, this category is clearly relevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just great! You want to categorize him as such because of mere identity and disorder? That would be misinterpretations of the facts and be an original research, forbidden in Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read Causes of transsexualism. Someone who was born as a man, but feels they are a woman, and then publicly comes out stating that they are a woman and want to transition, is by definition a transsexual (or transgendered) person. I don't think this is original research at all - a simple google search of "Transsexual + manning" provides lots of hits, dozens of articles have discussed the issues of Manning as a transsexual member of the military, and what rules/rights she would have as a result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article convinces me to change my mind, even when it is well-detailed. There were sexuality rumours of Cary Grant, yet he is not categorized as 'homosexual' by categories. I stand where I stand. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If cary Grant had come out with a public statement saying he was gay, he would certainly be in those categories. In this case, we have both: 1) Manning with a public statement saying he identifies as a woman and b) Multiple media sources who identify him as transsexual, transgendered and refer to same in the context of his military service. if that is not enough to put him in the categories, I'm not sure what is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard, the military won't financially endorse his change plans. And I don't think the government will either. And I don't think his insurance will cover that, as well. Probably other foundations? And how much is one hormone therapy? And surgery? --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true - it may be a while before Manning can do those things. but perhaps you misunderstand what transsexual means (or at least, the category). It doesn't mean you've had surgery and hormone treatments and so on. You can be transsexual before you actually take any steps towards becoming your desired gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How besides self-declaring? --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what? No you cant Transsexual latterly means trans (Moves to) one sex to the other. I think you are confusing it with Transgender like I did earlier. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Well, there is "transgender and transsexual" in the same category name. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning is a trans woman therefore transgender, an umbrella term that includes many gender variant people. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please... enough! This guy's in jail; identifying self as trans-woman or transgender should not prompt categorization. It sends a bad message about trans-people. There is no way that we should basically categorize him, now that he is under military custody. And even calling himself a "woman" while in jail shouldn't be a mere source to add a category. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
George, can you please tell us, very clearly, what specifically you would require in order to justify this category. I note that Manning was already in another TG cAt, this new one was simply specifying military TG, and I've see no-one disputing that other cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm torn. Policy WP:BLPCAT encourages self-identity, as well as guideline WP:EGRS#Sexuality. WP:CAT#Articles doesn't say much except use categories with caution and care. We can't expect him to win rights of receiving support from military or any other. However, sometimes I either find another policy or guideline to prove that categorization is not helpful, or ignore all rules (but I am unwilling to do so). --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what rights the military choose to accord her with regard to medical treatment for her gender identity. A transgender person is still a transgender person no matter what her surgical status is, no matter what the status of the legal paperwork process is. There are no conditions on a person's transgender status; they are transgender as soon as they say they are, no matter how far along in the process they have or haven't gotten. And at any rate, the courts have consistently found that people in prison do still have an unconditional right to receive treatment for their medical issues — we sentence people to prison, not to denial of medical treatment — and that has been found to include gender identity issues. So even if she has to fight in the courts to have her rights respected, she will win. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does the fact that she's in jail inherently negate being transgender? Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I expect a reverse of category change if the title becomes Bradley again. --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George, you didn't answer the question. You oppose these categories on this article, but you haven't stated clearly what would be needed to put a person justifiably in a trans- category (of which we have several). Also, categories have nothing to do with article titles except in rare cases - but no matter what title this article has now or in the future the categories should remain invariant. Categorization is based on what is 'defining', and I think there is plenty of evidence that secondary sources are referring to Manning as transgendered. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing a consensus on categorization is too soon. HOwever, if you want an establishment now, that would be when he becomes a female biologically. That's it! --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. That would be while she was still in the womb though. See A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones
"Female biologically" is not as simple as it seems. There are people medically diagnosed as intersex male, then re-diagnosed as intersex female twenty years later (after puberty in their 40's). More common are natural female to male changes. Wiki's policies WP:BLPCAT deal with such fraught issues rather well. Based on Manning's build, any endocrinologist would suspect a high possibility of anatomical anomalies. XX chromosomes, partial androgen insensitivity, etc etc. She's 3 SDs from the male mean in several ways, from her photos, closer to a female mean. Zoe Brain (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting point, but nonetheless not that relevant to how we use the categories today. There are plenty of people in these categories who are probably, for all intents and purposes, biologically male yet which nonetheless identify as female and are in the process of transitioning. Per the definition, transgender does not require surgery or hormones. Thus I think TG categories are legitimate for Manning. Just as we don't require verification that a man is having sex with men in order to categorize him as gay, we don't require verification that a TG person has undergone surgery or hormones or other things before categorizing them as TG - we go by their own personal declarations and reliable sources, which in Manning's case we have in spades. So George, frankly, I think your "biological" requirement is not at all in line with past consensus on categorization of TG people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Initial

The current version list the name as "Chelsea E. Manning", where the E, presumably, stands for the male name Edward. It is very clear in the reliable sources that Chelsea Manning is their chosen name, with no initial, or even any second name. The article title correctly reflects this. --Cerejota (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Manning signed her letter about this "Chelsea E. Manning." What the E now stands for, if anything, is unclear. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes found it, can be it be included? http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915 --Cerejota (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the image of the actual statement that someone posted a link to earlier in the Talk page, her signature lacks a middle initial. It's the printed name under her signature that has the "E". --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Per request on my talk page--Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Middle initial E. now stands for Elizabeth. News for "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" —Pawyilee (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can the edit be done now to reflect this as the full name, rather than the initial. Her male name is not abbreviated.--Cerejota (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know that it's Elizabeth? Did Manning or her lawyer make another statement? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is reported in at least three reliable sources, the one quoted above and the one I added to the article and Voice of Russia. I don't know where they are getting it from but they are all consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that there are reliable sources for "Elizabeth", please cite them after the name in the first sentence. If not, please replace "Elizabeth" with the initial "E." - Pointillist (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did add a source (which appeared to be reliable) with the edit that added the name (immediately after the name, rather than at the end of the sentence though). Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see where this source says Elizabeth. Voice of Russia is unlikely to be in a special position to know. That leaves the Nation, and they don't seem to explain how they know. Manning's statement said only Chelsea E. Manning. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit needs to be undone asap in case it's wrong and we cause the wrong name to spread. Barring a statement from Manning or his lawyer, or from an organization or journalist that we know has good access, we should stick to E. for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert but The Nation and Voice of Russia articles appear to be Op-Ed rather than news. - Pointillist (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the doubts expressed above about the reliability of the sources quoting a middle name I've undone my edit, reverting the article to "E.". I contemplated putting in a comment about it but given the length of the references there I think it would have got lost. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:. Thanks for your prompt attention to this (diff). - Pointillist (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edwina? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs)
This is an article talk page. It is not a forum for unsourced speculation. There are many female given names beginning with E so listing them all here would not be a productive use of anyone's time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes

The admin managing this close has stated that the title will remain at the current place until the discussion is over. Further discussion on the RM belongs above. Otherwise, this should be considered water under the bridge. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes The article of "Bradley Manning" was used in the past stably, and seeing as there is no consensus, it should be returned, as this is the default title. Without consensus, a title change cannot be made. Therefore the current title does not adhere to Wikipedia policy.

Excerpts from Wikipedia policy (full section linked above):

Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Sovetus (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to make a comment somewhat echoing this: Where was the discussion aimed at forming consensus to make the move from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning in the first place? This was a controversial move to begin with; there should have been a discussion before the move away from the status quo was made. Wouldn't this simply be a clique of like-minded admins bunching together and doing as they wish, ignoring the entire WP:CONSENSUS process? I am quite certain that there was no consensus established prior to the controversial page moves. I find it strange that supporters of the former status quo have to be the ones who need to justify a revert back to the old title with the above RM, and not the other way around. What happened? Did Wikipedia break yesterday? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That half-hour consensus of a few has clearly been negated by the amount of those in favour of the article being at Bradley Manning since. I agree that an admin should immediately return the article to Bradley Manning, pending a consensus for moving it (and am rather amazed that that has not been done). U-Mos (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick discussion to make the move, and then a 7-day RM to move it back... Look, I support LGBT rights as much as the next guy, but to me it feels like some editors are letting their views on social issues affect their editing. We report what sources report. I don't doubt that by the time the RM closes, Chelsea Manning would become as well-recognised as her former name, but Wikipedia shouldn't have been the one taking the initiative.
I'm not trying to take anyone to arbcom, but your actions (moving and then move-protecting) were hasty, and a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Yes, I know you think that it is a BLP issue requiring immediate action--but I can't imagine you did not foresee the controversy. Given that you clearly have strong views about the issue, you shouldn't have been the one making the call.
Beyond this article (which, even if moved back, would probably end up at this title in a few days anyway), I'm worried that this would set a precedent, that when certain social issues are concerned, Wikipedia must "do the right thing" immediately. What we should instead be doing is to follow is the lead of sources, and to discuss potentially controversial issues first, giving precedence to the status quo until consensus can be determined. wctaiwan (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first decision to move was uncontroversial. The few editors interested in this article (before reddit brought users to fill the talk page) agreed because Manning herself is a very relevant source in case of a biographical article and MOS:IDENTITY (Which was not created overnight just to support Chelsea Manning but has existed long before Yesterday's events) dictated clearly what to do including changing the pronouns in events before the revelation. Vexorian (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is a non-negotiable policy, and dictates that we are not in any case moving the article to her former male name, because that amounts to harrassment of the article subject. Also, it appears that most of the comments in support of such a move originates in a campaign by a third-party website. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is quite clear from this talk page that that interpretation of BLP is not generally agreed upon. U-Mos (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That interpretation of BLP is, quite frankly, bunk. The article should be restored to the person's actual name, and mention of the Bradley-to-Chelsea wish is certainly notable enough to mention in the article. But not to the point where it dictates what this project actually titles the article, or what pronouns are used to refer to the person in the article. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an interpretation, but a straightforward application of policy also supported by other more specific policies. The Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation states above in this discussion that "MOS:IDENTITY [...] is unambiguous in requiring that WP "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification"". Any further discussion is not really productive. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's your interpretation.--v/r - TP 13:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY is already adhered to in the article. Female pronouns are used throughout, as it stipulates. It mentions nothing about naming conventions. U-Mos (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(@Josh Gorand) I get the feeling that you're going to come up with all sorts of excuses, and will never ever accept defeat, no matter how legitimate and honest the "other side" is. First would be the evil redditors; next you're going to claim that Wikipedia as a whole is corrupt; after that, you'll come up with something else. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your belief that Wikipedia is corrupt due to naming this article Chelsea Manning in accordance with policy, but I don't think many users here are willing to listen to you. If you want to contribute to our encyclopedia, you should familiarize yourself with the basic idea Wikipedia is built upon and our various core policies. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking to me about core policies? What am I reading here? Also, stop putting words into my mouth, and stop with this "our encyclopedia" bullshit as if it's an "us versus them" thing. Wikipedia is a community of different people with different ideas, and your comment just then really pisses me off. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Benlisquare is plenty familar with "our Wikipedia." Having 15x the edits you have and being an editor in the pre-WP:BLP era.--v/r - TP 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that we can reflect Manning's gender through pronouns while still having the title be "Bradley Manning." The title of the article and the gender used in the article are two entirely distinct issues. That said, this article should be moved back to Bradley Manning. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please centralize discussions? There is a discussion about the RM above. The already-named closer of this RM has stated that the location of the article while awaiting discussion is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. This constant fracturing of the discussion is making it hard to manage however. If you want to comment on the page move, do so above please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, feel free to move and merge this section into the above discussion as another subsection. Yes, this discussion should have been placed up there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With all the problems in the world....

...can nobody here think about a more important and valuable task than repeating the same WP:IDENTITY vs. WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:BLP arguments at each other over and over again? Imagine the world in 5 years. Will it be noticeably different depending on whether the article is at the right or wrong name (your choice of interpretation) for the next few days?

This very much reminds me of the parable of the City Hall bicycle shed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I don't think this particular case matters since you're right it will become clear in a few days or weeks but I do think given the length of discussion here, this case could affect policy and naming practices for article where the sources will be much weaker even months later, for years to come which IMO does matter. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this discussion is some useful work. This could turn out to be a generation's primary exposure to trans issues, and thought here affects how the readers think. The quality of their thought determines the quality of their political and social awareness, and the quality of their political and social mores is what limits the progress of technology or even makes it counterproductive. The net result is that, in some indirect way, the discussions we have here will affect the problems that face men who want to bear children or the business success of virtual reality firms modeling other planetary ecosystems in the future. We should not underestimate the value of getting our thoughts in order. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this has actually become more of a way for people to soapbox about their political ideology more than it is about the renaming of the page - i.e. people unwilling to yield to the concept of gender identity because it's to "wishy washy". The whole argument isn't about the validity of a name change anymore - it's about the validity of gender identity, and in 5, 10, 15 years when people do look back at things like this, and they will, people will be judged on their lack of understanding. Countered (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might seem uninportant but it will affect public perception of Manning (due to widespread transphobia in the world) and take focus away from her actions which are important and that is unfortunate. Space simian (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essay by admin

I think this section has served its purpose. Further discussions abot Morwen's behavior should be brought to the appropriate admin boards or her talk page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I note that one of the main admin in charge of this page is already editorializing about her involvement here:

http://abigailbrady.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chelsea-manning-on-pressing-button.html

I wonder if one might draw the conclusion that "Morwen"/Abigail Brady is more concerned about making a name for herself through her actions here, than in acting in an accountable manner as far as "good governance" of this article? In Abigail's own words in the comments field, she says: " I'm doing this because it is the Best Practice for writing about trans people" - or in other words, advocacy. Perhaps it would be in Morwen's best interest to recuse herself? It seems inappopriate to be charged with the task of impartiality here while seeking fame by publishing articles and directing people to read political advocacy and self-promotion from their talk page.Michael DoroshTalk 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules against someone blogging about events on Wikipedia - and calling it "seeking fame" is a bit of a stretch. Also, I can't find any evidence of user:Morwen "directing people to read political advocacy and self-promotion on their talk page." Morwen clearly doesn't have a NPOV on this issue, but neither do many of the people chiming here. None of this is particularly relevant to the issue at hand either, which is Manning. If you think Morwen is biased to the point where they should not edit in this area, raise that issue elsewhere. This page should be for discussing the article, not the contributors. OohBunnies! (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a) way to quote out of context. I was saying precisely the opposite of what Dorosh here is claiming I meant.
b) "main admin in charge of this page"??? I have moved it like a normal user, edited it a few times, and then have been sitting on talk explaining basic policy and trans issues to people quite patiently.
c) recuse myself from what exactly? Morwen (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
c) from administering this article and participating further on this Talk Page, obviously. I would suggest there is now a personal stake in this, if Abigail Brady is seeking attention beyond the scope of this talk page, to the point of directing traffic away from Wikipedia and onto a personal website to discuss her personal involvement as an editor and advocate that the article represent a specific political point of view (in violation of Wikipedia policy). Changes to the Wikipedia article on Bradley Manning are now not just about Bradley Manning, but now also about Abigail Brady in as far as there is a separate narrative being built in social media on a website devoted to Abigail Brady's life. Note also that Abigail Brady is the one making decisions, or participating in them, on matters such as moving pages, stopping discussion by non-registered users, locking discussions, hiding discussions (such as this one), etc.Michael DoroshTalk 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, you're actually making this into a witch hunt. Countered (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing worthy of criticism in the thoughtful essay referenced, and it poses a useful question for those (as myself) who favor the first school of thought she mentions:

How would we phrase "[X] is imprisoned at Quantico, after [X] was convicted for multiple charges of espionage"?

My answer would be that this one isn't much of a problem: we just say "Chelsea is imprisoned at (wherever), after she was convicted..." Though I'd split the sentence anyway, with no real difficulty in this case. As I said in a comment above, I think we can give leeway to using the more recent pronoun in "adjectival" usages: we can parse she (was convicted) (preposition:for x,y,z) or she (was) (adjective: convicted for x,y,z). The former "was" occurs at a specific time, at the moment of conviction; but the latter is a status which she has at a recent time, though it references an older time. So I think we have the discretion to use either pronoun here as convenient for our purposes. Wnt (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"[X] is imprisoned at Quantico, having been convicted of multiple charges of espionage." Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of the POV "Grandstanding" as the title for this thread, I suggest changing it to (something like) "Off-wiki comments by admin". – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you, User:Wnt, for making the change (30 seconds or so before I hit "Save page")! 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Later corrected to: Generally speaking] It is inappropriate for an admin who intends to exercise administrative privileges on this article to opine off Wikipedia. [While this admin says she does not intend to it still] could be seen as WP:Canvass out of frustration because, as the admin wrote on her blog: "Maybe putting these answers here will work. Because nobody seems to be listening on the talk page." And it could be seen, as the original poster alluded to, as a means of self-promotion since this is just the kind of discussion on Wikipedia that does end up getting covered in the major media. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I know I've been harassed for 6 year old posts that someone dredged up from the bowels of google to claim some excessive amount of POV, so I do find it a bit annoying that an admin [or any editor for that matter] would write an off-wiki blog post contemporaneously with being an active admin on the article in question. User:Carolmooredc ' 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morwen has used no admin powers on this article; this claim is factually inaccurate, and you should not perpetuate it - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The larger issue is any editor writing about Wikipedia debates off Wikipedia and those writings being promoted by someone or other to the media. Right now the media is not reporting that there's a debate but making it sound like Wikipedia has in fact definitively decided to rename the article Chelsea Manning. I see that The News Statesman carries an interview with Morwin] regarding her original blog posting here and Morwen's tweets on the topic are reported at Buzzfeed. I don't know who alerted the media to or to her tweets. But this is what her writing off wiki about this has lead to and shows why it's not a good idea. I hope Morwen will stop doing it. User:Carolmooredc 04:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion section is quite irrelevant and out of place. The talk page is for discussion about the article's contents. But as mentioned, since the page was not locked in anyway, no admin access was required to perform the move. Vexorian (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to point something out here

Please comment on content, not contributors. Editor behavior should be discussed at ANI, and policy changes re: language should be discussed at the relevant talk pages. The below section is leading nowhere and repeating ground already covered, so I'm boldly closing for now in the interest of keeping the discussion centralized at the rename section.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behind "it", "tranny" and "he-she", the worst thing to call a transgender person is their birth name. Crisis.EXE 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why it would be among the worst things to call a transgender person? CaseyPenk (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Crisis, I think you've got right to the heart of the matter. It's understandable that hordes of redditors want to revert to the birthname, but its disappointing a few experienced wikipedians also seem desperate to brutalize this troubled woman and violate the balance of policy. WP:COMMONNAME can admittedly be interpreted either way, but the spirit of WP:BLP clearly supports the change and MOS:IDENTITY is totally unambiguous. There will never be consensus to revert to her birthname. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is calling her her birthname in the sense of seeing her in the street and saying "Hi, Bradley". At the present time, almost every source concerning Chelsea sees fit to mention her birth name (usually in their headline) as a simple point of clarification, as her chosen name of Chelsea simply is not common knowledge yet. Hence WP:COMMONNAME. U-Mos (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Calling a transgendered person by their birth name if they no longer identify with it, is more than insensitive, it's pure harrassment, viz. a form of saying that one doesn't recognise them as the gender they identify with. As such, it clearly violates the fundamental principles and spirit of BLP. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got edit conflicted, but yeah, basically that. Crisis.EXE 16:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to this project, nor it is harassment. Some editors really need to drop the histrionics and realize that not everyone in the world agrees with the "you MUST immediately refer to he as a she!" stuff. Your opinion that it should is just that; opinion. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many times I have told you directly that MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline and not a policy, and that when a guideline butts heads with actual policy, i.e. WP:COMMONNAME, the policy wins. So any argument that you make based upon the false premise that MOS:IDENTITY is policy is effectively discarded. Also, while I generally respect Sue Gardner and her opinions on Wikipedia matters, at the end it is just that; an opinion. My voice, Sue's voice, and your own voice are all on equal footing here. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misgendering transgender people (using the wrong pronouns) is in fact offensive. It delegitimizes their cause and basically sends the message that their problem is not real or not important. A person's gender (not sex) is a completely mental condition, and as such, cannot be determined by anyone but the individual themselves. Because of this, to say that outside sources are more important than a person's belief of their own gender is completely nonsensical. In addition, the transgender community has long expressed support in using pronouns that the transgender person expresses desire for. You may hold the opinion that pronouns should not be switched, but that does not make it legitimate. As an analogy, you can believe that the n-word is fine to use whenever you want, but that doesn't stop it from being offensive, and people will probably criticize you for it. TheScootz (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the problem here, I'm afraid; the "trans community" doesn't get to dictate content decisions of the Wikipedia, any more than Muslims are allowed to dictate what the Wikipedia does regarding images of their prophet in the Muhammad article. This is an encyclopedia project providing general-interest information to the reader, it does not exist at a vehicle for propaganda or activism, nor does it soften the sometimes rough edges of the truth just because someone or several someones are offended. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the article on Muhammad is written neutrally (as per WP:NPOV), which is not offensive to Muslims (despite what a few radicals might lead you to believe). Use of pronouns that are not preferred to the individual in question is explicitly offensive. You're right, Wikipedia is not an activist website, but since Chelsea Manning is the only legitimate source for her gender (mental state), using the wrong pronouns would not only be offensive, but factually incorrect. --TheScootz (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. The point is, outside interests do not influence Wikipedia policy. We have a naming convention for articles, esp contentious ones, that should not be bent in this case. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Name is not what I'm debating here, simply pronoun usage. MOS:IDENTITY already has a clear policy on this that is in line with preferences expressed by the trans* community (whose issue this is). --TheScootz (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mos:identity isn't policy, and the naming and the pronoun usage are the same issue. We have a conflict between what the trans community and supporters want to do, and the Wikipedia policy on article names and such. I think it should be obvious which trumps which. (Hint: it's the policy). Tarc (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh, please be aware of the Wikipedia policy on harassment, per Wikipedia:Harassment. Please also note the section on "Accusing others of harassment":

"Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."

CaseyPenk (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CaseyPenk, please be aware of the policy on biographies of living people, and the policy on harrassment. I, and a ton of other editors on this talk page, state it as a fact that multiple users have posted comments that constitute harrassment of the article subject and thus violates BLP, including comparisons of transgendered people to dogs. If you intend to defend such comments (and I and others have cited examples), that clearly violate BLP, I see no reason to continue a discussion with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue to promote one's personal opinions on transgendered people. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "not a venue to promote one's personal opinions" knife cuts both ways Josh, if you wish to claim that calling a transgendered person by thier genetic sex is illegal you need to provide citations of that fact, otherwise it is just your opinion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should learn what a straw man is. Wikipedia uses the name and pronoun that the subject identifies with because Wikipedia policy says so, as explained eg. by Sue Gardner on this talk page. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is my request that you cite your opinion a straw man? If that reply is supposed to be a citation, link it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you continue with your strawmen, including your false claim that I have said it's "illegal" to use a person's birth name. Of course it's not, it's just extremely offending, and we don't use it here because it is against Wikipedia's own policies (MOS; BLP) and objectives (to build an encyclopedia). I don't need to "cite" anything, as you are well aware, because I and countless other editors have already cited the relevant policies a large number of times on this very talk page. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I admit defeat at the hands or your all powerful logic. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, it seems we need WP:Argumentum ad Gardneram now. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict) If you intend to defend such comments... On the contrary, CaseyPenk explicitly called someone out for a comparison to dogs. Josh, I think you need to take a break from this talk page; you are way too emotionally invested in it, and you're beginning to bludgeon the conversation. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
citation needed CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheScootz, you do realise that female pronouns are already used throughout the article? There is very little argument against that on this talk page; the issue of contention is the article title. U-Mos (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move photo in uniform to somewhere below

Closing per WP:SNOW. Too early for this. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having the photo of her pre-transition in military uniform with American flags and so forth in the background is very much insensitive and looks like a political statement. We should rather have a politically neutral picture without all the American flags in the infobox, and that better represents her gender identity. We need to keep in mind that her country actively discriminates against transgendered and other LGBT people, so she couldn't live openly in accordance with her gender identity at the time the picture was taken. The political photo with American flag and uniform could be placed in a section on military service. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding why? I am sure he at the time was very proud of that photo, and currently she may still be proud of her service, certanly there are currently many proud of her service. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's the best picture we have of him. The only picture post-transition, as far as I know, is a grainy black and white photo that isn't very clear at all. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some users in the move request discussion have suggested that referring to Chelsea using her birth name constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. It is plausible that, according to that line of reasoning, a pre-transition photograph would similarly violate WP:BLP. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Kristin Beck - if we get a better picture of Bradley-as-Chelsea, then we could put both in the lede, but I would be opposed to moving the soldier photo down. We should have the military photo, as military service is the source of Manning's notability and Manning in uniform is the image most commonly known due to the news coverage. Josh I'd also suggest you tone down the rhetoric - remember this news is only 24 hours old, and everyone is still trying to get their bearings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kristin Beck is a bit different as being transgender is apparently her major claim to notability, while for Manning it isn't, and rather only is a minor part of his bio. Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the article states that "Manning, (December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted..." Him being an American soldier is an important part of his notability and the photo thus match the article well. Media also frequently use the title "private" when then refer to him. Our aim at Wikipedia is to tell the story about Manning as reported in reliable sources; not portray him according to his current or prior self-image. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No merit to this request. Let's keep in mind here what this person is actually notable for; he is an Army private who passed classified intel to unauthorized parties, was caught ,tried, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. This other stuff is certainly notable as well, but it is entirely secondary to being a convicted felon. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is notable for being widely considered a press freedom activist and human rights hero,[7] similar to the dissidents in the Soviet Union. The POV that he is a "convicted felon" is basically a fringe POV (much like the POV held by Russian nationalists that Soviet dissidents were "convicted felons"), at least in the civilized world. Very few Europeans or human rights organizations would agree with that. As such, it would only be natural to use a picture without American flags in the background and other nationalist imagery, and one that is representative of his identity. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, he was found guilty of a crime, thus "convicted". His crime is classified as a felony, thus "felon". "Convicted felon" is a simple, non-negotiable fact. I think a problem that is beginning to creep up here is that the anti-NSA/spying crowd is taking this gender issue on as well and mashing it up into one big anti-establishment "fight the power" message. This is becoming very wrong on very many levels. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that she is a felon is interesting, but there are many, many convicted felons who are completely unencyclopedic. Manning is not encyclopedic because she is a felon, she is encyclopedic because of the actions she took. That they are classified as felonies here is notable, but not central, to Manning's story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a bit disingenuous. Manning is encyclopedic because of the entirety of what he did, from theft and dissemination of classified material upto and including the trial and conviction. It isn't an everyday occurrence that someone is convicted for violating the Espionage Act y'know. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, like I said in another section people are coming here with their own personal agendas, please I respect your opinions but take them elsewhere and focus on improvement here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet - but if we can somehow get a high-quality, free licensed image that represents Manning as she wishes to be seen with her new sexual identity, then we should feature that happily. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The picture serves it's purpose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The image does its job of depicting the article subject perfectly fine. The current image is of good quality, and is freely licensed; I don't see the benefit of changing to an image of reduced quality, or a non-free image when a free image is available. Remember that as a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be encouraging the use of free-license content (free as in both libre and gratis); use of copyrighted images limits our liberties. Wikipedia articles are not Facebook profiles where the profile image can be changed to fit the flavour of the month. Finally, there is nothing offensive or derogatory about a US flag, and I'm suspecting political implications and agendas being thrown around within this proposal. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: He (she, it) is a soldier - even if a convicted one. The US military, the US government and the United States in general must be held responsible for the conduct of their personnel/citizens. Miranda1989 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing

470 Google news hits for "Chelsea Manning", many RSes - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that many of those sources refer to Manning, first and foremost, as Bradley. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I haven't been through the list. But many do use "Chelsea", "she", "her", and it's accelerating. So apart from the original BLP and MOS:IDENTITY considerations supporting the present title (and as noted above, other pages note that titles are included in rules concerning article text), by the end of the seven days I strongly suspect the press will actually substantially support it as well (though in this context, that's basically a bonus) - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should be guided by Wiki policy on WP:BLP and WP:Article Titles, not Google hits. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References allow for an argument under WP:COMMONNAME. LFaraone 20:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, definitely. However, it's a concern expressed by many people above. That's why I say "basically a bonus", not the meat of the reason - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the original BLP considerations that you still have not seen fit to explain? Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained them ad nauseam. At this point, I don't think it's unfair to say "go through the history, thanks" - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraculouschaos: Oh, just give it up. David is not going to ever explain how he felt the title Bradley Manning constituted a BLP violation. At this point, I don't think it's unfair to say he just moved the article according to his wishes and used BLP as a smokescreen for the wheel-warring action. -- tariqabjotu 21:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's above in the section "Wheel warring", on this very page. You don't like the answer, but your repeated claim that I haven't given an answer has been answered by me multiple times. At this point this is a prima facie case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop claiming I haven't answered when the answer's right there - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5#Wheel warring?, your only mention of "BLP" is when you said I wouldn't have reverted the move except for BLP considerations. That's you just saying that you felt the Bradley Manning title was a BLP violation, something one could easily discern from the edit summary you used during the move. That does not, however, explain how or why you felt the Bradley Manning title was a BLP violation. I really don't know how I can be any clearer. The reason people keep bringing this up is because, no, you have truly, never answered this question (at least not on this talk page, nor, apparently, anywhere else). -- tariqabjotu 06:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media commentary on possible Manning "ploy"

Having lived with a transgender person for 17 years, I personally think Manning is sincere. However, it should be noted that searching Chelsea Manning and ploy in news one finds a number of outlets have questioned his sincerity and this might be mentioned, though I'm not going to write it. Associate Press; CBS news; NBC; NY Post; Charleston Post Courier; Daily Mail; etc. User:Carolmooredc 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of article mentioned elsewhere here is an effective reply to these kinds of comments and these probably should be presented together, if anyone's interested in doing it: Chelsea Manning's case puts focus on transgender rights in prisons, Amanda Holpuch, theguardian.com, 22 August 2013. User:Carolmooredc 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles actually quote any named reliable source who has claimed that Manning is not sincere. Ergo, there's nothing for Wikipedia to say about the matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that you actually read the sources thoroughly;

Greg Rinckey, a former Army prosecutor and now a lawyer in Albany, N.Y., said Manning's statement could be a ploy to get him transferred to a civilian prison. "He might be angling to go there because he believes life at a federal prison could be easier than life at the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth," Rinckey said.

- CBS news
Tarc (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An apparently-randomly-selected "former Army prosecutor and lawyer in Albany, N.Y." is not a reliable source for the purposes of making comments about someone's psychology and gender identity. His claim is not supported by any actual evidence presented, nor is there any indication that Rinckey has any pertinent knowledge or understanding of Manning's psychology or gender identity that would enable him to make informed judgments about those subjects. See our guideline on identifying reliable sources on medical topics - Manning's gender identity is, indeed, a medical topic.
If there is a medical professional with training and experience in psychology and gender identity who has questioned Manning's expressed identity, that would, indeed, be a reliable source for medical issues. Otherwise, what we have to work with are apparently-baseless speculation and rumormongering, none of which have any place in the biography of a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so first it was "none quote any named reliable source", to which I provide a source that says just that. Then your argument moves to "well, he isn't a medical professional". Nice bit of goalpost-shifting there. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's really not. "Reliable source" in the context of any medical issue must be considered in light of WP:MEDRS. That you appear not to have known about WP:MEDRS before declaring the unsupported waffling speculation of a lawyer to be an acceptable source for claims about a person's psychology and gender identity is obvious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement at all that this MEDRS thing be followed in any article at any time. This isn't a court of law, we do not call expert witnesses to the stand to testify on our behalf. If reliable sources quote people such as a former Army prosecutor on whether or not they feel Manning is's coming-out is a diversionary ploy, then that is 100% acceptable to use in this article. You're attempting to limit such commentary to "trans gender experts", and there's no way in hell that is going to be allowed to happen here. What that amounts to is censorship of opinions that you disagree with. Tarc (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Speculation from some random lawyer' doesn't usually pass WP:RS, regardless of the issues involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the biography of a living person, and we don't quote random people speculating about a living person's health with neither a single shred of credible evidence nor a single iota of expertise in the field of medicine which might support that speculation. It is not censorship to make editorial decisions about what is and is not included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the speculation is in a reliable source, it can and will be included. You may certainly include testimony of trans experts as well as they are found in reliable sources. This is how we go about WP:NPOV after all, ensuring that all significant points of view are represented fairly. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The speculation isn't from a reliable source - it is from a random lawyer with nothing to base his opinion on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's really not how we do things when they relate to a person's psychology and sexual identity. For example, we don't include unfounded speculative claims that someone is gay or lesbian. Moreover, you have in no way proved that the unfounded speculative claims of a random lawyer represent a "significant point of view" rather than a fringe theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those that might have missed it: Manning mentions her gender identity issues in the chat with Adrian Lamo, i.e. privately in confidence and long before she was arrested, so claiming this is only a ploy is just ignorant. Space simian (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Neutral Alternative: Private Manning

If you have an alternative name, please !vote for it in the rename discussion above - having a separate rename discussion here is disruptive, and the below is trending towards snow oppose anyway. Feel free to modify the header of the RM request with your alternative name suggestions, so those reading the RM can consider them accordingly. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I came up with an idea below, could we agree with the article title to be "Private Manning" until the conclusion of the above RFC?--v/r - TP 18:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support until the main RFC ends. As the article currently stands, it's a huge political point of sorts. The Wikipedia front page gets millions of hits per day, and by having the page full-protected at a state resulting from the actions of a handful of admins without larger consensus, it's giving off the wrong signals to others about what Wikipedia is like (a la the Slate article). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I don't think we should be having multiple RfC's open on the same thread. This woudd only be confusing. Therefore I have moved this discussion. Pass a Method talk 21:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an emergency measure. The original move to Chelsea was made despite considerable evidence that such a move would be controversial. The current title gives the impression that Chelsea is the final title; it has the weight of inertia (resistance to change) behind it. A neutral title is the only way to have a fair discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is no reason why the normal procedure for requested moves should not apply here. I will create a redirect from Private Manning to this article though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If there is one thing that we can source, it is that former-Private Manning has been dishonourably discharged and so is no longer carrying that title. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I'm far from an expert but somewhere in one of these spawling discussions, someone noted that a dishonourable discharge doesn't take effect until after a prison sentence has been completed, this is so that there is no doubt that legally they remain subject to military justice and can be legally held in a military prison (civilians aren't and can't). This says nothing about the suitability of "Private Manning" as an article title though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Umm, I don't know for sure, but generally when someone is given a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge, they remain enlisted until their sentence is completed and then they are discharged. I'm not sure if that's always the case, but I am 70% positive it is and we might want to check that. The order to be discharged and actually carrying out the order are separate things.--v/r - TP 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the rename discussion was decided to last one week. This "neutral" change is still a name change and shouldn't be fast-tracked under the assumption it would be temporary. Vexorian (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Very few of the sources use this terminology and very few users are going to be looking for the subject under that name. Also, the subject held the rank Private First Class when the notability-triggering events occurred, until two days ago, so if we were to do something like this the title would more plausibly be "PFC Manning" or similar. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft oppose essentially a weak cop-out. For better or worse the subject has a name, even if we can't decide which one to use. We should try to pick one. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My view on name change

Please post your comments on the move discussion in the RM above, under the appropriate date. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In my opinion it is way to early to change this persons name from Bradley to Chelsea. First of all has there been any official name change paperwork? Are we sure this is the will of Bradley or just a ploy to get out of prison faster?. And my main point is that this person is known under the name of Bradley when all of the notable things happened to him, to look at similar case check out Thomas Quick. He has a different name now but his article is named after the name he had when the notable things occured for him to get a article. I think we are all jumping on the "crazy train" a bit too fast. I would say that we should have his name as Bradley Manning even if his name is changed to Chelsea, or atleast wait and have an consensus discussion when he officially has changed his name.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are too many fast moving pieces to this process. In a few weeks, when there are consistent and unconfused reports that a legal change-of-name has occurred then a name change might be appropriate. BlueSalix (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that anyone go through a legal process to change their name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hat note (edit request)

File:Chelsea Manning Wikipedia mobile app.png
Chelsea Manning article viewed in the Wikipedia mobile app on Samsung Galaxy S4, running Android 4.2.2

I put through this edit to the page hat note, then noticed the page protection level, and have self-reverted to repost here.

It's a high profile current event BLP, with a very unfamiliar title. The hat states it's "about Chelsea Manning", and there is a high risk that someone (especially on a mobile device) who looked up Bradley Manning will find a page about someone called "Chelsea Manning", a hatnote "This article is about Chelsea Manning" - and without a mention in the hat of a prior name, the perception will be "incorrect link" and failure to find the article or even realize the name change.

To mitigate this, the above edit added "(birth name Bradley Manning)" to the hat, and nothing more. Traditionally the hat disambiguates. Here it helps to say "you are at the right place" if someone arrives at Chelsea Manning.

While his statement (as quoted) asks to be referred to by his female name, the intro gives his immensely better known birth name, and I think the reality of the situation of unfamiliar readers means noting it in the hat will help our readers to not be confused on reaching it.

So I'd like to ask for consensus if people will agree to allow that edit, in the hatnote only. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(To be clear, this isn't about "correct"/"incorrect" naming, which is discussed in other sections. This is about helping readers whatever the title. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think this is necessary. I just looked it up on my phone by typing in "wiki bradley manning" - the Google page that comes up includes both names, and the first line of the article with both names is visible. (Samsung Galaxy SIII, Android, in Firefox) - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FT, I'd appreciate it if you would wait for an uninvolved admin to decide whether the edit needs to be made, as well as waiting for consensus from others. There have been too many admins editing through protection today, so I think everyone else needs to lead by example. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I self-reverted almost immediately when I realized, before posting this (see 1st line of above and page history). You must have not realized this. Nice to see you round anyhow SV! FT2 (Talk | email) 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came across as snippy; it's just frustration at watching people edit through protection, and I misunderstood your post to mean you were going to make the edit yourself. But anyway, nice to see you too. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Support. I think this edit is helpful. My phone is BlackBerry and on the first screen I see the title, the hat note and the infobox. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this out on my phone, also. When I Google the subject in the browser (Chrome, for what it's worth), I see the Google blurb, "Chelsea E. Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was...", which I think clears up some confusion. However, in the Wikipedia mobile app, I see the image to the right, which has no mention of her birth name.

The (born...) was reverted as the article was protected. This section is a request for consensus to put it in as you describe it. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I'm confused... "(born...)" is still showing in Google results, and is the current wording of the first sentence of the lead section. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read again - this isn't about the lead. It's about the hat/dab note that is the first thing readers see. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I provided the screenshot to demonstrate that "Bradley Manning" is not immediately visible when using the mobile app. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higher order planning

In the event that the closing admin decides to move the article back, has anyone given any thought to the possibility that Wikipedia is going to be on the receiving end of one of the largest media shitstorms it's ever generated? Because the number of overtly transphobic votes (which is not all "support" votes, but which is certainly a healthy number of them) combined with the fact that the entire British press and a large swath of the American press have gone over to using Chelsea is going to make going back (when we've already been the subject of several stories about how we've moved the page) a Very Big Thing. The accusation that Wikipedia actively chose to be more transphobic is going to have some real legs. (Especially given that the precedent from past public figures who came out as trans was a swift move of their articles, and so this really would be widely seen as a step backwards.)

To be clear, I'm not saying that expected public reaction should be the determining factor. But I am saying that anybody involved in the decision-making here, particularly anybody who decides to move the article back to Bradley Manning, should be preparing themselves for a few days of being a minor celebrity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they appreciate your totally altruistic statement of concern for their well-being. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be a shit storm either way. The botched process has assured of that. As it stands, at least one contributor is already making minor a celebrity of themselves through instigating the move to Chelsea Manning. The impression being given in interview is that the reason for opposing the move is because of bigotry (or "transphobia") and ignorance.
This is not good for the project. And I don't think it's fair to categorise opposition to the article title as "transphobic". I haven't seen any significant opposition to referring to Manning as Chelsea (and using female pronouns) within the article. The issue, for the most part as far as I can see it, is limited to the article title. Deciding an article titles has a unique set of criteria, within which the subject's chosen gender identify or name is of no consequence.
There is undoubtedly a section of "Bradley" !voters who are opposed to recognising transgender identity. However, there is an equally visible component of "Chelsea" !voters who see this as an opportunity for activism (see also Wikipedia:Activist). Whatever about the validity and value of their position on the subject of transgender people and identity outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the place to advance any agenda. And no-one should assume opposition to this article being at Chelsea Manning as being evidence of "transphobia". --RA (✍) 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which other reason do you suggest exists for insisting on referring to someone using a male given name, that they have explicitly asked not to be used and said they do not identify with? I think you will find that according to the common definition in polite society, at least in the media world outside of Wikipedia, this is probably the most common form of transphobia. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should actually, you know, read the rationales given for "support move back" votes to find out. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see very many people insisting that Manning should be referred to as Bradley or referred to as he. What the move discussion is about is asking what should the article be named - NOT Manning. The most relevant criteria for naming the article in this case are "recognizability" and "naturalness". "Bradley Manning" is currently the most recognisable and natural name for the article (see the definition of the terms "recognisable" and "natural"). Within the article Manning (the individual) should be called Chelsea (their chosen name) and referred to as her. But that is not what the discussion is about. --RA (✍) 01:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article back to the now outdated and inaccurate name, thereby titling an article on a transgendered person in a deeply offensive manner, would indeed be a PR disaster for Wikipedia, as pointed out both because it's unacceptable in polite society in itself, and also because of all the transphobic commentary on this talk page, including comparisons of transgendered people to dogs and other animals. It would of course also be an obvious violation of the BLP policy. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What section of BLP policy are you specifically referring to? --RA (✍) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, read the talk page, don't feel like reiterating it for the 200th time. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this talk page but I haven't heard mention of the specific section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that having this article at Bradley Manning is supposed to be in violation of. Can you indicate which section of BLP policy having this article at that title violated? --RA (✍) 00:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because this discussion is not about that, and because that issue has been discussed very thoroughly in other sections. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You raised the issue in this section. Go on, it will only take you a few words. Even just post the raw link to the section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that having this article at Bradley Manning would violate. No? --RA (✍) 01:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I said no. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you here to have a real discussion? you have used your "No because im right and you are wrong so there" argument more than once now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, we all want to know what section you're referring to. I personally do not remember which, if any, specific sections anyone has quoted. You can even point us to a comment above that references the appropriate section. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not been a shit storm. We've talked about Chelsea Manning on the frontpage for two days now, and so far all there's been is polite applause from the media. Which is why I think undoing it risks a mess. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped reading when you called people who oppose the Chelsea title "transphobic", this is not the first time I have seen users here attacking others with keep as Bradley opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phil merely employed the mainstream, common definition of transphobia. The idea that you can insist on childishly calling someone who states her name is Chelsea, "Bradley", is really a WP:FRINGE POV and not encyclopedic at all. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just called some support voters transphobic. The fact that there are support voters whose reasoning is explicitly opposition to the idea of trans people is a real problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Chelsea Manning" is not Mainstream in the media is the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's demonstrably untrue. Plenty of English language sources are using it at this point, as has been well documented. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If or when the number of sources of the article referring to the subject as Chelsea gets anywhere near the number of sources of the article referring to the subject as Bradley, then that would be an appropriate time to discuss moving the article to Chelsea Manning. Not current media stories, but existing sources of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually what policy says - the article naming policy notes that following a subject's renaming we should consider post-renaming sources. Hence Willis Tower despite, you know, decades of it being called the Sears Tower. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Wikipedia has been commended, lauded for doing the decent thing, thanks to Morwen, in a timely fashion. I see no shitstorm at all over that, on the contrary. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't write for polite applause from the media. And the fact that the media are commenting on the way we are taking a lead on this question is an indicator of the problem. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and BLPs ought to be written conservatively. We are not doing our job when we lead the way on anything.
But yes, now that we've drawn attention to ourselves, and drawn "polite applause" it probably will be noticed when we roll back. But we just as we don't write for polite applause from the media, we don't revert to our usual conservatism (in terms of approach to writing, not politics) because we fear their scorn. The lesson to be learnt from this is not to rush headlong into a move like this again. Discuss first, not after. --RA (✍) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know is why the admin not follow WP:TITLECHANGES? This has been brought up and keeps getting brushed aside. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no compromises made when it comes to factual accuracy and BLP. The only source for someone's name is the person him/herself. We change it as soon as it's established to be correct. We do the same for dates of birth. Even if many media reported a wrong date of birth for someone, we would use the correct one. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. But what has this got to do with the current discussion about the title of this article? Many articles (including BLPs) are at titles that are not the names (self-chosen or otherwise) of their subject. The name of the article is the name of the article - and NOT necessarily the name of the person. --RA (✍) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if those who have placed so much concern toward offending this individual (presuming titling the article as Bradley Manning would truly offensive...) maintain that gusto toward every issue. When someone complains about gruesome or sexually explicit content on the Main Page. When discussing images of Muhammad in Muhammad or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Everywhere where potential for offense exists. LGBT issues are of increasing concern in the Western world and the Anglosphere, and the strength of the crusade some (not all) of those preferring the Chelsea Manning name have embarked upon seems to reflect that. Of course, when the issue is not so prominently objectionable in Western and liberal circles, we seem perfectly content invoking our policies and guidelines prohibiting censorship and permitting content that subjects may not like so long as it's appropriately verifiable. There's a reason Wikipedia policy and guidelines exist: so we can aim to make decisions neutrally without reference to our personal opinions. These remarks centered around emotional appeal are irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do take special care with biographies of living people that we don't with other articles. And believe me, the discussions over sexually explicit content and the Muhammad article were heated and extensive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes down to numbers in the end. The Arabic article for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy hides the cartoons, probably under a locally achieved consensus. There are local exceptions to every rule, and there may be some here for the purpose of clarity. Shii (tock) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually consistent about giving priority to self-affiliation.. Not long ago i argued Mohammed Farah should be Mo Farah because thats how the BLP self-describes. If we are getting into the business of forcefully choosing peoples names, why should we not be able to forcefeed religion onto others too? Or forcefeed a certain nutritional diet onto others? Its batshit crazy retarded. Pass a Method talk 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is proposing forcing a name on the person who is subject of this article. Bradley Manning is the name used by every source more than two days old, which comprise the vast majority of the sources for the article. Wikipedia follows the sources, not the other way around. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes but we should stay up to date as well shouldn't we? Every source prior to 2009 says that michael jackson is alove. Does that mean we should wait until the new sources balance out the old sources before we describe MJ as dead? Absolute nonsense. Pass a Method talk 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good analogy. I'm unaware of any article titles that describe the living/dead status of the subject, and I would certainly think it inappropriate to edit the Michael Jackson article to refer to him as "the late Michael Jackson" in the section on his childhood.Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the analogies and wikipedia policies for a second. At some point logic should trump all else. Who gets to choose the name of an adult? Should it not be that person him/herself? Its pure logic. Pass a Method talk 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not deciding the subject's name; we're deciding the title of the article. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it exists, the right to decide one's own name for oneself does not imply a right to have other people use that name. And as much as I would love to get into a deep metaphysical discussion on the nature of names, this isn't the right forum. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His parents named him Bradley. So you think parents should get precedence?Pass a Method talk 04:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know that is not what was being said, and I think this string is getting very far off topic from "higher order planning". Wikipedia should be neutral, nobody cares who gave who what name. We care about what name is the name that is publicly and popularly associated with the subject of the article in primary and secondary sources. --Sam Bingner \ talk / 07:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question

This is not constructive, and serves to fracture discussion further. The RM discussion is above, please make your comments there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

to all editors who support a page move to "Bradley Manning".

  • Do you think it should be okay for obese people to eat an unhealthy high-colestarol diet?
  • Do you think it should be okay to gamble all your life savings on a single roulette spin?
  • Do you think it should be okay to practise sorcery and witchcraft?
  • If your answer to the above questions was "yes" (a) please explain your logic, i.e. why the above activities should be okay/legal. (b) Why should one have the liberty to do the above, but not have the liberty to change ones name? Pass a Method talk 03:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would a Wikipedia article title prevent someone from changing that person's own name? Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is saying that Manning can't rename himself whatever he likes, but article titles are supposed to be useful to readers, and what is useful to readers is not necessarily the most up-to-date, courteous, or technically correct name of the subject. As has been pointed out above, the state of Burma would rather be called Myanmar, but enough sources still call them Burma that we only note their wishes in the content of the article. Malcolm X chose the name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz late in life, but Malcolm X is still the name by which he is famous. Cat Stevens adopted Yusuf Islam as his personal, professional, and legal name 35 years ago, but the most recognisable name is still Cat Stevens. Someone else gave the hypothetical example that if Bill Clinton announced he would much rather be called Billy Clinton, we wouldn't move the article solely to respect his personal whim. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How I feel, or anyone else feels, about one's freedom to choose their name is irrelevant; we are trying to decide the correct course of action based on our policies and guidelines. People need to accept that sometimes their personal opinions, wishes, and preferences contradict those policies and guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Cal Engime Since usefulness is your criteria, don't you think acknowledging his transgeder status is useful? Pass a Method talk 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you interested in discussing how to make the article better? That is the purpose of talk page discussions, not to win some argument with strangers on the Internet. Before someone calls me on it, yes I know about WP:AGF but it's being stretched to the breaking point in this discussion. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of my unsolicited thoughts on this. Manning can call him/herself whatever he/she chooses. That's not disputed. What Wikipedia uses does not necessarily have to coincide. Snoop Lion redirects to Snoop Dogg. P. Diddy redirects to Sean Combs. If George Clooney tomorrow decided his name was now "Gorthmar in Unconquerable" we'd say "hey that's great, Georgie", make a brief note of it somewhere in the article, and leave everything else as it is. If he said "I'm now "Miss Gorthmar in Unconquerable" I'd like to think we'd do the same thing, but now I'm sort of questioning what we really would do in such a case. One of the major arguments I've seen for moving the article from Bradley to Chelsea is that it's insulting to use the male name for a transsexual who identifies as female. If Wikipedia were a casual friend of Manning's that would be a great point. But we ain't in the courtesy business; we're in the fact business. The facts are the Bradley is Manning's legal name and the name Manning is most known by universally, and Manning is biologically, physically, of the male sex. We can argue about gender until the cows come home, but it's always going to be a fuzzy area in a way that sex is not. Manning can say "I am actually a female," but no third party right now is going to be able to replicate those results. All this could change, but right now it seems a little hasty to me to make these sweeping changes so quickly, and with little real information on the subject. I'm sure I'll be labelled by many as "transphobic" for saying this, but I've been called a lot of stupid shit over the years, and am unlikely to lose any sleep over it. -R. fiend (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (@Pass a Method) How, pray tell, is your little survey able to make constructive gains for this already controversy-ridden discussion? If it is only to make a point and "win" an online fight, then do you think it was really necessary to post all of that? You are venturing on the borders of WP:NOTFORUM here; Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions aimed at improving article content, and are not general discussion areas. We are not here to find out who is morally good or bad, we are here to find a solution to our current problem, based on Wikipedia policies. I originally had a look at your little questionnaire and formed a few answers in my mind, but then realized that it would be counter-productive for me to bother replying to your questions, as it would only further bring the discussion off to an inappropriate tangent. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood"

This is currently presented as a statement of fact. It may or may not be a claim that Manning or some other person has made, but cannot have been factually established at this time. In any case, the citation given for the statement (Stamp, Scott (August 22, 2013). "Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman". today.com) makes no mention at all of any such disorder, nor of Manning's childhood. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can be factually established, if it has been diagnosed by a competent medical professional. But you're correct that the statement should be attributed to a reliable source, and if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, should be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course it can be factually established - I said it cannot have been so at this time. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd spotted that earlier (among other similar statements). It implies that Manning was diagnosed or recognised as having a disorder as a child or since childhood. I'm not even too sure if Manning has been diagnosed or recognised has having a disorder by a relevant practitioner as an adult (though I do understand that Manning has self identified as such).
For those crying out about BLP policy, this is the kind of thing that needs sourcing per BLP policy. Can someone please provide a source for this statement, else it will need to be removed or amended. --RA (✍) 12:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not hard to resolve. Never forget the useful tool, "X says Y": Simply attribute what we do have.
  • According to Manning, (etc since childhood)
  • On (TV channel) on (date) Manning's lawyer/clinician/whoever, stated that (etc since childhood)
  • Manning had repeatedly referred to (lifestyle) in his past activities, and had stated to his clinician that (etc since childhood)
Three easy answers to attribution. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the transcripts of the trial, several psychologists attest to Manning's diagnosis of GID/Gender dysphoria. I'm not sure if they note how far back it goes, but this is most certainly not a new thing. We could rephrase for now as suggested by FT2 - Manning claims to XXX since childhood, and army psychologists diagnosed him with GID in 200x. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's easy enough to say how NPOV sees the points raised by editors above. We cannot say "since childhood" if we don't have reliable sources attesting to that, for example if it is unevidenced or overly contentious to say a start date or period in his life it began "from". But as you say, we can say what Manning claims of its duration and "since when", and we can say what psychologists say. If by chance we lack a source saying authoritatively "It has been that way since childhood" (even though it seems very likely or he claims it himself), and that's an issue, then we can easily say "Manning claims that" or "3 psychiatrists testified that" and solve it that way. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for a "legal" name change

This discussion has drifted off topic into legalities of when and if Manning will be discharged, which is crystal ball territory. Let's focus on the current content, not on what may happen to Manning in the future.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wish to address a misconception that is rampant on this page. There is absolutely no requirement that a person in the United States must go through any legal process or court of law in order to change their name. Common law name changes are recognized in 46 states, so long as they are not done for a fraudulent purpose.[8] There is no serious claim, much less any actual evidence, that Manning's name change is done for any fraudulent purpose. She is still the same legal person, subject to the same legal strictures, and there is no deception involved.

Therefore, the numerous cries on this page that we not move the article until there is some sort of "legal name change" are completely meritless. Manning is not obligated to go through any legal process to change her name, and may never do so. She has changed her name by holding out her name to be Chelsea, and so far as American law is concerned, that can be the end of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question. I don't know, but I would guess that since Manning remains in the US Army, common law of various states may not apply. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what a spokesperson for the prison says: "Leavenworth spokesman George Marcec said later Thursday that if Manning wants to go by Chelsea in prison, a name change would have to be approved in court and then a petition submitted with the Army to change its records." AP/NPR.
That doesn't conflict with what I said. What the prison thinks and what the Army thinks are immaterial. She might be "Bradley Manning" to the prison, but the prison doesn't define who she is. As the UCLA Law Review article notes, a legal process is often required for government agencies to reflect a name change, but that does not prohibit someone from changing their name via common law for all purposes except those government agencies.
In essence, anyone may hold themselves out under any name they choose, so long as that name is consistently used and not applied in an effort to deceive (for example, evade legal process or escape debts.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"except those government agencies" - it seems to me that this is the point in Manning's case, that she is not a civilian, but is a member of the US Army, and thus subject to their regulations, whatever they may be. Being in the service restricts all kinds of common law freedoms that might apply to civilians. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the point is that the government agency does not define her life. Even as a member of the Army, the government agency does not define her life. The government agency may call her whatever it wants. That does not change her right to define her name and to hold herself out as Chelsea Manning. The Army does not have the power to control her sexual identity. The Army might have the power to punish her for her expressions of that identity, but it does not have the power to tell her who she is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every army in every nation has the power to not only tell you but give you direct orders. As Manning is still a serving soldier in a military prison, they are the ones who call the shots.Foofbun (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the point again. Gender identity is self-identification and a matter of conscience. If Manning chooses not to answer to the name "Bradley," the military might be able to punish her all they want, but they cannot force her to use a name she no longer recognizes. If she chooses to accept the punishment rather than submit to those demands, there is nothing further the military can do.
  • Moreover, this presupposes that Wikipedia cares what the Army thinks Manning's name is, as opposed to caring what name Manning identifies as. Wikipedia has never recognized any army as having the power to define a person's name over that person's expressed identification and wishes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the government agency does not define her life" That's true. But it was you who first brought up legal status, and common law. All I've said is that there's a strong possibility that common law may not apply in Manning's case with regard to legal status. Certainly she has the basic human right to self-define her gender, and change her name to however she identifies herself. But in a real sense this self-identification has validity only in a legal context, whether by common law or otherwise. Again, I don't know whether she may have the freedom to be accepted anywhere in the United States under her change of name, simply because I would guess that her position as a member of the US Army may override and negate that desired self-identification in any legal sense whatsoever. I think we may be at a point where our terms of discussion need to be defined, so that we're not simply talking past each other with differing definitions. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to supply the evidence that the Army has ever successfully asserted that it may exert control over the name of one of its members. Moreover, even that does not mean that the Army gets to define Manning's name for any purposes other than the Army's. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof is right. The presumption under English common law systems, which include the United States, is that no legal process is needed to change one's name. "It is accepted that somebody by repute can bear a name at will" - Greenway-Stanley v Patterson, [1977] 2 All ER 663 at 670. And see [9]. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof, according to the LA Times, the Army has stated that they will address Manning as Bradley until he legally changes the name to Chelsea. Second, as a serving soldier, what's Manning going to do? Sue? That won't work - serving soldiers are not allowed to sue the military under Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (torts) and Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (constitutional violations), not even on transgender issues. @Sam Blacketer - America only uses English common law up to 1776, after which it is American common law. A 1977 English court case would certainly not be binding on a U.S. court. GregJackP Boomer! 13:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comment reflects misunderstandings and lack of consideration. First of all, who gives a hoot what the Army says Manning's first name is? Why is the Army the Supreme Arbiter of Identity? Whether or not the Army recognizes the new Manning shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether we do. And to the point about it to being a "legal" name change, the armchair legal advice you dispense is misguided. Both of those cases you cited only involve suits for damages by currently serving soldiers, but Ms Manning was discharged, and plus any suit she files about the Army's failure to accommodate her gender dysphoria would at a minimum also ask for inunctive relief in addition to any damages. It would be kind of fun, in a horrifying way, if the army was completely exempt from being held accountable for violating people's constitutional rights, but that's not the case. Second, I don't think there is such a thing as "'American' common law." Though I agree an English court's decision can't be binding, the definition of "common law" is the pre-existing law we inherited from from the Brits back in the 1700s. So an English court discussing name changes at common law is perfectly persuasive authority in a state that retains the common law right to use your own name. You can read more about the way American states adopted British common law here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute . AgnosticAphid talk 15:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're misreading what I wrote. NorthBySouth asked for evidence where the Army asserted that it can control the name used and I provided a link. That has no bearing on what we use in our articles. Second, Manning is not discharged until the sentence is completed, for legal reasons. See R.C.M. 1113(D). Were Manning to get into trouble while at Leavenworth, the fact that s/he is not yet discharged allows the military to exercise further and continuing court-martial jurisdiction. Without a status as a still serving member, the military does not have the legal authority to incarcerate Manning. So the cases cited are directly on point since Manning is not dishonorably discharged until the period of confinement is complete. It also protects the military from lawsuits by military prisoners under both Feres and Chappell.

As to "American" common law, there are 50 different "common" law jurisdictions in the U.S. Each state (with the exception of Louisiana) and the federal system use "common" law in that they follow the decisions of prior courts. I don't doubt that an English case can be persuasive authority, but it is much more likely that the court will use federal common law. And before you bring up the Erie Doctrine (there is no federal common law), SCOTUS has recognized that there is in fact, federal common law, abet limited. See Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2535, 180 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2011). And the English case cited is so dissimilar that I doubt that it would be considered by a federal court.

BTW, for legal information, always check sources other than Wikipedia - there is way too much wrong in some of our legal articles. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the dishonorable discharge: in keeping with 10 USC § 871(c), execution of the discharge is temporarily stayed pending an automatic appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) where the dishonorable discharge will be reviewed along with the prison term. Hypothetically, that decision could then be appealed under discretionary review to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). During this process, however, Manning will remain a Private/E-1 incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth and will be what AR 190-47 Chapter 3-1 calls a "sentenced prisoner" after the convening authority approves the confinement portion of Manning's sentence. Later, after review of the dishonorable discharge is complete by the ACCA (and the CAAF, potentially), the dishonorable discharge will be executed and Manning will become what AR 190-47 calls a "discharged prisoner" (not discharged from prison, but discharged from the military). At that time, instead of being an incarcerated Private/E-1, Manning will become a discharged former soldier who continues to be incarcerated at a military prison until completion of the confinement sentence. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Army Reg is all well and good, but R.C.M. 1113(D) goes into detail about when the discharge occurs, or executes, and in cases of confinement, the discharge does not execute until the period of confinement is completed. It expressly states that a punitive discharge is executed when: "(1) The accused has received a sentence of no confinement or has completed all confinement;(2) The accused has been placed on excess or appellate leave; and,(3) The appropriate official has certified that the accused's case is final." See also AR 635-200, a soldier's enlistment is involuntarily extended until he complete confinement, at which point the punitive discharge will be executed. The provisions you are talking about don't apply in the case of a dishonorable discharge and are designed for normal discharges that would occur during the confinement period. GregJackP Boomer! 01:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
R.C.M. 1113(D) speaks to self-executing punishments and was not added to the Manual for Courts-Martial until 2008 (see App. 21 page A21-94 of the 2012 edition). Please turn your attention instead to reading R.C.M. 1113(C). As soon as the appellate process described above is completed, the commanding general exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over Manning has the power to order the dishonorable discharge be executed while Manning is still confined. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that, but it still doesn't change the interpretation. A finding of guilt and sentence by a court-martial creates a self-executing order. The interpretation was covered by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which said: "If convicted and sentenced to either confinement only, or confinement and forfeiture only, a soldier who is confined awaiting trial will be discharged on the adjusted ETS. The adjusted ETS date will be computed by adding to the date of release from confinement. . . ." Smith v. Vanderbush, 47 M.J. 56, 62-63 (C.A.A.F. 1997). The court was quoting directly from AR 635-200, noting that a service member was not discharged until the completion of the confinement. The self-executing section was added to drop the requirement that the GCMCA had to cut a separate order assigning the soldier to USDB, to include any punitive discharge. What the requirements that you are focusing on do is to prevent a punitive discharge prior to the case making its way through the appellate process and becoming final, especially when the sentence of confinement is short (or non-existant). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote from AR 635-200 (paragraph 1-31) is for when a soldier is convicted and sentenced to either confinement only, or confinement and forfeiture only. In such a case, the soldier's ETS will be extended during the time they are confined. Manning, however, was not sentenced to either confinement only, or confinement and forfeiture only. The sentence was confinement, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a punitive discharge. You've pointed out that R.C.M. 1113(C) does not allow a punitive discharge to be executed until a case has made its way all the way through the appellate process, especially when the sentence of confinement is short. That's correct (and I addressed that in my first post above). But R.C.M. 1113(C) also clearly empowers the GCMCA to execute a punitive discharge after the appellate process is complete and after reviewing the advice of his or her SJA. Manning's sentence is long. When the appellate process is complete, what's to stop the general officer who exercises general court-martial jurisdiction over Manning from ordering that the dishonorable discharge be executed? R.C.M. 1113(D) certainly does not stop him. R.C.M. 1113(D) says that if a convening authority has approved the discharge (but did not order it executed), the punishment may be self-executing under certain conditions. As soon as the appellate process is complete, R.C.M. 1113(C) gives that general officer the power to make Manning a discharged ex-soldier who still has plenty of time to serve. Not being a soldier anymore does not mean that the military does not have the power to continue to keep Manning confined and subject to prison rules. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also talking about normal practice. When a service member is sentenced to long periods of confinement with forfeiture of all pay and allowances, he's not getting paid by the government for the period of incarceration. If the service member misbehaves, they don't have to take him before a U.S. Magistrate or District Judge, they court-martial them (again). They don't have to worry about lawsuits. It is to the government's advantage to not issue the discharge until the period of confinement ends. As an example, see United States v. Savage, 72 M.J. 560 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2013), where a USDB prisoner was charged, with others, for mutiny in relation to actions taken by him and others at the USDB. I'm sorry, but Manning will likely not be discharged until his confinement has been completed. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ill concede that I countered your armchair lawyering with sme of my own and it may well be that he's not officially discharged. Nonetheless, I highly doubt the ACLU would be talking about suing the army under the 8th amendment for not providing hormones if this issue is as open and shut as you claim. W/r/t the subject of this discussion, the point is that in 46 states including MO there is no legal requirement to "officially" change your name before your name change is actually official, and there's no reason I see that we should defer to the government's naming decisions of its prisoners. AgnosticAphid talk 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ACLU has sued a number of times for active duty soldiers, and normally lose. And again, I did not say that Wikipedia should depend on what the Army says his name is. I really wish that you would read what I wrote. I'll repeat it here: That has no bearing on what we use in our articles. None. GregJackP Boomer! 01:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manning addressed as a "she"?

Manning was born a male, is a male and will continue to be a male despite his so-called "gender identity" problems. It's ridiculous that the whole article addresses him as a she rather than a he, as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PikkoroDaimao (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, no trans-phobia there at all... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY is clear on this issue, take a look. U-Mos (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His gender changeover occurred after the important events surrounding him took place. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? Also,I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but his name is Bradley Manning and he should be addressed as a man.You can't just put the trans-phobic label on everyone with this opinion. (MightySaiyan (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, yes, I can put the trans-phobic label on everyone with that opinion.
"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a man and he should not be allowed to marry another man" is unambiguously homophobic.
"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a black man and he should not be allowed to marry a white woman" is unambiguously racist.
Please explain how your argument is not unambiguously transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not share MightySaiyan's view on this, but the analogous transphobic comment to your examples would be "I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but Bradley Manning is a man and should not be able to live as a woman." That's not at all what was said, MightySaiyan was talking about Manning's legal name and his views on what that should mean for the wording on an encyclopedic article. Such inflammatory responses to that are helping no one. U-Mos (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been had UMPTEEN times on this page already. Please drop the stick, both of you. Focus on content. The article currently uses "she", and will likely continue to do so unless MOS:IDENTITY has changed. Thus, there's not much more to say here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have evidence she was born as a he? Any medical assessment of genitalia and chromosomes at the moment of birth (from reputable sources, of course) ? Vexorian (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest some arguments may be better placed as suggestions for policy change

I can't speak for everyone supporting moving this page back to Bradley Manning, but my arguments for doing so are purely based on Wikipedia policies as I see them. Specifically those at Wikipedia:Article titles. It seems clear from the comments on this talk page that in transgender cases such as these, however, what might be the WP:COMMONNAME may also be considered as perpetuating prejudices, and detrimental to the personal difficulties the subject is or was going through. These are fair arguments, but they are not directly supported by policy. Might it then be an idea for those who feel strongly about the conventions that should be followed in such cases to suggest that an explicit mention of what to do in cases where a name is changed for transgender reasons be added to Wikipedia:Article titles, in the wake of the discussions here. Certainly, if policy directly dictated that articles on such subjects should be named as per the person's current chosen name as MOS:IDENTITY does for personal pronouns in the article text, there would be very little room for objection. Might a policy discussion be a way to solve this, not just for now but forever? U-Mos (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a discussion is happening already at the talk page of WP:AT I believe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I thought on the basis of arguments here that there wasn't one. In that case I would suggest that any arguments along the lines of it being offensive/wrong to use Bradley as the article title etc. be diverted there, as that discussion is the best place for those views to have a lasting effect of Wiki-policy. U-Mos (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title and lede

There's been a lot of discussion. I think we need to close this and unprotect the article so it can be updated. What's clear from all the discussions and policy is that we go with whatever the reliable sources use. If Bradley Manning is how the subject has been referred to in the vast majority of sources, that's what we would use. It will be least surprising for the reader to find an article with a title that matches what they have understood the subject to be about. The subject is notable for events that occurred while she was known as Bradley Manning. It is also verifiable that she has changed her name to Chelsea Manning. This article is about the subject and her historical importance, the vast majority of which occured while she was known as Bradley Manning.

May I suggest that the article be titled Bradley Manning, as the subject was historically known, and as their name appears in all the reports establishing her notability, but the first line of the article state that she is now known as Chelsea? As for pronouns throughout the article, if there are past tense events when she was a he, it would seem logical to use "he" and for events occuring after she declared herself to be female, then use "she".

The current lead paragraph is defective because it uses the less-well known name, and does not explain how Bradley became Chelsea. The lead should clearly state that on such a date Bradley declared that he was a she, and that her name would now be Chelsea. Something like this would be better (assuming I've got the chronology right):

Bradley Edward Manning, born December 17, 1987 (now known as Chelsea E. Manning[3][4]) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of several violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged.[1] After sentencing, Manning declared that she was transgender female, and had chosen the new name Chelsea E. Manning. She will be eligible for parole after serving one third of her sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.[5]

As for the photos, I think it makes sense to use one showing Manning in uniform, because that's what he was notable for--being in the military and leaking secret documents. Immediately below the current photo there can be a newer photo showing the Chelsea identity. Somebody clever could even form a new image by splicing the two together, one above the other.

The arguments that carry no weight are those involving original research. We do not as Wikipedia editors attempt to determine the law or say how society should deal with people. We simply follow what reliable sources say. All editors need to be tolerant and realize that this is an unusual situation, that we will probably get things wrong for a while, but eventually get them right. All editors also need to realize that this is NOT the place for advocacy of any causes, whether those are pro-human rights causes, or bigoted causes.

Can we please get the article unprotected? If you support the above summary, please say so below. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex and messy talk page, but the creation of a new section like this that continues old discussions only adds to the confusion. In the above, you are addressing multiple overlapping issues. I'd suggest you break up your comment and place things in the appropriate sections, e.g.
  1. the section on whether the RM should be closed early
  2. The RM, and what you think the article should be titled
  3. The section discussing the photo
  4. Create a new edit request suggesting changes to the lede.
Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it were that obviously clear, this talk page wouldn't be the size it is - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need to disregard the activists on both sides, and the trolls, and listen to the opinions those who don't have any stake in the outcome other than to have a concise, informative, accurate article. Jehochman Talk 21:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that this will not in fact be a decision of such obvious and elegant simplicity as to be intuitively obviously the right thing to everyone - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easier said than done. Rather than trying to second guess other editors motivations the best one can do is to consider the arguments and facts as neutrally as possible regardless of who wrote them. Space simian (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a modest proposal - put move discussion on sub-page?

This page is now over 1MB in size. What if we were to move the "move" discussion to a separate sub-page, and concentrate all discussion about the article title there? Then the main talk page could be used for other discussions, around pronouns, and misc edit requests, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make the archive cycle 24 hours first, I'd say. (Also, if we mark the "date" sections "sticky", will that keep them from being archived?)
The page is relatively easy to edit if you do it by section - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of putting it to archive after 24 hours too, but that also seems a bit short - esp over a weekend- and may lead to much rehashing of discussions already ongoing that temporarily peter out. Even the current setting (2 days) is aggressive for now, but its probably reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think nothing whatsoever will stop the rehashing of discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Guidance

Might be useful once the article is editable again: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/23/214941331/npr-issues-new-guidance-on-mannings-gender-identity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A great example of the thoughtful discussion that is happening at newsrooms - and further evidence that WP jumped the gun a bit. I think it's quite possible in time, Chelsea will become the more common name, but it may be yet a bit early. We will have to see.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the guidance of NPR, versus anyone else's, important? We should be taking a broad look at how various news organizations and reliable sources are dealing with it. Already, for example, I'm seeing that some of the blog posts linked by Sue imploring the world to embrace Manning's new name have gone unheeded by the publications they write for. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a relevant discussion point considering how many editors - including you - have raised media usage as an issue - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My question was why usage by NPR, as opposed to any other media source, is important. A general review of sources is fine, and probably in order, but I don't understand why NPR's is especially important. -- tariqabjotu 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPR is funded by the same US government that brought Manning before a court to serve 35 years in jail. They're probably not the source most concerned with the private's dignity and self-determination. Shrigley (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that's a rather silly assertion - so what? Did you read what npr decided to do? They decided first to stick with Bradley, then after internal and external debate, changed their minds. But the fact NPR receives govt funding and thus is biased is ridiculous. Finally to TA's point, I don't think more choice should determine ours, nor that npr should be weighed more than cnn or nytimes, but the article itself is interesting as it shows that they flip-flopped - so this wasn't a no brainer decision.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that NPR's guidance is directed to their staff for writing news stories, not encyclopedia articles. Whereas Wikipedia's guidance is directed towards our editors and is in the policy section WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." It is possible that over time the name Chelsea will be the most commonly used in reliable sources. If that happens we should consider having the article's title Chelsea Manning, but for now the article title should be Bradley Manning per Wikipedia policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:BLP. Her gender identity is female and her name is Chelsea. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw on Twitter that New York Times will also start using Chelsea/female pronoums. So with that, I may switch may vote above to support of the current version as I am one of those who have insisted we should follow reliable sources per WP:Commonname. Iselilja (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this article on Buzz feed which gives our example as a reason to admonish the New York Times ("Unfortunately, others have failed to follow suit."). We must ask ourselves how much we are creating the change you are suggesting we follow. This is not how an encyclopaedia is supposed to work. --RA (✍) 19:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPR has changed its mind. Its Managing Editor for Standards and Practice Stu Seidel has issued this guidance: "We are fond of saying that our style and language use is always open to challenge and subject to change. We also believe that a healthy newsroom is open to debate and reflection. In the past day, we have been challenged by listeners and readers and by colleagues at our member stations and in our newsroom, raising a chorus of views, including requests to rethink, backed up by arguments that make good sense. We have been persuaded. Going forward, on first reference, please use "Chelsea Manning." For the near term, we should make clear that we are talking about the person who gained public notice as "Bradley Manning." (The need for that clarification will, undoubtedly, diminish as the name Chelsea Manning becomes better known – and as Private Manning fades from routine public prominence.) On the pronoun front, the best solution is the simplest: If we're going to use a new name for a transgender person, we should change pronouns as appropriate. In this case, we should refer to Manning as a "she."" Sue Gardner (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh whoops sorry -- just saw I am late here :-) I had been skimming, and thought this section header was referring to NPR's *original* decision to call Chelsea Manning Bradley Manning. Carry on :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the problem is

I just read this article about the gender issue, as pointed out in that article, Wikipedia has managed to avoid problems by making the right choice at the right moment while some major news media failed to do that. Jimbo has said on his talk page that you can't always religiously follow WP:V to make this sort of editorial judgements, you always have to be prepared to WP:IAR and see if that leads to a better outcome. Count Iblis (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The right choice at the right time is your opinion, Wikipedia does not make the news, it follows reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, how is this improving the encyclopedia? We have made waves in the media and have taken a WP:POV stance to a right now heated debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy WP:IAR states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How does having the title Chelsea Manning instead of the title Bradley Manning improve Wikipedia? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But equally how does reverting the article to Bradley improve wikipedia? At least calling Manning Chelsea conforms to BLP and NPOV policies, we arent here to show our disapproval or any other "feeling/belief". Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the move discussion above numerous times it has been said that there is nothing in WP:BLP that prevents this from being called "Bradley Manning". As for NPOV, it is also NPOV to call this Chelsea so we have two NPOV names I feel it best we go by the common name which is "Bradley" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we arent here to show our disapproval or any other "feeling/belief". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Many of the opposition remarks are about approving Manning's action, as if it is our job to approve and accept name changes. As noted by the many counterexamples across Wikipedia (e.g. Lily Allen, Cat Stevens, and Malcolm X), your understanding of BLP applicability here is counter to the general community's. -- tariqabjotu 17:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It improves Wikipedia when we are respectful toward our subjects, and it diminishes the project when we are not. If you don't value dealing respectfully with our BLP subjects, you obviously won't see any benefit in us doing so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either choice could have been made, Bradley would always have led to more ongoing discussions about moving to Chelsea, but then one should have made some agreement making it possible to edit the page pending the outcome of these discussions leading to a possible move in the future. But once the choice for Chelsea was made, unless one seriously believes (based on what reliable sources are writing) that Manning could well reverse her decision and call himself "Bradley" again, continuing to discuss the move is unproductive. You're then arguing about the move not having done "by the book" instead of arguing about some real factual issue, something that IAR is meant to prevent. Count Iblis (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For me, the major problem is that "Wikipedia" didn't make the decision - right or wrong. One editor took it upon themselves to move the article without discussion. A few reverts ensued and then one of the movers of the article to Chelsea Manning locked the article at that title (so that only administrators could move it, which we won't in order to avoid a wheel war).
Now we must wait for 7 days for the discussion above to run its course before it will be moved back to Bradley Manning (because the initial move to Chelsea Manning had no consensus and there is no consensus to keep it there). In the mean time, the media has picked up on it and the instigator of the move to Chelsea Manning has given a newspaper interview on the matter in which they say "there's a background of transphobia to a lot of this". So, our dirty lenin gets washed in public and good faith contributors get discredited in the same breath. Wonderful.
This, by the way, is aside to the question of referring to Manning as "Chelsea" or referring to Manning as "she" in articles, about which there looks to be broad consensus that that's appropriate (see MOS:IDENTITY). The issue only relate to the article's title (see WP:TITLES). --RA (✍) 16:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating a particularly virulent myth—namely, that the article was moved without discussion. A discussion did precede the move. You may wish to argue that it didn't go on long enough to establish consensus, but please do not perpetuate the demonstrably false claim that it didn't happen at all. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a move button to allow editors to move articles without necessarily seeking consensus, if you want to change that this isnt the place to do so, its a policy issue. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a similar debate on the french-language wikipedia (where Manning is still known, so far, as "Bradley"). Putting aside the fact that Manning became internationally known as "Bradley", shouldn't we just wait for this person to officially change gender (legally, that is ?). I have no issue with transsexuals whatsoever, but deciding that a person has switched genders just because he has said so - and the minute he says so - seems a bit awkward to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an arguemnt for changing the she/her back to he/him not one to change the name back to Bradley but really this he/she is an issue about all transgender ppl not about Manning and so should be discussed elsewhere and without reference to Manning. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for both issues, actually. I find it awkward to say that "she" did something when she was still a "he", and it seems even more awkard to do so when that person is, technically and legally, still a man. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jean-Jacques Georges. The trouble is, there is no rule that can be used to determine when somebody has officially switched genders. That is why so many organizations have decided to accept the person's word: that a person's gender is what they say it is. To elaborate --- here are some points at which someone's gender might be thought to be, or have been, determined: i) when a doctor "assigns" them a gender at birth; ii) when a doctor decides their gender has changed, for example due to an accident; iii) when the person determines themselves what they believe their gender to be; iv) when the person announces publicly what they believe their gender to be; v) when they begin living publicly as the gender they say they are, for example by choosing to dress in a manner consistent with how that gender typically dresses; vi) when they begin using a name consistent with their gender identity; vii) when they legally change their name to one consistent with their gender identity; viii) when they have their gender changed on one or more of the following: birth certificate, driver’s license, passport, other ID; ix) when they begin or complete hormone therapy; x) when they begin or complete laser hair removal or electrolysis; or xi) when they begin or complete surgical procedures on for example their genitals, face, Adam’s apple, chest or vocal cords. That's just a partial list of potential points at which it might be said someone has established their gender as they believe it to be. This is complicated by the fact that most transgendered people never undertake *all* these steps, and that of those undertaken, the order will vary widely depending on the person's circumstances and preferences. This is why many organizations have chosen to accept that a person's gender is what they say it is: because it's fundamentally respectful of that person, and there is no other way to make the determination that is always and obviously better. Sue Gardner (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, and I have no doubt that this is a rather complicated matter (in real life and in Manning's inner self). Yet I still find it unfortunate to use she in the narrative when we refer to actions that were undertaken when Manning was stil known as Bradley and was still considered as a he. Using she after his gender change (or at least wish to changer genders) became known might not be a problem, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this an example of the general case where you have false information that is accepted as the truth and then one finds out later that things are not as we thought they were. So, this falls in the same category as Brontosaurus, Pluto, Piltdown Man, etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@SqueakBox and Psychonaut: Yes, we do have a move button. However, it is standard practice, as noted at WP:RMT, to revert moves if they are undiscussed and controversial, as this one was. For someone to continue to move the page subverts the process. -- tariqabjotu 17:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have procedures for this. If a move is contested, it is reverted and a move discussion takes place. In this case, the move was contested but warred back to Chelsea Manning (and locked there) without a move discussion. See Wikipedia:Requested moves. --RA (✍) 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but warred back to Chelsea Manning (and locked there) And warred back even after the lock... -- tariqabjotu 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point im just going with it, I was pushing this viewpoint as well as it was wrong but nobody seems willing at this point to follow through with proper procedures. Hopefully this can be avoided more in the future as it would have prevented Wikipedia from becoming spotlighted in the media for pushing a POV view first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it. I too believe that proper procedure was not followed, but to avoid wheel war and in the judgement of our neutral closer, the title should remain where it is. A few more days won't hurt. I really don't think complaining will help either, so while I'm sympathetic to the points above by RA and TA and others, it's basically water under the bridge at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the fact that I do not think that anything will be done about it but that does not mean it is right. Wikipedia should not be taking stands in the news on heated debates as we are supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated elsewhere that if I was uninvolved and had volunteered to close this discussion, I wouldn't move the article back until this RM had run it course. Further wheel warring is not what's needed. It's important that procedure be (finally) followed and the community have the fullness of their say. The quiet lesson of seeing process being followed at last is important.
But I'm not uninvolved and I won't be closing this discussion so I'm free to take a slightly different position and emphasise a slightly different message. The approach I'm taking is to make sure that when discussion has run its course that people will leave here with one thing ringing in their ears: Next time we discuss. Next time, if you get reverted, you discuss.
This thread pointed to the praise that Wikipedia has received for its decision and asked what the problem was. The problem is that Wikipedia didn't make the decision. Two admins took it upon themselves to decide what was best for this article. And one (going by her blog posts) is very proud for having done so.
Taking a long term view of this article, it doesn't matter if it is at the title Chelsea Manning for a week. And I wouldn't lose any sleep if it was at that title permanently. But taking a long term view of the project (Wikipedia), no-one should be allowed to leave here thinking the actions of Morwen and David Gerard are examples of how we do business. --RA (✍) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RA, I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that (a) it's already been said and (b) This page is not perhaps the best place to continue, as it seems like we're asking for the page to be moved back, which just isn't going to happen I'm afraid. But I agree with you on the rest - I was horrified to read that wikipedia was given kudos for being AHEAD of major news media - that is just wrong in so many ways, and could lead to citogenesis, among other problems... As a side note, though, Jimbo has some thoughtful words on this over at his talk, the jist of which is, sometimes we do need to make an editorial call, and since there will be confusion in RS for some time, we may need to IAR and keep it at Chelsea. This hasn't yet convinced me, but it's worth reading and considering his point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It bears repeating though. I've said long ago (at the very start of the move request, in fact) and multiple times after that that I have no expectation for the article to be moved back to Bradley Manning during the course of the move request. However, there needs to be some clarity, especially if the final decision is to keep the article at Chelsea Manning, that the actions that led to where we are now, with a move request for returning the article back to the status quo (rather than from status quo) were questionable. Unfortunately, should the article maintain its current position, Morwen and David Gerard, and many of those preferring Chelsea Manning, are no doubt going to take that as proof-positive that they did the right thing. In fact, that's quite clear already, given Morwen's congratulatory blog posts and interviews and given David's unwillingness to explain how the previous title constitutes a BLP violation. (As you'll see, David has repeatedly argued that he's explained that already, although, of course, a simple search of this talk page shows that no such explanation has ever been given.) I'm interested to see if/how the closers address this issue, especially if the article ends up at Chelsea Manning. -- tariqabjotu 21:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...should the article maintain its current position, Morwen and David Gerard, and many of those preferring Chelsea Manning, are no doubt going to take that as proof-positive that they did the right thing. That's a worrying thing for me too. Their actions needs to be addressed separately from the move request. --RA (✍) 22:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just make the point here that at no point have I participated in an edit war during this. A check of my contributions will reveal that my actions to consisted of

  • moving it, after a brief discussion on the talk
  • some copyedits to change pronouns
  • noting that it had been moved back by another user and asking why
  • after having received a message from that other user saying Sorry. [...] Feel free to change back!" I did so.
  • and then later, rollbacking a botched copy and paste move

That does not constitute "being warred back". Please strike that from the record. (And also incidentally, none of this was an admin action). Morwen (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you moved too quickly and with too much excitement on a issue you should have been able to anticipate would be controversial. You got reverted and that could have been an opportunity for you to steady your pulse, but you tore in again. You should have had greater sense and your instinct should have been to instigate an RM IMO. But your action, however ill advised, was not warring. The revert clearly indicating that the move was contested and undiscussed came after your second move. Another admin reverted that.
I've looked through the conversation above and I do not see where it is said you engaged in warring so I cannot strike any comment. --RA (✍) 00:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Rannpháirtí anaithnid: I believe she's referring to the part where you say In this case, the move was contested but warred back to Chelsea Manning (and locked there) without a move discussion. She probably interpreted that (as I did) as meaning the article was move-protected after it was warred back to Chelsea Manning, which would imply that Morwen -- the only person who moved the article before the protection -- was move-warring. -- tariqabjotu 07:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. My second move came after the person who moved it back had apologised and told me it was OK to revert them. That's not an edit war. Morwen (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's something Morwen would have to ask David Gerard about. Cls14 reverted her through a mis-understanding and gave his blessing for her to revert back. So she didn't "war" with anyone. I think her actions were ill-advised, excited and impulsive. I don't appreciate her press correspondences that cast aspersions on contributors here that followed. I think those are things she needs to reflect upon. But I don't doubt the good faith and best intentions of Morwen's move, however ill-advised.
I think David needs to answer questions about why he move locked the article and then undid an administrative action to place the article back at Chelsea Manning after the move was contested. He cites BLP policy but doesn't explain what section of BLP policy having the article at Bradley Manning violates. Or how it justifies wheel warring. --RA (✍) 13:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sue Gardner made a good explanation of one prong of the BLP concerns [10]. I'm going to see if I can come up with something broader by the end of the WP:RM period. (I've been a bit quiet yesterday and today because of migraines, unfortunately - can you believe I was supposed to be having a quiet weekend de-stressing and putting together garden furniture? No, really.) Morwen (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think David has answered this repeatedly, on this very page, including answering you personally, and as such your repeated assertions to the contrary appear to be a prima facie case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not liking the answer doesn't mean it didn't happen - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: You most certainly have not; why do you think people keep asking you? As I said in response to your last IDIDNTHEARTHAT mention, it looks like you've just repeatedly invoked BLP, not stated why you felt the Bradley Manning title constituted a violation of the policy. If you believe you have already answered this point, how about you go locate where you have, then copy and paste that here? -- tariqabjotu 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David, I've looked through every comment you posted to this talk page, including those in the archive. You've said that you have BLP concerns with the Bradley Manning title. And you have said that you have explained what those concerns are - even "ad nauseum".
Now, I don't want you to cause any more nausea but I cannot find one instance on this talk page where you have explained what those concerns are. Maybe your explanation got lost somewhere. Could you please post a diff to where you have explained why you believe having this article at the title Bradly Manning is a violation of BLP policy. I'd be particularly grateful if you could state the specific section of BLP policy you believe the Bradley Manning title violates. Thanks, --RA (✍) 16:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a repeated argument with some people here, they cite WP:BLP as the issue but when it comes to explaining why they fall short with a response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Rannpháirtí anaithnid: Agree completely. -- tariqabjotu 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because claiming the wording of MOS:IDENTITY doesn't include titles comes across as wikilawyering to avoid the spirit of WP:BLP. Because gratuitously misgendering people is gratuitously offensive, and that violates WP:BLP. That was the reasoning. But I eagerly await the next round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because the fundamental problem is that you don't agree, so no amount of explanation as to the reasoning will be considered comprensible or sufficient.
(I'm beginning to see why it took Bertrand Russell a whole book to prove that 1+1=2 - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Time for formal mediation?

The discussion of the last 3 days has gone a bit over 2 000 comment edits and a 1MB long talk page, and just figuring out the different positions or established arguments for and against each position is almost impossible. Moving this to a formal mediation would put some structure into the discussion, focus the issue down to specific questions, and put a third party to lead the discussion. Belorn (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, don't you, that User:BD2412, has volunteered to close the move discussion at the end of the discussion period? See User:BD2412/sandbox2 - the situation seems to be well in hand. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not know. Out of the 2000 - 2500 edits, I only been able to go through a subset to get a general feel. Thanks for pointing out the sandbox. Belorn (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's right at the top of the move discussion: #Administrative notes. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ

I have gone ahead and added the round in circles template to the top of the page, PLEASE only place questions that were answered then closed there, thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few, please take a look and change if you disagree. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion about length of page

The page is getting hard to load, so how about moving all discussion about the title and pronoun, including the RM, to Talk:Chelsea Manning/Title and pronoun? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be the entire page, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just the title discussion could be moved then. When the page is unprotected, there are going to be ordinary editing concerns, and the talk page is hard to load and navigate. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the title which is the central discussion here I have also noticed repeated discussions of MOS:IDENTITY and the pronouns debate, I feel that is the part that should be split off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit update: Oh sorry was confused, you should take the wording Title out as it implies the move discussion, - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the things here can be manually archived, I have updated the FAQ and added answers to closed discussions that have gone in circles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to lump discussion about the article's title together with discussion about the article's content (pronouns, etc.). I get the feeling some people are confused about the two and find them hard to separate in their minds as it is. I think Knowledgekid87's suggestion (sub-page only the pronouns discussion) - because the move discussion is a headline issue for the next 7 days and so should appear on the main talk page - is better but I'm happy to see either or both sub-paged so long as it is separately. --RA (✍) 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let's have one sub-page devoted to pronouns, since that seems to attract a lot of attention, and move the whole move request to another sub-page. that will make things more manageable and hopefully avoid some edit conflicts, and help in grouping discussions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning and Adrian Lamo => Lamo's approach to FBI [correction]

Hello,

Although it has been frequently misreported that my initial contact and subsequent collaboration in the instant case was /w FBI, this is not factually correct - I believe Al Jazeera most prominently circulated this error.

My initial contact and subsequent collaboration with the investigation, formal and informal, was with the US Army. My first contact was with Army Counterintelligence and subsequently /w USACIDC.

Because this was predominantly an Army/DoD concern in the beginning, contacting FBI did not seem appropriate. FBI had representatives at many relevant meetings, but so did State Dept. and other government agencies.

In order to avoid having my history /w FBI overshadow or color the initial investigation, I requested FBI find agents who had not been involved with or proximate to my 2003/2004 case, and I initially asked them to recuse themselves until I was comfortable that this request had been honored.

Given FBI's National Security Branch's legitimate & ongoing interest in the case I did not object to their subsequent presence or subsequent involvement of other government agencies, but USACIDC remained my formal and continuing liaison /w the exception of testimony scheduling & related issues which were handled by JAG.

A suggested citation for the basic underlying facts of this clarification is http://gizmodo.com/5591905/wikileaks-critic-adrian-lamo-defends-manning-decision.

I offer this as a factual correction only, not to bolster any interagency turf kerfuffles - FBI maintained and maintains a substantial & meaningful involvement in other angles of the instant case, just not this one.

Comments in this space inconsistent /w BLP discussion guidelines will not be answered. Thank you for your understanding.


— User:Adrian/zap2.js 19:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you suggest the text be amended? I've added an edit request template to this section because the article is currently locked. --RA (✍) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
/s/FBI/military authorities might be the best way to put it. Also with the clarification that I did not contact the FBI, but rather asked Webster and Uber to contact Army CI & CID, respectively, on my behalf. Given the exigent circumstances, I wanted to avoid having who I was overshadow what I was reporting as much as possible; it seemed like the prudent way to accomplish that.
I assume the FBI was subsequently contacted by somebody at the Army or DoD, in the longstanding tradition of agents & agencies everywhere of scaring up as many other people and entities as possible to share blame with when disaster strikes.
— User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Using the Gizmodo source above, would the following be the smallest possible change that would reflect your chain of events:

"...Lamo contacted the FBImilitary authorities shortly after the first chat on May 21; ... Lamo met with FBI and Army investigators on May 25 in California, and showed them the chat logs..."

--RA (✍) 22:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that would work, although it might bear clarifying that pretty much every USG agency with an interest in the matter was represented at some point or another, though the FBI was among the most frequent attendees. Thanks for giving it thought. :)
— User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If there are not objections to making the change above, I (or anyone else willing to do it) will go ahead and make it. Any objections? --RA (✍) 01:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better source is needed. The cited Gizmodo article is based on an interview with Adrian Lamo himself and that makes his claim self sourced which is less than ideal. Space simian (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can always just say "In an interview with Lamo, he stated that xxx" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

let's fight about Manning's name again!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I get that I'm probably the last person anyone wants to hear about Manning's gender identity from, but that's the nice thing about Wikipedia - the last person you want to hear from is still someone you may have to hear from.

As a realpolitik-loving, pragmatic kinda person, my gut reaction to the issue of the name change was similar to that represented in many posts prior "Oh what, if someone wakes up one morning and decides to identify as (whatever), that's notable & verifiable?"

But upon a second or two of longer consideration, that's not the case here. Manning being trans has been a matter of discussion for years now (which is partially my fault - sorry ;x) so while the name change is sudden, the concept is not. Instead, the question of Manning identifying as female has been a consistent and unwavering detail throughout this entire affair. Certainly during the trial the preference was that references be made using the male pronoun, but that's a rather split hair - asking to be formally referred to as one thing doesn't imply that the identification has changed. It's more of a "Let's not make an issue of this just now" sorta thing.

So given the aforementioned, this isn't a case of sudden whimsy. It's a longstanding conviction by a notable subject who was under no obligation to express a firm preference at any prior point. Moreover, having your legal counsel read a prepared statement on national TV isn't quite an arbitrary expression of opinion - it's probably the firmest way you could say something short of skywriting or full page ads in The New York Times.

/Legally/ the name remains Bradley Manning. But all things considered, at this late date the legal name carries less weight than the preferred one, and unless Manning makes an additional change at some future point, can probably be deemed permanent. With musicians or performance artists electing a stage name (which I know isn't exactly fungible here, but bear with me) some amount of acceptance in circulation may be needed in order to acknowledge it; in this case the name has been imprinted onto the public consciousness just as fully, but by other means. Why quibble?

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian. Had no idea you edited here - fascinating to have an involved person providing insight. Not to quibble further, but perhaps you'd move your !vote above to the RM section, so as not to start a new discussion here? I've been trying to centralize move comments above, this page is already a mess. But your points that this isn't a sudden change, and that this was well known, are quite helpful, as I think many !voting were perhaps not aware. I also think those critiquing the timing are rather daft, since they can't possibly know (a) what it means to be TG or (b) what it means to be arrested, detained, and on trial for several years - so judging the behavior of Manning and the timing of this announcement is unfair, I think, if you haven't really walked in her shoes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I get that I'm probably the last person anyone wants to hear" <-- Then why do you insist on commenting here, you haven't added anything to the discussion that wasn't already mentioned. Space simian (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Salon.com

This piece at salon.com calls the above discussion "a key historical document of 2013". StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threats from trolls to editors

Keeping it classy - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, purpose, exactly are you trying to serve by raising this? One person, who apparently has corresponded with Morwen before, sent Morwen a private email, which she then posted on her public blog with some editorialization. I don't see the relevance, other than to imply that those supporting the move have some malicious intent. -- tariqabjotu 21:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have apparently launched a campaign to harrass editors who argue that we follow Wikipedia policy (such as BLP) in this article and its talk page. This is indeed a very grave example of real life harrassment of an editor. I also note that some editors have resorted to filing false reports against editors who argue that we need to follow MOS:IDENTITY and BLP and who call out transphobic comments (such as trans people being like dogs), in an apparent attempt to silence them, misrepresenting and falsely attributing comments, all while this talk page contains incredible amounts of BLP violations and hate speech, such as comparisons of transgendered people to dogs or insane people. I would not be surprised if the media eventually catched up with everything that has been going on here. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been pointed out many times on this page that WP:BLP Does not apply as for the "campaign" accusing others of starting a war here is not productive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been claimed. With no apparent basis other than assertion - I really don't see how WP:BLP doesn't apply to a living bio. And it has repeatedly been found to apply to talk pages, of a living bio or not - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Knowledge, I'm sure, meant by WP:BLP does not apply was that neither name would violate the BLP policy. Whether that has truly been pointed out (proven) or just claimed is a matter of opinion, of course, but you certainly have done nothing to refute the suggestion. -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been topic-banned yet? -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No of course not, and I notice that you make yet another personal attack on an editor, thereby making it clear that it is you, if anyone, who needs to be topic banned. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tariqabjotu I find it interesing that you did not learn from harassment you previously received when others were outing your real life identity, since you above appear to be negating someone simply because of a content dispute. Dissapointing. Pass a Method talk 11:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, a) I don't remember having heard of this character before, b) the correspondence took a much nastier turn subsequently and c) this was in the context of a very unpleasant doxxing of my userpage a few hours earlier by User:67.40.213.213. (Josh immediately reverted it, but I didn't notice it for over an hour and had to revdel and put in the oversight request myself, which also didn't help!) Morwen (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raised as a boy

“Raised as a boy” in the section “Background” #“Early life”, is confusing. It suggests that Brad/Chelsea Manning was born a girl but raised as a boy. Is it true that Brad/Chelsea has always been physically male but self-identifies as female, as suggested by the passage “Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood and released a statement the day after her sentencing identifying as female, taking the name Chelsea Manning....”? If Manning has always been physically male but self-identifies as female, the article should clearly say this.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

short of looking at baby pictures, we're unlikely to ever know, and it's not that relevant (or, really, any of our business) There is plenty of evidence that Manning was raised as a boy, eg raised with the expectation that he act as a boy and be treated as a boy - what is less known is the extent to which Manning felt like a girl, when these feelings came on, the extent of them, etc. It seems in these cases it can be quite confusing for a child for obvious reasons, so I assume our reporting on that will have to take that into account. I don't think the 'physically a male' part is necessary or even verifiable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase, "Raised as a boy, ...", was added as a result of this conversation, I believe. diff It's clunky, like a lot of the gender issues in the article because it was done hurriedly. Any suggestion for an improved copy?
Regarding the sentence beginning, "Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood", there is a related discussion above. --RA (✍) 23:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read (correct me if I'm mistaken) Manning was raised as a boy because he was one (i.e., physically), even tough he felt a gender disorder : if so, the sentence should be rewritten because it is indeed confusing. One would think that he was raised as a boy because his parents didn't notice that he was a girl... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest a change to the text? --RA (✍) 14:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some coverage, like this [11] which suggests Manning is physically male. However, I still find it problematic - "physically" can mean all sorts of things, but in this case it seems to be code for "has a penis". I'd like to see if there is a wording we can use that doesn't need to emphasize this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a weird sentence, saying she was small "for her age" and then describing her adult height and weight, and them randomly moving on to her saxophone playing! Might I suggest for the entire paragraph:

Growing up, Manning excelled at the saxophone, science, and computers; her father told PBS that she created her first website when she was ten years old. She 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 state-wide quiz bowl. Manning was noticeably smaller than the average male, reaching a height of only 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) tall and weighing 105 lb (47.6 kg) in adulthood.

I would consider the context of the rest of the article sufficient in understanding that Manning was being raised as a boy at this point, and that she now identifies as female. U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't address the problem being brought as a boy - that "raised a boy" implies Manning was actually biologically female as a child. We ought to be focused on giving the reader a clear picture of events in articles. Erasing the past of a transgendered person (and not one who completely transitioned before notability either) obfuscates the facts for readers. Readers should not get the impression from the text that Manning was genotypically and phenotypically female as a child, because that's not the case. The possibility that a bio subject might be uncomfortable with the wording in a bio is not grounds for imprecise, inaccurate wording. We put all sorts of things in articles that might distress readers. We have Muhammad even though real human beings have died in protests against such depictions. It feels like, "We have always been at war with Eastasia," to just eliminate facts the one might consider "insensitive". I would suggest this wording: "Manning was born biologically male and raised as a boy. However, Manning has said she felt female since childhood." Then stick in a citation to the Manning statement to the Today show. --JamesAM (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT studies

What is this article's Importance rating in “WikiProject LGBT studies”?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gender identity made

To further complicate things an editor has gone ahead and made an essay regarding Gender identity on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it 'complicates things' particularly. Essays aren't policy, or guidelines. They are the opinions of particular contributors. We've already seen plenty of those, and one more isn't going to change anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essays tend to uncomplicate things. Instead of posting the same long argument again and again, editors can write an essay and link to it. Jehochman Talk 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Identity Disorder → Gender Dysphoria

nyet. This was already discussed a day ago, and there was no consensus for it. I'd suggest joining the discussion at the GID page, where several editors are proposing to rename the article, or perhaps start a new one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Gender Identity Disorder" was dropped in the DSM-5 in favour of "Gender Dysphoria". The language used in this page should be updated accordingly. The term "Gender Identity Disorder" appears (and should be replaced with "Gender Dysphoria") in the final paragraph of the introduction and in the final paragraph of section 4.3.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 25 August 2013

In the section "Guilty plea, trial, sentence" it says "all pay and benefits" will be forfeited. This is incorrect. According to Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), Rules of Court Martial (RCM) Rule 1003(b), Authorized Punishments, subsection (2) calls for the forfeiture of "all pay and allowances". ["Benefits" is not used in the MCM except in other contexts. Benefits overall can include retirement benefits, the privilege of wearing the uniform, burial in military cemeteries, etc..] The only word needing change is "allowances" instead of "benefits". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Edit request on 25 August 2013

In the Return to the United States section, stepmother is spelled stepmonther. Why, exactly, have established editors been blocked from fixing silly little things like this? Thegreatdr (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because even established editors and admin have got involved in making poor choices. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any rational person would think this is a controversial change. Would an administrator please fix this typo?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are making the incorrect assumption that wikipedia editors are rational persons. ;) Space simian (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poll to Limit the Talk Page to Edit Requests and Survey

I am someone who normally supports the open and free discussion of articles. Usually, editors are able to keep themselves composed, make the discussions relevant to the subject of the article, and are able to improve it. That notwithstanding, very little of the discussion here is on Manning. Most of the talk page discussion is 30+ users attacking each other on if they're transphobic or trolls. I'm a supporter of transsexual rights; but it's very counter intuitive for people to go as far as to accuse someone of hating transsexual people. Besides that, a lot of baiting and personal attacks have occurred as well which is especially problematic. The only threads that have not been affected by this ridiculous unprofessionalism are the main survey and edit requests. Even a thread I made to try to combat this went into that type of territory. Therefore, I want to start a poll to have the other sections not related to edit requests and the main survey archived so everyone can stop attacking each other. --Thebirdlover (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable Version

Now that a "stable version" of this article has been established, why has it not been reverted to that version yet? The article should be reverted to its original stable version for the remainder of the discussion. At the end of the period of discussion, then any changes discussed should be made. Leaving the article in it's current "non-stable" state is absurd. This article is laughable in both title and it's misuse of pronouns. Articles like these are why teachers tell their students not to use Wikipedia for research, and tarnish Wikipedia's image overall. IFreedom1212 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no disgrace to Wikipedia if we have a civil discussion about an editorial issue. Just be patient and it will get resolved. The disgrace starts when people get rude or start warring. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal pronouns, and manning

I think this talk page will be of interest to future scholars of issues relating to Personal pronouns. Future edits to this article should take into account that Manning has opened a can worms with respect military and industrial manning with transgender personnel SEPARATE from the T of LGBT (or gay or glum.) —Pawyilee (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration of GID → Gender Dysphoria change

It was previously decided to keep the term "gender identity disorder" in this article, rather than replacing it with the newer term "gender dysphoria". This decision was made on the basis that the article title has not yet been changed. I believe this should be reconsidered. The main argument against changing the article title is that the ICD-10 still uses the term "gender identity disorder". Such an argument may apply to the general case of an article about a condition that can be experienced by anyone in the world (though I disagree with it), but Manning is an American who will be evaluated by American psychologists. In the US, the DSM is much more widely used for psychological conditions than the ICD. Therefore, the DSM terminology ought be used. MaxHarmony (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has Manning been diagnosed with a disorder or dysphoria? Rather that us diagnosing, what do reliable source say? --RA (✍) 14:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the court transcripts, at least the one I read had a psychologist using both dysphoria and GID. Much of the media coverage has used GID. I believe the Dr. in the transcripts did say something like "We now call this GD", but I haven't read *all* the transcripts and all the diagnoses. I'm sure Manning has been assessed multiple times by multiple doctors, so it wouldn't surprise me if some wrote "GID" and some wrote "GD" in the record.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox bugs

Firstly, please reinstate this uncontroversial change to the first infobox, which appears to have been inadvertently undone as part of another change.

Secondly, because this article uses a custom infobox (I repeat my earlier question: why is {{infobox person}} not thought suitable?), the line:

| birth_name = Bradley Edward Manning

does not display. The birthplace is also displaced. Please therefore change, again in the first infobox: 

| label2      = Born
| data2       = {{birth date and age|1987|12|17}}<br />[[Crescent, Oklahoma|Crescent]], [[Oklahoma (U.S. state)|Oklahoma]], U.S.
| label3      = Birth place
| data3       =

to: 

| data2       = {{birth date and age|1987|12|17}}<br /><span class="nickname">Bradley Edward Manning</span>
| label3      = Birth place
| data3       = [[Crescent, Oklahoma|Crescent]], [[Oklahoma (U.S. state)|Oklahoma]], U.S.

The HTML markup class="nickname" will ensure that the birth name is part of the emitted hCard metadata, and will not change the visual appearance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox list format

To improve accessibility, please apply {{Plainlist}} in the top infobox, by changing: 

| data10       = [[National Defense Service Medal]]<br />[[Iraq Campaign Medal]]<br />[[Global War on Terrorism Service Medal]]<br />[[Army Service Ribbon]]<br />[[Overseas Service Ribbon#Army|Overseas Service Ribbon]]

to: 

| data10       = {{plainlist|
* [[National Defense Service Medal]]
* [[Iraq Campaign Medal]]
* [[Global War on Terrorism Service Medal]]
* [[Army Service Ribbon]]
* [[Overseas Service Ribbon#Army|Overseas Service Ribbon]]
}}

and 

| data11       = Brian Manning<br /> Susan Fox

to: 

| data11       = {{plainlist|
* Brian Manning
* Susan Fox
}}

These changes will make no visual difference, but will assist the users of screen reading software. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I concur (just going off to change all my br-separated lists to plainlinks) - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests, minor

If I understand the sentence correctly, it should be "when the second wife's son from a previous relationship" instead of "when the second wife's son by a previous relationship", right? (emphases by me)
À propos "relationship": "Manning told Lamo in May 2010 that she had developed a relationship with Assange" – to me, that sounds ambiguous (and therefore confuses the reader) and should be either added to ("working relationship"?) or reworded.
There are many other small things that need fixing or tweaking (and I'm not even referring to the can of worms that is the pronouns debacle), so when is this article going to get unlocked again? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Styling issue: quote marks in blockquote

Please undo this good-faith edit; per its documentation, and HTML standards, {{blockquote}} does not take quote marks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&oldid=570145870"