Talk:Chelsea Manning

Template:BLP noticeboard

Edit Request

i would like any administrator to edit these article and fix the issues relating to Manning's gender. At some places in the article instead of "she" , "he" is written. It creates problems for the users and readers. As it is a good article, i would like any administrator to fix these issues. --Param Mudgal (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a purely aesthetic issue, I noticed the "Gender reassignment" section sort of buts in between "Legal procedings" and "Reaction to disclosures". I'd like to request it be moved to the end of the article, so it doesn't break the flow of the article. I'd also like to request (separately) that the sections "Disclosure of classified material" and "Reaction to disclosures" either be merged (with a new subsection "Reaction"), or that the "Reaction to disclosures" section be moved to after "Disclosure of classified material". Thechungling (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Date formats

Extended content

I'd like at some point to go through the dates and change to day first, as in 30 July 2013. It saves extra commas, e.g. "He was convicted on 30 July 2013 of 17 of the 22 charges," instead of "He was convicted on July 30, 2013, of 17 of the 22 charges." We're supposed to check before doing this, so does anyone mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC) An excellent idea. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Bad idea. Normal US date format is DMY. The military date format should not apply to individual people. Should be changed back per WP:DATERET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I've restored the date formats. I checked on 31 July and waited until 16 August to change it, which is long enough for someone to have objected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Why switch to this format? Because it will mean less comas? Shouldn't it be US date format since he is an American, or is there something different for military personel? Also, somebody did object above, I'll try to find out who. Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Yes it should. It should be reverted back to the DMY version per WP:DATERETJOJ Hutton 23:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Some points: WP:MOSDATE says: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day ..." But it also says: "Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." And: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used ..." Looking back at the earlier versions, both formats were used, e.g. here: "As of June 7, Manning had not yet been formally charged," but "Wired released apparent excerpts from the chat logs between Manning and Lamo on 10 June 2010." Furthermore, there is an international dimension via Bradley's mother and the significant international interest. Therefore, because of the above, and because DMY is easier to write, I asked if there were objections, and waited over two weeks before changing it (which was quite a bit of work, by the way, for anyone thinking of changing it back). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC) ok, asked and answered. I like working on bios even though my copy editing sucks and usually American bios follow MDY dating. I don't really care though. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) The wording does not apply to people. You don't say of a person that "there goes a modern US military", do you? The wording makes is obvious (at least to me) that it applies to battles, equipment, forts, battleships, fighter and bomber aircraft, organizations, etc, but not to people. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Dates Also see discussion beginning 31 July and 23 August. Dates used in this article (e.g., Manning's birthdate, etc.) should be in American format, not British. I see no reason why British format would apply in this article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Subject is an American citizen, so it's quite odd to see the British format throughout the article. --Tocino 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)  Done per MOS:DATEUNIFY, as most of the dates on the page were the m-d-y format anyway. Not sure why there was a {{use dmy dates}} tag here to begin with. Per WP:STRONGNAT an article on a topic with close ties to one particular country should use the date format commonly used in that country. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for making the change. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC) It's probably lost in some archive (there's been a stampede of edits since this whole Bradley/Chelsea naming thing exploded), but a user said that he/she found it easier to maintain DMY date format and had waited ~2 weeks for any objections and found none. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) See Talk:Chelsea Manning#Date_formats above. SlimVirgin made a suggestion, didn't get much feedback and then changed it. --Malerooster (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I asked on 31 July if there were objections, and there weren't, so over two weeks later I made the change from MDY to DMY. DMY is the more common format, including in the US military; it's not British style, it's used internationally. So although MDY is more common generally in the US, we have grounds to use DMY in this article if we want to. It depends on consensus. But now the dates are inconsistent, because Zzyzx11 only changed a few; changing them all is quite a lot of work because all the dates in the article, as well as notes, references and further-reading sections need to be changed. I'm therefore going to revert that edit when the page is unprotected, assuming no admin will revert before then, and I'll post an RfC asking for consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Do you see other U.S. military figures' articles use the British date format? A quick survey: Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Raymond T. Odierno, Army Chief of Staff, Jonathan Greenert, Navy Chief of Staff, Mark Welsh, Air Force Chief of Staff, James F. Amos, Commander of the Marine Corps, Frank J. Grass, Chief of the National Guard, etc. suggests not. It's clear that when it comes to the articles of the people of the U.S. military, that the U.S. date method is preferred, just as it is for American politicians, American scientists, American economists, American sports players, and American spies. Also, you say that "now the dates are inconsistent", but I cannot find any DMY dates in the article now that it's protected from editing. The dates are all in the MDY format. --Tocino 11:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Zzyzx11 didn't change the date formats in the Notes, References and Further reading sections, which is where most of the dates are. So now most dates are DMY, and the ones in the text itself are MDY. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Everything right now seems to be DMY. Needs to be left that way. Anything still MDY should be changed as soon as possible. JOJ Hutton 21:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Edit request: date format 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. Would an admin please revert the recent change to some of the date formats made here through protection by another admin? This is an editorial issue that needs to be discussed first (for example, the US military and almost all other countries use dmy). Also, the format has to be consistent throughout the article, notes, references and further reading sections, whereas the edit only changed some of the dates. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Looks like a perfectly valid edit to me, Manning is a U.S. soldier who is notable for events in the U.S. Apperntly I was wrong I appologise, this edit was controversial and should have been discussed. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Not in the U.S. He's notable for events in the U.S. military. As SlimVirgin correctly pointed, out dmy format is the correct choice for such articles, and that edit made the article less consistent. As an analogy, just because the U.S. still uses Imperial units doesn't mean U.S.-centric science articles should use them too; we use SI exclusively in all science articles. Similarly we should use dmy in all military-related articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The style we use in the Air Force is DD MMM YYYY, are you proposing that? What I've seen has the full month spelled out and that's not how I've seen it done around here.--v/r - TP 18:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The style "dmy" does not specify any particular format regarding leading zeros and spelling out month. It simply says that the format is day-month-year. Whether that's "23 AUG 2013" or "23 August 2013" isn't the issue. The point is, the edit to change some dates to mdy format (e.g. "August 23, 2013") introduced inconsistencies into this article, which was already established as dmy. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC) As a note TP if you look at the tongue and quill if you use the 3 letter designator for the month you are actually suppose to use YY for the date. Also the date format is one of the 13+ that I have seen acceptable depending on which form/area/report you are discussing (also air force.) Tivanir2 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC) That's certainly fine and actually helps my point. My point was that I don't think there is a single "US Military" way and you've shown that even in the Air Force alone there are 13+. It doesn't really matter though, I've never really cared about date formats.--v/r - TP 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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.

"a former United States Army soldier"

Is he not still a private in the United States Army? --RA (✍) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume not because he was discharged, but the person to check with is User:Srich32977. He is our in-house expert on these matters. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Several reports I'm reading talk about discharge in the future tense. When does the discharge take effect? Now or on release? --RA (✍) 00:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SV, but I'm really more of the out-house expert. At the moment Manning is still in the Army. His sentencing gets reviewed by high level judge advocates (JAGs) and then approved by the convening authority -- the commanding general of the Washington area military district. Once approved, written orders are "cut" which say "you are hereby reduced in rank to Private E-1." I'm not sure when his dishonorable discharge paperwork gets cut, because the military will retain jurisdiction over him until his sentence is completed. Perhaps when he completes his full term. (I will research this.) But the proper way to address him will be "Manning", not "Private Manning". So for WP purposes we can say (shortly) he ain't in the Army no more. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Srich. Someone added "former" to "Manning ... is a United States Army soldier" in the first sentence. Do you think we should we retain "former" or remove it for now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

...or sidestep the question, for example by saying he "...was a Specialist in the United States Army..." thereby avoiding saying what he is now. --RA (✍) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Is a former US Army soldier who ...." His sentence might be reduced (unlikely), but the reduction in rank and dishonorable discharge are sure to be upheld by the GCMCA. – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Crystal balls aside, what is Mannings current status? Has Manning been discharged. That is the sentence. But has it happened?

If someone was sentenced to death, we would not say they were dead until the sentence had been executed. Manning has been sentenced to be dishonourably discharged. Has the sentence been carried out? Has Manning been discharged? --RA (✍) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, his rank has been diminished and he is no longer allowed to wear the uniform he is pictured in. Anyone have a neutral headshot sans uniform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.20.130 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Army has solved this issue for us. They said today that he is still considered a soldier. Of course, I've now lost the link to the source, but wanted to post this anyway to explain why I removed "former". Will post the source when I find it again! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to move the article to Chelsea Manning

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.

---

She's made a statement that her name is Chelsea Manning, so the pronouns should be changed to she and the article renamed Chelsea. The FAQ about Brenna no longer applies. 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik has publicly stated multiple times that he prefers to be referred as "Commander Breivik", should Wikipedia change his page to reflect his self-identity? 85.65.68.209 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, [1] appears to be pretty unambiguous. What do we think? Morwen (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree based on the evidence. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, we need an immediate redirect. A search on Chelsea Manning doesn't yield this article, it yield an article about football club Chelsea FC. 68.81.192.33 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried a move. Disappointingly, User:Cls14 has reverted immediately back, using a highly gendered term in their edit summary! I'm assuming this is some kind of misunderstanding over not having read the reference, so will not put it back just yet. Morwen (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty confusing to see Manning described with female pronouns for the time in which they served as a male soldier. I recommend to use the male pronoun for the time prior to their recent declaration concerning their identity. As to the article title, that should follow the predominant usage in reliable sources, as everything else.  Sandstein  12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That would go against long-established practice, and MOS:IDENTITY

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. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sent Morwen a message about this stating I was unaware of any potential change and as such I thought it was a scam. In the article itself it didn't mention any gender change so I assumed it was spam, which it clearly isn't Cls14 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did cite the article in my edit summary! Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that User:Morwen has moved the page to Chelsea Manning for a second time. The move is hasty and without proper consultation with editors. I think this article should be moved back to Bradley Manning until it is confirmed the subject has legally changed his/her name and a majority of reliable sources start referring to this subject as "Chelsea Manning". --Tocino 12:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but AFAIK Bradley wants to be a woman but isn't yet. Also, I don't believe his name has been officially changed to Chelsea. I find this move extremely premature, not to say ridiculous. This is not a Wendy Carlos situation. Yet. Yintan  12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just happy he didn't decide to self-identify as Jesus Christ could you imagine the redirects. SMH. This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname. †TE†Talk 13:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"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. " from MOS:IDENTITY. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Many sources are still reporting the name as Bradley Manning. For instance: The Telegraph: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman called Chelsea, Washington Post: Bradley Manning says he is now a woman named Chelsea, BBC: Bradley Manning: 'I want to be a woman', The Independent: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, Channel 14: Bradley Manning: I want to be a woman (called Chelsea), RT: #FreeChelsea: Bradley Manning states he's 'female', wants to live as ‘Chelsea’, ABC News: Bradley Manning Says He Wants to Live as a Woman and Today: Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman. Sources even referrer to the person as "he". I think article move was hasted. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Self-identification". What other sources refer to her as is irrelevant. She has self identified as female, and by MOS:IDENTITY that means the article should use female pronouns. Casiotone^talk 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading MOS:IDENTITY, I think we should use female gender nouns, pronouns and possessive adjectives, because that's her latest expressed gender self-identification. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, we have to follow whatever a person decides to call his/herself this week? No. MOS:IDENTITY says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to (etc)". There is, as yet, no question about Manning's gender at all. Yintan  13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was no question about her gender. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course - there is no longer a question about Manning's gender. She is female without doubt. I'm glad you agree. Casiotone^talk 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun."--Brian Dell (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He can request all he likes, Bdel555, that doesn't make it true. Or factual. Yintan  13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He signed his...I mean (no kidding intended) ... she signed her name "Chelsea E. Manning" on the Today Show statement, but indicated that his name in official mail to the detention facility is still Bradley Manning. Here is the statement:

Subject: The Next Stage of My Life

I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years. Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong. I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. 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). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.

Thank you,

Chelsea E. Manning

Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea's statement is very clear and seems almost designed to invoke MOS:IDENTITY, which is also very clear. I regard this matter as a WP:BLP area. Morwen (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And the sources are equally clear that it's still "he".[2] Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advocate, it's supposed to report valid sources. You need to revert this article back to where it was, until such time as the sources starting calling him "her". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for renaming the article. But the pronouns used for her throughout the article are still inconsistent. What does the E in Chelsea E. Manning stand for? --88.73.34.231 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is a source for "Chelsea E. Manning"? It could be that Manning has decided to drop the middle name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy. "Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, be called Chelsea". Fox News (AP). 22 August 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2013. The statement was signed "Chelsea E. Manning.". LFaraone 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What would you do if s/he self-identified as a dog, cat, broomstick, or banana then? Self-identification is not the same as legal identity

• Shouldn't we be relying on this individual's legal name? Does going on the Today show and saying "actually this is my name now" have any validity? This of course brushing aside any issue around the timing one day after his/her sentencing that is clearly to garner public sympathy (after all, why all the hooplah and public announcements? 15 seconds of fame?)... The way this is going we'll have to move the article with every new adjustment to his name. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, going on the Today show and publically announcing your change of name to the world is legally effective in many common law jursdictions, including most US states. See legal name and name change. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What a joke. The guys says he is Chelsea Manning and the people who run this "encyclopedia" rush to change the pronouns? You have got to be kidding me. If I wake up in the morning and decide I am a woman, it doesn't make it so. This absolutely reeks of political correctness.74.138.45.132 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Time for New Section on Gender Identity Issues?

I created a subsection for the BACKGROUND part of the article for his gender reassignment. This may only be a temporary thing. Should there be a seperate section collecting information on his gender issues? (I seem to be having an issue with his gender as I just realized I used the masculine pronoun for Chelsea.)Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole gender issue is ridiculous. Just because a person wants to change gender does not make it so. To the outside world he is still a man. Some people would like themselves to be called ´king´ or ´jesus´, but that does not mean the public acknowledge that. Also the term ´gender reassignment surgery´, why not call it what it is, a sex change operation. Are we going to call a kidney transplantation a ´kidney reassignment surgery´ too? By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it. Bradley Manning was a man for the first 25 years of his life, and will remain so until he has surgery, legal name change and sufficient consensus. And even if that does happen, it won´t undo the fact that she was a man for the first 25+ year of her life and should be described as a ´he´ for those years.

If one believes that "gender is what's between the ears, sex is what's between the legs" then the correct term is sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) because psychological gender cannot be modified surgically. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:49D (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is such a sad, pathetic joke

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.

---

Bradley Manning is the person's name, legally. I have no idea what is going on here, and assumed the article was vandalized, until I read all the nonsense above. I would have expected a speedy revert until a *reliable source* indiciated otherwise. Can an adult editor please step in? 198.161.2.241 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Admin of ten years standing here. today.com is a reliable source. Morwen (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to flash your badge, officer, but the manner in which this hasty move has been executed is a bit ridiculous. Surely you can see that? †TE†Talk 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you find to be hasty? Unless we aren't taking the Today Show as a reliable source, Manning's expression is public, and we should adjust our titles to reflect the policy of deference to LGBT self-identity. If you have a problem with that general policy, then we can talk about that. But Morwen is 100% correct that everyone needs a rebuttal. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"deference to LGBT self-identity" - so the majority should just go along with the minority because we're scared to offend people? obviously it was a hasty move, look how contentious it has been (currently re-move supports outnumber opposes). Clinton (talk)

Yes, it's ridiculous the number of people making transphobic arguments against a fairly straightforward page move. It's ridiculous that anyone would think they saying new here that hasn't been hashed out before, that we are supposed to rebut each one individually. Morwen (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Transphobic"? Am I missing something? Yintan  13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The theory being that Manning isn't allowed to decide how we should refer to her. That lack of deference to her wishes constitutes a lack of respect / transphobia. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted unsourced BLP>

The overriding "theory" is that we follow common names and valid sourcing. Maybe it will be there tomorrow, but it isn't there today. Editors who want to abuse Wikipedia for the sake of advocacy have been itching to make this move for many months now. They have moved too soon, and make Wikipedia live down to the level its critics accuse it of being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing is valid. MOS:IDENTITY is clear. Take your soapbox somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS does not override sourcing. Take your own soapbox somewhere else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We have multiple mainstream media sources reporting Manning's statement. If you wish to make even more of a fool of your self and argue that they aren't reliable, do so at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Reporting the statement, yes. He asked the media to start calling him "she". Once the media broadly starts doing that, then you'll have an argument. You don't, yet. The only fool that's being made of with this advocacy-driven change is Wikipedia itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My argument is based on what MOS:IDENTITY says. As it was when I opposed attempts to rename Manning as Breanna, prior to Manning making the statement. If you wish to argue that MOS:IDENTITY is wrong, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is the opinion of Wikipedians. It does not override sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning herself constitutes a higher-level of source than the mass media Rhialto (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This happens to be wikipedia and not a newspaper. So the MOS has relevance over your sourcing rules.

190.103.67.169 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) There is no "theory" about how we refer to HIM. HE is man biologically and legally. He is in prison without access to any medical procedure to assist him in any changes. As stated elsewhere on this page, I could declare myself as the King of England, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia will suddenly refer to me as His Majesty.198.161.2.241 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that going around declaring yourself the King of England is remotely comparable to a real, legitimate medical condition that presents real, legitimate WP:BLP issues, you need a slap upside the head with the biggest fish in the Atlantic Ocean. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this whole page just shows how biased Wikipedian's and therefore Wikipedia is.

I'll have to find the article, but there was this dude who said he was King of something or other and there was a huge brouhaha over whether he should be called king, ect. You really can't make this stuff up. I am still trying to wrap my head around Shin Dong-hyuk. --Malerooster (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Several comments on this page have ridiculed transgendered people in general, and compared a human being born a male who makes a declaration that they feel they are female and want to be called a female to the person claiming they are a King or Jesus or an animal or whatever. The who issue of transgender identity should not be made light of. Gender identity is more than genitalia, and it not the province of Wikipedia editors to override the declared gender identity of someone. Edison (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Feelopedia, the free online encyclopedia that cares for what people might feel. --Niemti (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A person's legal name is irrelevant to the question of what the article title should be. The rapper whose legal name is James Todd Smith, for instance, has his article at LL Cool J, not at "James Todd Smith". Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow, if only so much effort could be concentrated by editors in to reaching a consensus instead of deviating from it then we'd all be better off instead of expending so much energy on Wikipedia trying to demonstrate why X does not equal Y.5 Badanagram (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Page moved to Chelsea Manning without sufficient consensus

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.

---

With all due consideration to MOS:IDENTITY and the page mover's talk page posts, this was not a noncontroversial page move, and as such requires consensus under Request to Move discussion and vote. --Mareklug ^talk 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Morwen (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear on the matter - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your link does not say anything about where the article should be located, and other policies, I think, trump this move. --Mareklug ^talk 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS:IDENTITY is indeed clear. The question is, does it apply to article titles as well or do we follow WP:COMMONNAME? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This fails WP:POLICY (and therefore MOS:IDENTITY) by overriding WP:UCN policy with MOS:IDENTITY guideline, when at the very top of the page it is indicated that it is a guideline and not a policy, therefore subject to policies, whenever a conflict between policy and guideline is evident. The way to override a policy is by using the WP:IAR, and the way to do that is to establish a consensus to use it to apply MOS:IDENTITY instead of WP:UCN, which has not been done. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is also pretty clear. This definitely needs to be discussed first. I can't believe that there are editors saying it shouldn't be discussed - that is not what Wikipedia is about. And so now we're having a discussion about whether there should be a discussion... StAnselm (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines says "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." One has to first go to the Talk pages of these policy pages and get the guideline changed to at least allow for exceptions, otherwise we're bound by the policy like it or not. Fact is, Wikipedia currently gives huge deference to the desires of biography subjects when it comes to their sexual identity.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also a WP:BLP, and Manning's statement (as Morwen notes above) pretty much perfectly matches the consideration in question. As such, I've put in a protection against moves for the same time period as the present autoconfirmed edit protection, which should allow enough time for all the discussion the change to the subject's documented chosen name will need - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In the first place, you've misunderstood MOS:IDENTITY, which 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. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself" (emphasis mine). In the second place, you've totally gone against WP:RM, which says that if a move is controversial (which this one obviously was), it may be reverted, and should be proposed via a requested move. StAnselm (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP mandates immediatism, not eventualism - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute about the verification of the statement, and WP:BLP is very clear as David said. The only thing controversial about this are people's feelings about if we should accept the statement, which is a discussion that should happen around general policy. In this instance, the LGBT policy has been correctly applied, and FWIW, I would take strong exception against reverting this change. --\/\/slack (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, given Manning's statement, the move is now entirely in accord with policy. There appears to be no legitimate grounds to doubt the authenticity of the statement, and MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that we go by what Manning now says. Personally, I would have preferred a formal RfM, just to avoid the inevitable drama - but the result seems a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I happen to think Wikipedia indulges the views of biography subjects too much and should follow external sources more. But I have to disagree with StAnselm simply because we cannot interpret policy that way. That quote is from the first bullet point, which then says, "For example, see the article Jew..." The first bullet point is general, the second bullet point specific. Generally accepted interpretation is to follow the guideline for the specific case when there is a specific guideline available. The specific guideline may be seen as an exception to the general guideline.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think the changes are too rash and need to be thought through. Many parts of the articles no longer make sense and read terribly, and quite ridiculous in places. Atshal (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Then go and edit the grammar and sentence structure so that the words do make sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns are already shifting in RSes e.g. [3] [4] - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Once a source like CNN starts saying "she", you might have something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider the Independent to be much more likely to be news rather than stenography than CNN - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, in fact, supposed to be "stenography", not "news". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an RS, but crikey, even the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Get back to us when a non-tabloid starts saying "she". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[5] Writegeist (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Independent, The Guardian - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a valid source for anything related to the US. I see that the New York Times gets around this deal by generally substituting "Manning" for pronouns.[6] Wikipedia should do likewise until there is broad consensus among reliable sources, as opposed to sources who are merely advocates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to Bradley Manning Wikipedia:Article titles is the appropriate policy page. Bradley Manning is the clearly policy-consistent name for this article, whatever name the subject chooses for themselves. --RA (✍) 14:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Until there's a legal name change, renaming the article is simply confusing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political soap box. Once Bradley Manning legally changes his name, then the article name change will reflect reality. 184.152.74.159 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no such line in the sand, such as requiring a "legal name change". Can you explain where in policy there's a requirement that we use a party's legal name as the title? MOS:IDENTITY explicitly contradicts that. LFaraone 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree that the name change is premature and highlights the silly side of the encyclopedia that everybody can edit. If this were an obscure figure, I could see following his wishes instead of what, say two or three outdated reliable sources say. But this is an internationally-known figure who the media reports on every day. In this case we need to follow the sources and not create headlines ourselves. We need to wait longer to see if the sources start changing the name... if they do then we do, if not then we keep it how it is. As for now this needs to be changed back as it was a major and controversial change done without consensus, and long before most of the media. The danger is that our title may change how the media reports his name, and we need to try and not actively influence the news as much as possible. ThemFromSpace 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what is so silly about this. Chelsea wants to refer to herself as a woman, and I think wikipedia should respect her right to do that. The Guardian has altered it's section on Chelsea manning to account for her new identity. [7], and many other news agencies have done likewise. --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good observation, I think it is highly relevant that it is likely a majority of the reliable sources will eventually move to the new name. We can get out ahead of the RS when there is no dispute that the sources will end up there.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Og forbid our third-hand reporting should influence secondary sources to use the correct name as established by the primary source. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved back to Bradley Manning, then moved back to Chelsea Manning

Reverted move per WP:BLP. Note that BLP considerations override pretty much everything except the fundamental content policies and are absolutely what admin powers are for - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your actions. LFaraone 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How on Earth is it a BLP violation to refer to someone by their legal name in an article title? -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Morwen's move was correct. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we should use the name by which the subject identifies themselves. In this, that is Chelsea Manning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Chelsea Manning, 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 14:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• The move to "Chelsea" was NOT correct. It's an abuse of Wikipedia for the purpose of making Wikipedia an advocate. That is strictly against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest everyone that is not transgender restrain themselves from editing this article. This is as clear a statement as could possibly be made by Manning: People have offered sources from Today, the Daily Mail and the Guardian only to be told none of these sources are acceptable; in some sense I agree. I have written before (on the talk page for Bradley Manning) about the work of TransMediaUK, who document how the MSM are in general extremely poor sources when it comes to the gender of transgender people. The only acceptable source is Chelsea herself. 7daysahead (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus wept - that is a complete NO,NO, NO, NO - where would it end? "Can anyone not White not edit this article?", "Can Black editors please move to the back of the edit queue?" --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally cannot believe a statement such as this came out of an otherwise well-thought out dialogue. I agree with Cameron Scott. The notion is slippery, to say the least. 69.155.81.253 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being transgender, and it especially has nothing to do with any external political position regarding transgender self-reference. As per Wikipedia:Article titles, the name should remain 'Bradley Manning' until such a time as the majority of reputable sources and the public refer to Bradley Manning as primarily Chelsea Manning (which will likely occur when/if Bradley Manning legally changes her name, but possibly sooner). It's not wikipedia's job to *create* a source, and it's especially not Wikipedia's job to push *any* political issues, including transgender social issues.

• Since move protection didn't seem to work, I've fully protected the article for the day. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The moves were all admins, and the text protection doesn't change that. Actual vandalism to the text hasn't been a problem so far, so I've wound it back to autoconfirmed (to keep stuff as open as possible) - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with moving to Chelsea Manning. That is her wish, and everyone will get used to it quickly enough.

As for the "transgender editors only, please", it is basically a slur against those who did not wish to see the article moved. They are basing their side of the story, so to speak, solely on WP:RULES, not "How can a he become a 'she'?" transphobia.

As for the press "getting around" the issue by using "Manning", it is standard to refer to someone by their surname. When the press call the American president Obama, are they getting around using "he" or calling him "Barack"?? Such people are simply seeing what they want to see.

Anyway, I support the move to Chelsea. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Before you comment

Can everyone please be a bit more careful and respectful with your comments around Chelsea Manning.

Some of the comments so far could be considered transphobic, and others are just completely ignorant.

So before you join in, and say whatever you are about to say, I politely ask that you spend the next 5-10 minutes reading up a bit on what it is to be trans* and the continued prejudice, discrimination, and disgusting levels of violence trans* people face.

Here's two good links to start you off (please add more if you know of any):

• To Be Transsexual
• Trans 101

Thank you. --Chris 14:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed one comment per WP:BLP --Guerillero | My Talk 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And, it would also be helpful to remind people that is extremely unhelpful to label people you don't know as prejudiced based on flimsy evidence. If you disagree with someone's assessment of the situation, fine, but some people have instinctively called anyone against the move to Chelsea Manning bigoted. -- tariqabjotu 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with transphobia. Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. Bradley Manning's legal name is still 'Bradley', news sources still refer to her as 'Bradley', and the public still knows her as 'Bradley'. Wikipedia's job isn't to define social issues, it's to serve as an encyclopedia. When and if sources, the public, or the legal name are changed, as per Wikipedia:Article_titles, it will be reasonable to change the name of the article.

Actually, it's OK when they throw terms like "transphobia" around, because it betrays their intention to abuse Wikipedia to make a point, rather than following the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. Using incorrect names and pronouns is highly offensive to people with gender identity issues. I'm surprised nobody has quoted the Bible yet :P -Jenn348

Using a non-legal name that primary sources are not yet using as the primary name is highly unhelpful to people trying to use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of a political soapbox. Wikipedia:Article_titles.

Let me be clear. I am making NO COMMENT above the move. In fact, I will completely stay out of that shitfest. All I ask is that you have a read before you comment. --Chris 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, this goes without saying, but I think I'd better spell it out anyway. Trans* people do edit Wikipedia. Chances are you have interacted with a trans* editor. While a comment may seem fine to you, it might be really hurtful to them. So please, before you click edit, read your comment through the shoes of a trans* person and think about how you would feel. --Chris 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How would you feel if someone came onto wikipedia and said "Can everyone please be a bit more careful and respectful with your comments around the religous issues?... Can you please read <holy book x> and <my religous sects> addendums to it before commenting."? I understand that you want people to be sensitive and I respect that, but coming onto wikipedia and telling people to read the articles you have selected before you they can comment is among the most aarogant things I have seen.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you go around editing pages with edits that "this book says this" and "that book says that" - without ever reading the book, then certainly it would apply, correct? 97.90.153.202 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you read the context of this discussion you will understand that what you said does not apply. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly comparable. This is more comparable to "before commenting on <x>, please read a tiny bit about it", which is fairly reasonable. Don't comment on UK Politics if you know nothing about it. Don't comment on trans issues if you know nothing about it. - AJF (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Saying which specific articles to read, and pointing to articles that are obviously biased in ither direction is a big part of what I have a problem with. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wheel warring?

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.

---

Correct me if this is wrong. Moving over redirect is an admin action.

1. 15:18 Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect
2. 15:22 Cls14 moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning over redirect
3. 15:43 Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect
4. 17:32 Tariqabjotu moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning
5. 17:43 David Gerard moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect

Is this OK? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reverted the move except for BLP considerations - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP concerns are generally an exception to our edit warring rules, true. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that some users' BLP interpretation is more strict than others'. I don't see many BLP issues here when since this has been his chosen name all his life until today. BLP issues warranting admin intervention are repeated insertion of untrue facts and outright libel, not this issue which is subjective and subject to editorial discretion. So yea, this was disruptive wheel warring on all parties and all parties should be admonished. And no, hiding behind the BLP policy doesn't justify the wheel war. ThemFromSpace 15:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not OK, not even one iota - it's abusing admin privileges for personal reasons. Since the move to "Chelsea" has no consensus, Morwen and Gerard need to be taken to WP:ANI or somewhere like that, with a call for suspending their admin privileges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Typically Arbcom is the only place that handles the suspension of admin privileges. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a call on ANI for uninvolved admins - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving over a historyless redirect wasn't an admin priv the last time I checked. Admittedly, it has been a while since I did last check. Has this changed? Morwen (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving when moves are protected is - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So, certainly nothing I did then. User:Mohamed CJ and User:Baseball Bugs, can I have an apology please? Morwen (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologize for what? I'm hell sure I didn't accuse anyone with anything. I brought up the facts and asked to be corrected if I was wrong. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The move to "Chelsea" was wrong, every time. Move it back to "Bradley", and then you can apologize to the rest of us, for abusing Wikipedia and for abusing your admin privileges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But, when Morwen moved the page, it wasn't protected. So that's not an admin action, just an action you believe was wrong. -- tariqabjotu 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which Morwen didn't do. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 100) That's a little drastic. BLP violations are generally exempt from policy, and although one of our interpretations (that having the article title at Bradley Manning is or is not a BLP violation) would ultimately reach consensus, I don't think either of them are unreasonable. (Also, note that Morwen (talk · contribs) didn't move over protection.) At this stage, someone should start a move request, consolidating discussion about the title into one thread. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Legal change

No prejudice against LBGT individuals here, but I think usual media practice would be to wait until Manning changes his/her name legally. Sca (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Does that have meaning in the US? In the UK, at least, there is no such concept of "legal name". 7daysahead (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And you have an unwritten Constitution, too. Yes, we have legal names, enshrined in gov't. records. One has to go to court to change it. Sca (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in the US there are legal names enshrined in government records. However, they didn't necessarily become legal by such enshrinement; they were legal all along, and their appearance on government-issued IDs and the like merely recognizes and documents this pre-existing fact. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 8) There is such a concept in the US. However, Sca is incorrect: Most US media sources follow the subject's preference, and Wikipedia does as well. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Current NYT lede: "WASHINGTON — One day after being sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking vast archives of secret government files to WikiLeaks, Pfc. Bradley Manning said Thursday that he is female and wants to be known as Chelsea." (My emphases.) Sca (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

According to a popular online encyclopedia, Manning has, by the loud public declaration, changed her name - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's to be decided by sourcing, not by us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

a popular online encyclopedia is not the law, nor is it how the law is applied. As noted by Manning herself, official correspondance must continue to be sent to 'Bradley Manning'.

In the USA, if you're not attempting to commit fraud thereby, you have a common law right to change your legal name simply by adopting a new one, without a judicial proceeding. Technically, one only needs a court order to get one's new name on certain government records like birth certificates. Official government correspondence is just a matter of what name is in their records; the IRS will send you mail under whatever name you put on your tax forms. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Legal name changes, for whatever reason, must be petitioned from a court of proper jurisdiction. Sca (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree, but I know for a fact that that's untrue. Your state's DMV is pretty inflexible about changing names on driver's licenses, but even there you can do it with only a marriage certificate. Different federal agencies have different requirements, but I know of none that absolutely require a court order. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Formal marriage, in the U.S., having a legal status. Sö, what's with the umlauts, Röb? Sca (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And being an obvious counterexample to your assertion. Don't mind the röck döts. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

She

I understand and appreciate transgender people. However, Manning is not a "she" automatically. This is a tough issue, but I think it's rash to change the whole article to feminine pronouns before he's had the first bit of hormone therapy. Anyone agree with me? What am I missing here? Moncrief (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What Manning wants is irrelevant! This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace.198.161.2.241 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on trans* issues, but I think Chelsea would prefer to be referred to as "she" in any and all circumstances. CaseyPenk (talk) 11:04 am, Today (UTC−4)

Preference doesn't matter, this is an encyclopedia, only facts should matter. The fact is that he is a man. You shouldn't cater to his delusions. Certain things in life you don't get to choose, and your sex is one of them. I would prefer to be a king but don't go around making people call me your majesty, they'd think I was insane.

You are failing to employ a neutral point of view, referring to his sexual identity as a "delusion". Dmarquard (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It is also poor to second-guess someone's gender with an arbitrary standard. LFaraone 15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is identity, not genitalia or enocrinology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Identity does not depend on hormone levels. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) "before he's had the first bit of hormone therapy"; who are we to say when the person's gender is "really" changed. LFaraone 15:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what Wikipedia practice, MOS:IDENTITY or WP:BLP involves a measure of hormone levels. Please do clarify. (I don't mean to offend, but your statement reads very like you're working this out for yourself for the very first time; it's a somewhat nuanced issue, but Wikipedia rules and practice on transgender issues are actually pretty clear.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender identity ≠ real gender. Azirus (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that on Wikipedia. That is entirely a political belief. yonnie (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're conflating gender with sex, but I agree with yonnie that there's no consensus for your statement. LFaraone 15:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought it appropriate to refer to Chelsea as 'she' in her timeline from now onwards, but 'he' for historical facts. Saying 'She was a gay man', for example, and mixing up historical quotes referring to 'him' right next to referring to 'she' could be confusing or misleading - especially when her gender identity was, at the time referred to in the text, either male, uncertain or undeclared. --151.230.243.44 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll end up with some ambiguity and confusion no matter what approach you adopt. The best thing we can do is to decide on one approach and use it consistently. I think the MOS covers this; if you think the style adopted there could be improved, then the proper place to discuss that is there, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS:IDENTITY is quite clear here too: use female pronouns throughout, but reword to avoid "seemingly illogical" statements such as the above. —me_and 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether one is a man or a woman is not a choice. It is decided by the chromosomes: men have XY sex chromosomes, while women have XX sex chromosomes. Manning was born with XY sex chromosomes, and he can not change that. That is a fact, not an opinion. Thus he should not be called a woman or referred to as a 'she'. As to the first name, is there any actual record that he has officially changed his name? What name is in his passport or his military ID card? If Bradley is the name on those documents, then his name is still Bradley. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you know what chromosomes Manning has? 1 in 300 apparent males are not 46,XY. When it comes to Transsexuals, the figure is even lower, but we have no reliable data for how much lower. Zoe Brain (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

See MOS:IDENTITY. Your opinions about sex and gender don't have any weight here in light of it. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not an "opinion" that men have XY sex chromosomes and women have XX sex chromosomes — it is a biological fact. Claiming otherwise would be against science. And if Wikipedia decides to ditch scientific facts on sex determination, what's next, embracing creationism? If Wikipedia wants to be a credible encyclopedia, it must be based on facts, not on left-wing fantasies. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism January 1, 2008 vol. 93 no. 1 182-189 To say that both the mother and the daughter she gave birth to are male because of their chromosomes seems counter-intuitive to say the least. Zoe Brain (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, to the extent there is a sliver of a legitimate debate about this, it's whether or not Manning has sufficiently transitioned to warrant changing the article. Outright politically motivated denial of the existence of transsexualism, contrary to the position taken by MOS:IDENTITY and the current medical-scientific consensus is not going to help, as are tired old arguments about chromosomes that can be disproved quite simply with the slightest bit of research (hint: see androgen insensitivity syndrome). We are in fact not going to rewrite all the articles about the same to denounce the idea of transsexualism, so let's stop these arguments that presuppose that as a starting point, eh? Morwen (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. You have a grossly simplified understanding of biology, Jaakko, but that is neither here nor there. MOS:IDENTITY, however, is highly relevant here, and it is completely apart from your entire argument, impassioned as it is. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest those arguing "chromosomes = identity" give Sex and gender distinction a read. The simple facts - those with XY chromosomes are biological males, those with XX chromosomes are biological females, and those few with other combinations (XXY, etc) fall into various types of biologically intersex categories. It is also the fact that "man" and "woman" (and the corresponding adjectives "he" and "she") are not synonymous with "male" and "female", but only roughly correlate with those categories. The fact is, some biological males (such as the subject of this article) identify as women and some biological females identify as men. Some basic biological vs social distinctions that really shouldn't be driving people to consternation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. 1 in 300 men are not XY. Some women are. Rarely, so are the daughters they give birth to. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism January 1, 2008 vol. 93 no. 1 182-189 Chromosomes will also be changed by receiving bone marrow transplants. See Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8 Zoe Brain (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Using "she" is just confusing. It will be especially confusing to read for non-native English speakers. All philosophical arguments aside, the language should be used to communicate the information to the audience. Pronouns exist for reasons of communication not ideology and the correct one should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.234.49 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job foreign language versions of Wikipedia exist for those non-native speakers then Rhialto (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I recommend using "he" for past events, and "she" for events since his/her announcement of coming out. This can be pushed back if there is a reliable source for Manning identifying as a female before that point. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Then please take your recommendation to the talk page of MOS:IDENTITY. There's no reason why this article in particular should be exempt from it; if we're going to change the rules for pronouns here then they should be changed for all articles on transgender people. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Where does MOS have anything to say about past vs present identity and how to handle it? For my part, I agree with this suggestion. I'm a believer in using pronouns that reflect a person's sexual identity, however, if that's changed over the course of somebody's life, then I don't agree with retroactively rewriting someone's previous gender identity, and I think how people identify at different points in their life should be honored. Since I see no evidence that Manning stated that s/he identified as a woman, at least publically, before today's announcement, I see no reason for retroactive changes. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are actually several reasons why this article should be exempt from it. He only just claimed to be a woman. It is illogical to refer to events before his gender switch with anything other than the gender he was using at the time. This is especially the case since his significance relates to a military court case where his gender is clearly established in all records and reports surrounding him. Moreover, Bradley Manning is still a member of the United States Army where his name Bradley, his sex male. All documents and records of note regarding his activities use this name and gender identity. He will serve his time as a man with the name of Bradley and will likely not be able to legally change either until he is released. His previous, current and future appearance, behavior and records will all be as a man under the name Bradley Manning. His status in the military and as a prisoner, which both limit how he may be behave and what he may do legally, are significant factors in whether or not he should have this guideline applied.
    • Years ago, it was established that Chelsea had gender identity disorder. She very likely has always referred to herself as a woman, but we're just now seeing her official statement on the transition. Dmarquard (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Seems like not only Manning even Wikipedia has issues with transgender identity, irrespective of Manning's choice and when she announced it, we need to gain a consensus to make the article with just She or He and not mix it up all over the article. obviously some concerns are there in regard to references which are older than the announcement and would be using He, but obviously we are not going to try paraphrase text and would be trying to replicate the information.  A m i t  웃   03:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • First to [User:a.amitkumar| A m i t ]] 웃   I don't find it "likely" in any sense. I would have thought that transgenders are socialized to be their gender of birth and then have a transition inlcuing priods of confusion. In any case, discussing what she thought early on in life is pure conjecture rather than fact. I had to read the piece on "her" being bullied at school twice as I had understood that Bradley (now Chelsea) was a he in that timeframe. Otherwise the adjective effeminate makes no sense at all. Use of the word he in this specific passage would not be "mixing it up" but perfectly sensible in the given context. Dainamo (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "she" or "he" should be used as a personal pronoun, edits to this article have resulted in a profligate overuse of personal pronouns. Sentences following each other need not all commence with "she" where interconnected clauses and/or use of the surname would suffice and make for an easier and better flowing read. Qcomplex5 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• He wants to be called "Chelsea". Note that I used "he" because Manning's male. It's redundant and contradicting to call a male person a "she" even if Manning wants to be a woman. Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum and replaced with synthetic ovaries and has his sex changed from "male" to "female" will I call Manning a "she", but for now, if you have testicles and aren't a hermaphrodite, you are subjected to be referred to with male nouns. Keep the name of the title, but don't refer to Manning as a "she". Hitmonchan (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Anyone who is arguing that Chelsea cannot be a woman because she hasn't undergone physical surgery has clearly not read and/or understood the consensus-driven and unlocked transgender page. Also, I encourage my fellow editors to avoid ignorance...if you have not seen them for yourself, you cannot know what genitals Ms Manning has. Hurtsmyears (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• To the LGBT community: you are the force, and Bradley is trying to attract your attention. Thus he's trying to force you to listen to the voices of his unborn children: "please help us come into the world! Save Bradley from prison!". --Søren 21:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a "member of the LGBT community", whatever that really means these days. Personally I think this wiki change has been rather hasty based on newspaper reports, at a time when Manning's state of mental health is questionable at best. I'd suggest that there should've been a hold off in changing the page until something more official was confirmed, and that Manning's gender progressional was confirmed as being underway.Gymnophoria (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Survey

Today is 31 July 2024 (UTC); new comments belong to today's section.

22 August 2013 (UTC)

New comments should go to current day on basis of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Replies are still welcome here

Extended content

Oppose, per BLP (which overrides pretty much everything except the fundamental content rules) - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Where does WP:BLP address this issue? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC) WP:BLP doesn't say we're not allowed to discuss a proposed move. It may, however, inform the consensus that the proposal should be rejected. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) @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) 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) 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) 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) And yet, Debra Lafave, who is divorced and prefers to be known by her maiden name, Debra Beasley, doesn't get that privilege. StAnselm (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I don't know her under either name, so she's not my concern. But for the record I see no evidence in either the talk page or the edit history that anybody's ever even tried to move the article — but if they did, I'd support the move. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) (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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Thank all that anyone holds holy, "sexual harrassment" is not a wikipedia policy. You should really learn what sexual harassment is, and stop using terms just because they sound good. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oh yes, sexual harrassment of article subjects is forbidden by a number of policies, most importantly by WP:BLP. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Support, give us time to catch our breath and do this the right way. Moncrief (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Their name is a proper noun, not a gendered noun, pronoun, or possessive adjective.--v/r - TP 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Support For reasons stated above jj (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) I am not an expert on trans* issues, but I think gender identity is about more than just "feelings." It's about a core part of your identity. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) It very well might be hurtful to do so. I would personally be offended if someone referred to me using a pronoun that was not my preferred one. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) As I said to the IP above, their name is a proper noun, not a gendered noun, pronoun, nor a possessive adjective.--v/r - TP 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC) "Gendered" versus "proper" is a false dichotomy. Most proper nouns in English, including "Bradley" and "Chelsea", imply a particular natural gender. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Support: Per CaseyPenk. 23 editor (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. What name we should use is established by MOS:IDENTITY, not by the state of Manning's hormone levels or genitals or personal ID cards. Of course, some people disagree with this notion; the correct place to take that disagreement is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose per MOS:IDENTITY and news sources (many already listed above) already changing name and pronoun use to reflect the desired change. There's no reason to doubt that the page will end up at Chelsea Manning eventually, and no strong reason to change it back temporarily.Longsight (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I've always started such a discussion at the bottom of that page. jj (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Can you please quote the relevant sentence(s) of MOS:IDENTITY that support your suggestion, so we're on the same page? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)] 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 [8] [9]. 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) support move back. The COMMONNAME is clearly Bradley, no matter what he/she prefers to be called now. A counter example is Kristin Beck, where the bulk of the media referred to her as such, even though she had served for 20 years as Chris.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) Support Bradley is the most commonly recognisable name per WP:COMMONNAME as well as the legal name per WP:OFFICIALNAMES. --PiMaster3 talk 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose current articles refer to her as both Bradley and Chelsea, while an increasing number of articles refer to her solely as Chelsea as demanded by style guides. 'Net (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support: There may come a time when it is appropriate to move the article, but I agree it is premature to do so now, especially without a meaningful discussion. Uvaduck (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose move, per GorillaWarfare, and WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. I see no need to move the page back to Bradley Manning just to have the same arguments all over again. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Support The move to Chelsea Manning is certainly not uncontroversial and was done quite suddenly. The move needs to be voted on and a consensus needs to be reached. Besides, nearly every media outlet of note refers to him as Bradley, so the move is unnecessary as per WP:COMMONNAME. --Kevin W. - Talk 16:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Morwen and SlimVirgin. Manning's statement is unambiguous and should be respected. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC) support WP:MOSIDENTITY] is clearly not the followed standard when WP:COMMONNAME contradicts. Cat Stevens not Yousef Islam, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support, per WP:COMMONNAME, etc., until and unless a consensus in favor of Chelsea becomes evident among the reliable sources. If that should happen, then move it back. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support - for now, at least, 'Bradley Manning' is the COMMONNAME by far. As well as Cat Stevens see also Peter Sutcliffe. GiantSnowman 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) Support as this was premature, per my comments up above and Carrite's usual eloquence. ThemFromSpace 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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 ([10]) 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) 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) Oppose move per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY, and per GorillaWarfare and McGeddon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Support Bradley Manning is legally still Bradley Manning, not Chelsea Manning. He may yet become Chelsea Manning, but he isn't yet, so moving Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning is premature and a violation of BLP. Once Bradley Manning legally becomes Chelsea if and or when that happens, there will be a firm foundation (and policy) to move it back to Chelsea Manning .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC) The "legal" name change has already taken effect (see my comment above). Will you therefore change your comment to "oppose"? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) That's your interpretation. Have you any secondary sources that say that Manning's declaration and the jurisdiction he resides in amount to a legal name change? Otherwise your ar just engaging in WP:OR. Abductive (reasoning) 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support. I appreciate Bradley/Chelsea's issues, but I'm pretty sure we don't make changes like this just because we've heard that the BLP subject wants to. Once the primary and secondary sources start routinely referring to her as Chelsea, we can and should rename the article, but this was premature. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Retracting my !vote, after consideration of other arguments. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose move per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. Snappy (talk) Oppose per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) Support So far Manning has not underwent sex reassignment surgery, as such his personal preferences do not hold reasonable encyclopedic or common sense weight. No matter how many sources will refer to him as "she", biologically he's still a man. Accordingly, "she" should be reverted to "he" in the article for the time being. Brandmeistertalk 16:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC) No, according to the current medical standards in most parts of the world surgery goes *after* social transition. This is a critical point. Morwen (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC) If you disagree with the MOS:IDENTITY guideline, which states "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", perhaps you should discuss it there. Current guidelines and policies do not indicate that sex reassignment surgery is necessary for pronoun change in articles. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I'll concede when the name change will be official, so far I don't see it. But even then I think Manning should be referred to as "he" until hormone therapy or surgery takes place. Brandmeistertalk 17:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support Strongly as there is no biological or legal rationale to refer to Manning as anything but male. If that ever changes, then change the page accordingly.198.161.2.241 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose MOS:IDENTITY is clear on the pronoun issue and I think changing pronoun but not name is fundamentally nonsensical. Sources are increasingly shifting to use her chosen pronouns and names, and I suspect this is a trend that will continue. Kiralexis (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Comment Unfortunately, I feel much of this RM discussion conflates pronoun usage with the article title. Which pronoun and gender should be used in the body of the article is a separate issue from the name used in the article title. Moving the article back to Bradley Manning, either temporarily while a formal RM discussion takes place or long-term, does not necessitate that the pronouns be changed back to he/him. (Nor does keeping it at Chelsea Manning necessitate that the pronouns stay at she/her.) -- tariqabjotu 16:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support moving back to Bradley. MOS:IDENTITY says nothing about page names. Instead,WP:COMMONNAME applies, which is Bradley. Manning's preferred name should of course be mentioned in the article, but it should not be the article title unless and until it becomes the common name. No comment on the pronouns issue, which is completely separate. Modest Genius talk 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support, he is definitely male. Oh my God, I don't believe this title move... --Norden1990 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Deep insights. Kiralexis (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Definitely deserves a medal... /s Trinitresque (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC) WP:CIVIL -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose - per MOS:IDENTITY  █ EMARSEE 16:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support per Rannpháirtí anaithnid, common sense, and general opposition to the use of Wikipedia as a platform for radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male. I am aware of MOS:IDENTITY, and it is wrong. The standard a polite person might adopt for brief conversation is not the standard to use for encyclopedic coverage. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC) If you think MOS:IDENTITY is wrong, take it up there, not here. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I am not "taking it up" here. I am stating it. I state it because several people think that the existence of that page trumps such minor fripperies as sourcing and neutrality. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support, xe has not legally changed xyr name. I have no objection using female pronouns or gender neutral pronouns within the article, but the title of the article must stay until Manning goes to court or whatever and changes xyr name. The guideline about transgender people getting to use their chosen name applies to cases such as The Lady Chablis who are better known by their drag name. Also, there is no need to wait 7 days to move it back; there has been plenty of discussion now. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support. One does not become female just by saying one wants to be. If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American?? Wikipedia should follow the lead of external sources and wait until the majority of the media decides he has changed his gender. Dirac66 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) Support Strongly Of course this needs a proper discussion before making this major and problematic change. Atshal (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Sourcing rules override the style guide invented by wikipedians. And in case you hadn't noticed, this alleged "wanting to be female" story is part of the lawyer's negotiation of the appeals process. Try not to make wikipedia look stupid, eh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Support a move back to the name by which the subject is most widely known. - Cal Engime (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. If this had been a case of "Bradley Edward Manning" preferring to be known as, say, "Edward Manning", would we really be seeing so much resistance to the idea that a person gets to pick their own name? We have literally hundreds if not thousands of bio articles which respect the choice of their subjects to go by something other than their birth name: Bono, The Edge, Lady Gaga, Eminem, Gary Numan, David Tennant, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Kingsley, et cetera et cetera ad infinitum. --GenericBob (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Those subjects aren't at those names because they prefer them. They're at those names because reliable sources primarily refer to them as such. At least as of today, reliable sources are still primarily using the name Bradley Manning. Oren0 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) @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) Fair enough, I apologize for misconstruing your statement. Oren0 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Support move back to Bradley Manning. Legal name, common reference, etc, all mentioned above. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Strong Oppose The fact that she wanted her name changed has been known for over a year now. 97.90.153.202 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose for same reasons as given by McGeddon above. Bernarddb (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support move back to Bradley. The Burma example is instructive. The regime wants the nation to be known as "Myanmar" but it still commonly known as "Burma", so "Burma" it is. Manning wants to be known as the female "Chelsea"; but he is still commonly known as the male "Bradley", so "Bradley" it is. (At least until more reputable sources use Chelsea, which is doubtful since the news-making part of Manning's life appears to have concluded.) Agmonaco (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) If Burma was a living person, the comparison might be apt. As it is not, the comparison is inapt. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Support based on reasons given by CaseyPenk, namely Wikipedia:Article titles. --DrCruse (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Oppose per WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY and common human decency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Support - The article was moved without consensus. The male name is definitely still more commonly used.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) @User:Rinnenadtrosc - So your position is that we should do what "multiple media outlets" commend us for? That trumps policy? If Fox News and Rush Limbaugh commended us for moving Barack Obama to Nazi, should we do it? NickCT (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) @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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @FeydHuxtable - re "be in older sources" - By "older sources" you mean sources from yesterday? Dude, take a gander at WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Strong support - No matter what he says, he is still himself. Also, the majority of sources have called him his actual name. We follow the sources unless they are biased. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 22:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) oppose In general we should call people what they want to be called. Simple as that. Lede should be very clear about the name issue though. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) @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) 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) @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) 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) If your rule were actually implemented, and WP:COMMONNAME thrown out, we would have a lot of articles to rename under Antipope. Shii (tock) 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) @Josh Gorand - re " It would be a blantant BLP violation to do otherwise" - Really? Could you point to the passage in WP:BLP that says that? NickCT (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Referring to her as "he" is a BLP violation and gross sexual harrassment. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) @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) @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) 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) Typing "he" is "gross sexual harrassment"? You're getting carried away, Josh. With all due respect, take a breather. Yintan  14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Support No evidence yet of legal name change.Eregli bob (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Support Manning has not yet changed his legal name and its not yet totally sure what is going to happen here. Lets give this some time to settle. Juno (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Support. The vague appeals to WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY are unconvincing. When Manning changes name officially, that would be a good time to move, not before. Even then, we go with common names, not necessarily official names. We're not going to have a Maria Sugarpova article any time soon... StAnselm (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

23 August 2013 (UTC)

New comments should go to the current day on basis of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Replies are still welcome here

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) 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) 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) I wasn't aware the Daily Mail was part of the radical left. The things you learn on Wikipedia! - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Please learn the difference between gender and sex. That might spare us such ridiculous soliloquys. The gender of a person who identifies as female is female. The sex is another matter. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) It's laughable to see a young soldier referred to as "she"? Believe it or not, soldiers can be female! In the end, I am laughing, but only to your premise. Surtsicna (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) (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) 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) 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) Libel? Seriously? Which fact is being misstated by titling the article Bradley Manning? Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) I know for sure that it is not libel to use someone's full legal name in reference to that person. Libel isn't an issue that's even on the table. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) I'm so confused. Don't we follow reliable sources? Support. Red Slash 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Strong oppose to moving back, and strong support for the new article title, for using "Chelsea," and for the pronoun change from "he" to "she" throughout the article, as per MOS:IDENTITY which is unambiguous in requiring that WP "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification," as per SlimVirgin above as well as Bearcat, GorillaWarfare, SJ and others. Manning has made a clear public statement plus reliable sources have shifted to calling her Chelsea. Many editors here are saying they would support the move once media start referring to Manning as Chelsea rather than Bradley. As a matter of policy I don't know if that shift is necessary, but to the extent that it is: she is being called Chelsea by the Guardian, the Independent, MSNBC, the Atlantic, ABC News, Slate magazine, the New Statesman and Vanity Fair.The public editor of the New York Times has come out in favour of using Chelsea, as has the public editor at the Globe and Mail. Sue Gardner (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure those are good examples. We're not talking about sources that use the name in the context of her gender identity change; we're talking about sources that use the name Chelsea Manning casually, in the context of other news events. (And this was an especially terrible example. Really now.) -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) If you look on google as well you will find reliable news sources using the wording "Bradley Manning" as recent as 30 minnutes ago. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) There is nothing in WP:BLP that says that, however I did find at MOS:IDENTITY "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" This has been discussed over at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose due to MOS:IDENTITY. K7L (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) We really shouldn't be making arguments based on what Jimbo says. The word of Jimbo is not supposed to be something that must be absolutely revered. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC) @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) 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) Strong support, official name is official until it has been changed. --Stryn (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) I think google search results are supposed to affect wikipedia editing decisions. Vexorian (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Support An article's title cannot be changed this quickly, without consensus. Wikipedia policy was not adhered, so the default title should be restored. Sovetus (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Strong opppose, as MOS:IDENTITY seems fairly black and white. — Richard BB 11:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Strong support. Per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick search on Google reveals that Manning is still widely referred to as Bradley. His statements after incarceration cannot be used as a strong basis to change this page's name. Bright Darkness (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) (@Dee Earley) Wikipedia is not the place to be righting great wrongs. If there is something "wrong" with the media, go take it to them. Wikipedia:Advocacy is not what this place is for, see WP:NOT (more specifically, WP:SOAPBOX). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) "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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is not a pertinent example, because articles about royalty are covered by special naming conventions that overrule WP:COMMONNAME. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Firstly, WP:NCROY is about formats, not about contents of article titles. Secondly, articles about transgender people are also covered by special naming conventions that just as much overrule WP:COMMONNAME. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) WP:COMMONNAME does not appear to "override respect for article subjects' wishes" when it comes to Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton and Kate Middleton Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, which is what I originally noted. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) Support a move back to Bradley Manning per WP:COMMONNAME Eopsid (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) I think a comparison in any way involving dogs (or other non-humans) may not be the most civil way to approach this issue. That approach may offend some people. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Oppose move. Leave it where it is, per WP:BLP, WP:IDENTITY and the subject's clearly-stated wish. Preferred name and gender identity should be respected. The lead makes it clear she was identified as male and Bradley, Bradley Manning redirects here, a Google search for "Bradley Manning" finds "Bradley Manning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" which redirects here. No one will have any problems finding this article whichever of the two terms they use, in a search engine or our search box. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Again there is NOTHING in WP:BLP that covers this and under WP:IDENTITY it points to policies including WP:TITLECHANGES as this does not have to do with article content but an article's title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, it violates the very spirit and fundamental principles of BLP. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) "Yes it does" without showing where or discussing is not an argument - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Josh is right. The spirit of BLP policy is to treat our subjects with respect. Not deference, but respect. For those arguing that we have to wait for reliable sources to call her Chelsea or her: Daily Mail, UK. Uses feminine pronouns. The Guardian, UK. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. The Age, Australia. Uses feminine pronouns. SBS, Australia. Uses feminine pronouns. The Independent, UK. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Rolling Stone, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. New Statesman, UK. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Mirror UK. User Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Slate, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Washington Post, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Inquisitr, US Uses Chelsea, feminine pronoun The Telegraph, UK. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. The Nation, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns The Atlantic US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Baltimore Sun, US Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. MSNBC US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. International Business Times US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. TIME, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. New York Magazine, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. ABC News, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Huffington Post, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. Today, US. Uses Chelsea, feminine pronouns. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Bye! Nice talking with you. It's a shame you couldn't address my reasonable, if uncomfortable, question, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC) @Anthonyhcole: That's not a reasonable question; that's a loaded question. -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC) @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) @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) 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) 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) 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) Strong oppose as per WP:BLP, WP:IDENTITY, and the subject's wishes. Lawsonstu (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) This move discussion is about an article's title change not about it's content. - 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Obviously, but you must have overlooked the fact that I already said "it would be ludicrous to have an article "Bradley Manning" that exclusively used female pronouns." AgnosticAphid talk 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Support renaming to Bradley Manning per WP:COMMONNAME. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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): CNN's video on Manning's statement stated that it will keep using the current legal name (about 1 min into the video) 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) Reuters uses the legal name ABC News reports kept the legal name usage as primary, but one of its opinion pieces supports the change 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) Oppose. There is a redirect from her former name to here and to move/rename it a 4th time would serve no useful purpose. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, until consensus in sources and the public reflects a transition to Chelsea Manning. Also would support the use of female pronouns throughout the "Bradley Manning" article, reflecting WP:IDENTITY. On a side note, it is disturbing that so many editors have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally in the moves of this article and are consistently assuming bad faith. NewAccount4Me (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) @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) 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) Oppose: Redirect allows page to be easily found by users & as per MOS:IDENTITY arguments above. AnonNep (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Strong Oppose An uncomplicated case of basic human decency. I am not an expert on MOS:IDENTITY, WP:COMMONNAME or WP:BLP, but if any of these policies counterindicate a move to Chelsea Manning that is self-evidently a problem with the policy and not with the move. --April Arcus (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Support Like other I support this name request on a WP:COMMONNAME basis. What the individual themselves wants to be known as is largely irrelevant when it comes to establishing article titles (a la Snoop Lion vs. Snoop Dogg discussion from May). That is not to say the current baseline won't change in the future but Chelsea Manning simply isn't employed enough yet.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Oppose. Slightly depressing that it's actually necessary to vote on this. Formerip (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) This is not voting and your contribution cites no basis or reasoning; it's WP:JDLI. --B2C 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per GorillaWarfare, Sue Gardner, and others. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support reliable sources still call him Bradley. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Support Bradley Manning is what he is known by to most people. Sources still call him that. Also he is currently still a male with that name. If that changes in the future, we can move back. We shouldn't at this point confuse users who are looking for information about this person. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose due to MOS:IDENTITY. -- LtGen (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on WP:COMMONNAME and the vast majority of reliable sources. Kelly ^hi! 01:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per primary policy (BLP and related), as the subject clearly wishes to be identified as female and by the feminine name. Redirects and text will handle any resulting confusion. This illustrates WP's strength - this is a fluid medium, supporting older/dated language and links. Her preferences regarding use of masculine for administrative communication is a capitulation to rigid structures, not her desire generally. -- Scray (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What primary policy? there is nothing on WP:BLP that comes out and says anything against the article title change to Bradley Manning, this and as per WP:COMMONNAME is the most widely used in the media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• No, you're wrong. There is no requirement in the United States that a person go through any legal process to change their name. See our handy-dandy article on name change - common law usage-based name changes are entirely legal and acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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. --cyclopia^speak! 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Weak Oppose simply because there is nothing to lose by changing the article title for the time being. Let's just move on people Badanagram (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think it is reality being really harsh towards Manning, and WP should reflect reality. I think it is wrong to argue that "we should respect Manning's wishes" Wikipedia cannot change reality, even if it is hurtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Staal (talk • contribs) 13:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This argument is based in ideology rather than Wikipedia policy. Please educate yourself about trans issues before blithely declaring that Manning's gender is not real. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Could you give the excerpt from WP:BLP that applies to this case? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I suggest you reconsider your statement that someone being transgender is a "titillating" tabloid story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Strong Oppose per Nick, Scott, and Slim (in alphabetical order :) Plus, like Anthony pointed out, there are now plenty of reliable sources. Also, this. Draco^E 14:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Why would you disregard other policies such as MOS:IDENTITY ? Pass a Method talk 16:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • Please see: (WP:POVNAME) Bradley right now is the WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, Chelsea is the commonname because 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". You should only count neutral sources dating from 22nd of August forward. Pass a Method talk 16:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • @Pass a Method: See my response to you in #WP:COMMONAME and then the section #References to Manning in sources. Because this move was done so quickly, there was no basis to judge that Chelsea is the common name; there were no sources calling the subject Chelsea outside the context of the gender identity announcement. From the very few sources dated since then, though, it looks like Bradley is still leading. There is no reason for you to continue assuming, repeatedly, that every time someone references WP:COMMONNAME they're talking about sources prior to the announcement; it applies even for sources after the announcement. -- tariqabjotu 16:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support because that's what they're known as. --TripleU (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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. DebashisM^Talk 20:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose rename as Bradley, per WP:MOSIDENTITY and dozens of wp:RS sources using the name "Chelsea" even in headlines, many quoting her stating, "I am Chelsea Manning, I am a woman". Keeping name Chelsea will also help focus pronouns as 'she/her/hers', after months of knowing she identified as trans. There are 50 years of precedents: in 1964, world-famous boxer Cassius Clay won the world heavyweight championship from Sonny Liston, but soon joined the Nation of Islam, and the world quickly accepted new name "Muhammad Ali". Within weeks, it became bizarre, awkward to use the former name "Cassius Clay" and his famous youngest daughter (of 9 children) uses the name "Laila Ali" not Clay. -Wikid77 20:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not pleased with how this move went down. That said, now that we're at this discussion, I figured I'd wait to see what the most recent reliable sources say, and many of these use "Chelsea" like The Guardian (here as well), as well as The Daily Mail, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, HuffPo, Salon, and the Chicago Tribune. That, on top of The MOS on an individual's preferred identity, I am unconvinced that citing WP:COMMONNAME on its own is a sufficient reason to move it back, even if some sources continue to use Bradley. Yes, WP:COMMONAME is a policy, and I agree with it in principle. So is WP:IAR, and if the size of this discussion is any indication, WP:COMMONNAME is getting in the way of us being productive in this specific case. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Redirects: Cheap, easy, free. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is probably what you are looking for: [11]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, it is profoundly disrespectful. I think that brings WP:BLP into this. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline and not policy, policies outweigh guidelines on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I just noticed that Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles includes the following phrase:

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

Regarding the close

Just noting here that I've asked on WP:AN/RFC [12] and WP:AN/I [13] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think they'd decline the request as stupid. Formerip (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• This is a discussion of the name change, not the pronoun issue. It's perfectly coherent for the article to be named Bradley Manning and for the pronoun "she" to be used for the person in question, particularly when referring to events after Manning's claim of female gender. Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That doesn't seem like a response to anything I said. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It seemed that you were referring to MOS guidelines on pronoun selection for transgendered persons. Is this incorrect? Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Query over renaming of the article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How is that relevant? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can you link to the Reddit thread/posts in question? Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More discussion

Early close

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)

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)

What about WP:TITLECHANGES? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• WikiProject_LGBT_studies
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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)

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)

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

• NBC News clearly has switched to preferred name by Manning in multiple articles published since Thursday afternoon.
• One opinion piece on ABC News supports the change

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

copyright status of black and white photo of Manning wearing wig and lipstick

This photo is sometimes described as "released by US Army" which means prima facie public domain and uploadable to the Commons. But in fact it was "introduced into evidence at his court martial" by the Army and in this way released to the media. Should the photo be considered a work of the US government or not? See the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lho-133A.jpg.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo was taken by manning, and they own the copyright. Being reelased by the govt does not make it a govt work. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're being unclear by using the word "they" here. I thought you meant the government, instead of Manning. Just use a singular pronoun, please. Trinitresque (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

yo 88.66.37.221 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, please use the singular when you're talking about both an individual or an organisation. She for Manning, they for the government. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious. That editor used "they" in respect for people's different sensitivities, so that neither the pro-she and pro-he people are "offended". They could have perfectly chosen to not do that, and alienate one side or another. You're essentially trying to force other people to adhere by your standards. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Small for her age"

"Manning was small for her age – as an adult, she reached 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed 105 lb (47.6 kg)"

This is extremely small for a young man, borderline small for a young woman. Is it transphobic to seek clarity for gender-specific issues like this? †TE†Talk 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I was unsure about this when I fixed up those pronouns. Honestly, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the article and could probably be deleted entirely. —me_and 16:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Feel free to clarify the text to make it clear that the disparity was relative to her male presentation at the time. If you don't think you can word the text in an appropriate way then ask for suggestions or for help. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not very helpful to mention a weight without tying it to a specific date, since weight fluctuates. Moncrief (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies just killed it. —me_and 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just tried to post and bam... another edit conflict. †TE†Talk 16:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Average height of a U.S. woman in 2008 was 164.1 cm (5' 4.6"), so that is not small. It is small for a U.S. male, whose average height is 178.2 cm (5' 10.2"). Source: http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml Statistically speaking, 93% of all adult American males are taller than a man 5'4" tall. I cannot remember that source -- my nephew in the UK was very short (his mother is very short) and my brother and sister-in-law were considering growth hormone therapy if the National Health would pay for it -- they would, but you know the NHS -- you have to wait forever. We were born in Canada, a Ted Cruz thing, eh? (English people are shorter, just an observation, and my sister-in-law is English. We're ethnically Anglo-Celtic) The best stats we could find when researching were on The States. (Note: For a U.S. man 6'3" tall, statistically speaking everyone he meets will be shorter; the equivalent was 5'4" tall on the short side, as at 93%, everyone that short U.S. man meets will be taller.) Two and one-half inches in a woman is not that much off the deviation as it would be in a man. (Btw, my nephew grew and is now taller than his dad! Thank you NHS for your delays.) Just because our culture privileges tall women (models), we should not make the error that 5'2", which is less than average in a woman yes but not radically so,is "short for her age."Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How about something like... "Manning is smaller than most men," or something? This is confusing...

Though there are not a lot of good statistics due to it being a small population, Manning is more than likely smaller than most trans women. Generally, though, I would challenge the usefulness of such a statement, especially if it is going to create such conflict in narrative. It does not seem factually important to compare Manning's height to other people, and I would question why it is deemed important. 71.90.172.117 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Reader feedback: add a category in which Mann...

108.49.92.147 posted this comment on 21 August 2013 (view all feedback).

add a category in which Manning is clearly identified as a whistleblower who has exposed war crimes by the US military. add Manning's own statements in full, one in which he pleaded guilty in the beginning of his trial, and the one at the sentencing.

Any thoughts?

Brad (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably more useful to discuss why or why not he might be considered a whistleblower. I'm sure there are plenty of quotes out there for both positions. Brad (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia does this because Wikipedia's style guide says we should. —me_and 17:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

The sourcing rules override any "style guide" wikipedians have invented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Brandmeister^talk 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

For the "in the press" or "in the media" template... (coverage of the Wikipedia article itself)

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/22/chelsea_manning_wikipedia_perfectly_reflects_new_gender_of_whistleblower.html

--Another Believer _(Talk) 17:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• •  Done. (See banner at top of talk page, below WikiProject banners.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The statement "Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations..." is precisely the reason this move was NOT appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

+1000 to the above. This is exactly the reason we should move it back. As for pronouns, I guess our policy means we should change them to "she",but the title should remain at Bradley until the news catches up. Odd but true.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What a mess

This sentence is an example of what's in the article now: " Her father told PBS that he created his first website when he was ten years old. He 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.[18]" Moncrief (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But what could've possibly gone wrong with quickly trying to retroactively mash up the biography of a man into one of a woman by replacing all the pronouns? --Jeude54cartes (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was in the process of being fixed up. I'm sure a reasonably satisfactory version. It is quite hard to do this while there is a flood of editors reverting it back using spurious arguments and denying the validity of acknowledging trans people's identities on Wikipedia in general. I personally would much rather be using my energy on the article page, but I make it a policy not to edit war. Morwen (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish it were also your policy not to start riots, but, sigh, thank our lucky stars for partial virtues. :) --Mareklug ^talk 18:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is no longer a Good Article, please degrade the rankings

In what reality is a BLP subject to wheel-war moves and overnight redacting of personal pronouns, not at all congruent with reality (was Manning a she as a child? As an enlistee in the US Army? As a litigant in military court verdict?) a Good Article. This article is a laughingstock for English Wikipedia at the moment, and the world is having a chuckle. This is NOT one of our Good Articles any longer. --Mareklug ^talk 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work thanks to the somewhat sudden change. Ericloewe (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Give it time for the dust to settle, otherwise open a Good Article Reassessment. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's gong to take longer for the dust to settle than for a GAR to pass, that said, I'm to lazy to read the GAR page, but I agree that it should be done. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I closed the reassessment as too premature. Let's either re-open or start another one in about two weeks. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as being "too premature", which only speaks to your unclear thinking. Your closure was a mistake. This is not a Good Article, and it is not going to become one by sitting on its false assessment. Please re-open. --Mareklug ^talk 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of delisting this article, ut being a good article and that info being able to be read by readers just sends a bad message don't you think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you guys are bitter by... this matter. However, the hooplah among community is too intense, and I will not let this article be de-listed just because we editors could change the whole article based on the recent matter. Also, de-listing it is too soon per WP:GAR, especially when under dispute. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns

Alright, let's start a discussion to try to achieve some sort of consensus on which pronouns should be used, so we can fix the incongruities that have been mentioned. I propose we move to using female pronouns in the article per MOS:IDENTITY, which clearly states "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. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Firmly disagree per common sense. jj (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the amount of discussion about this issue on this page, I think it's evident that this is not a "common sense" decision. To me, referring to Manning as "she" is common sense; from your comment, your common sense dictates the opposite. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@JasonJack it is hard to reply to you when you don't appropriatly use the threading system, please use an appropriate number of ':' infront of replies. I would agree that common since and policy here could be at conflit, but policy supports what GorillaWarfare said (in my intirpritation) CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place to vote on which pronouns to use, since they should follow the gender we choose for the title, but you are right that they need to be consistent. Right now we have botched paragraphs such as "The offenses he was convicted of carried a maximum sentence of 90 years. The government asked for a 60-year sentence to act as a deterrent to other soldiers, while her lawyer asked for no more than 25 years. He was sentenced on August 21 to 35 years and given a dishonorable discharge. Her rank was reduced from Private First Class to Private, and he will forfeit all pay and benefits. He was given credit of 1,293 days served, including the 112 days for her treatment at Quantico, and will be eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence. He may also be given additional credit for good behavior, and could be released in about eight years. that need to be fixed. ThemFromSpace 17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that policy would support refering to Manning with female pronouns within article namespace. That said, that policy does not apply to talk pages (I am of the opnion that it should not apply to talk pages)), I personaly disagree with that policy, but as it stands, I would agree that the article needs to use female pronouns. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering how quickly the pronouns are being changed in the article, I think this is the place to discuss. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the article needs to be returned to what most valid sources call Manning. If you're concerned about pronouns, substitute "Manning" for the pronouns, and then you're safe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The title has NOTHING to do with the pronouns. End of story. Prince changed his name to $#@% but that doesn't mean we followed. The title is based on WP:AT, which dictates common usage. If common usage moved to Chelsea, we will move the article. The pronouns are a separate case, and in this case I agree we should use the feminine pronouns, but not in a copy-paste way, but in a careful way. There's no issue with having an article titled "Bradley Manning" that says "She did x"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You want to use "Manning" every time there is a pronoun in that article? We'd probably double the total length... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be great style, but it would make the article less fatuous - for the time being. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Especially as no valid source is saying "she" yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

God invented singular they precisely for such exigencies. --Mareklug ^talk 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not use "it" until gender has been legally established? 65.51.209.126 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is English not your first language, or are you just trying to be funny? Moncrief (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the singular they, as I find it grammatically incorrect. "It" is unquestionably offensive. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The singular they (and its associated plural pronouns) has validity when referring to a non-specific person. (E.g., "The clerk tells each juror to give their response.") Using it to describe a specific person sounds patently ridiculous. Moncrief (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I suggest you (and GorillaWarfare, as well) take a gander at Singular they#Acceptability, as well as the rest of that article, a much more cohesive Wikipedia creation then the one we are discussing. :) --Mareklug ^talk 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, but as it says there, it's still an ongoing debate. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I don't have to read a Wikipedia policy in order to know that, in English, using "they" as a pronoun for one known, specific human being sounds absurd. "George Washington was the first president, and they served with distinction." Pick your own example of a specific person, one with gender-identity disorder or not. The way the language is structured, it is utterly comical to use "they" when describing one particular human being whose name is known. It's an entirely separate issue using "they" as a non-specific, general singular pronoun. I see both sides of that issue, but it's not what's being discussed here. Moncrief (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah well desperate times require desperate measures...--Tennenrishin (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It was sarcastic, because what has been done to this article is crazy. Perhaps, it should be "he" up until the letter dated 21 Aug from Manning, afterwords it can be Chelsea and "she". 65.51.209.126 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It is haphazard. Dealing with these issues is delicate, and search/replace does not work. It doesn't help that ppl have been revert warring. The best would be to allow a few admins who are versed in these issues (calling @Bearcat: perhaps?) to carefully go through the article and correct the pronouns. Exceptions can of course be made in certain areas, for sentence flow for example or when framing quotes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading through and fixing inconsistencies or instances where editors have accidentally changed pronouns that don't refer to Manning. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to become involved in whether Manning is now a man or a woman. But I believe it is wrong, clearly grammatically wrong, to use the pronouns "she" and "her" of Manning, in describing events that took place when Manning was a man or a boy. Sentences like "Her sister .. had been Manning's principal caregiver, waking at night to make her a bottle and get her back to sleep" are absurd — Manning was male at that time. (It would be similarly absurd if the article on Bertrand Russell referred to him as "Earl Russell" when describing events that took place before he inherited his title.) Maproom (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, how Wikipedia reflects the name and gender identity of a transgender person can never just be a question of "following the majority of sources" — precisely because the bulk of the existing sources about Manning were published before she announced her new name, it'll be a long time before the new sources that describe a woman named Chelsea actually outnumber the existing ones that referred to a man named Bradley. (And that's leaving aside the fact that some sources will undoubtedly not respect correct etiquette around transgender issues, and will continue to call her Bradley anyway.)

Rather, the principle that applies when a notable person comes out as transgender is an outgrowth of WP:BLP: as soon as her gender identity and new name are properly verifiable in reliable sources, neutral respect for her own self-identification trumps any other consideration. So normally, a page gets moved to the person's preferred name, and the pronouns switched to reflect the person's professed gender identity, as soon as those things are announced. (Admittedly we held off a few days when it came to actually moving Laura Jane Grace from "Tom Gabel", because we needed better clarification as to whether Grace was going to be her surname or a second middle name which was still going to be followed by "Gabel" as her surname, but the pronoun change happened right away as it should have.) The fact that the existing sources refer to Manning as "Bradley" instead of Chelsea is irrelevant, because they were published before we could properly verify any other name for her, and can't be retroactively changed now to say Chelsea instead — and anyway, the redirect means that anyone who searches for "Bradley Manning" is still going to find this article anyway.

It is also not necessary for a person to have completed SRS — in most places, a person has to undergo a program of psychological counselling, living as the target gender for a few years despite still having the opposite kind of sex parts, before they're allowed to have the surgery at all (and if you were transgender you certainly wouldn't want to be having your surgery in any place that didn't require that anyway.) At any rate, gender is not a question of what kind of sex parts you happen to have between your legs — whether you understand it or not, the phenomenon of a person's internal gender identity failing to match up with their external sexual characteristics is a rare but very real phenomenon for which the only known cure is to change the external body to match the internal identity. And, in fact, given how carefully privacy is maintained around medical issues, we're unlikely to ever be able to properly verify whether most transgender people are actually "pre-op" or "post-op" anyway — so that can't be the determining factor either.

Simply put, once a transgender person comes out and announces their new name, WP:BLP obligates us to respect their expressed wishes. It's no different than if your neighbour asks you to call him Robert instead of Bob: no matter what you personally think you should be allowed to call him, simple politeness demands that you respect his wishes and call him Robert if that's what he asks for. You don't have to like it if you don't want to, but WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are absolutely non-negotiable policies on Wikipedia and there is no other alternative that satisfies them. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Simple politeness" is irrelevant to how Wikipedia determines its policies, otherwise we would remove portraits from Muhammad and stuff like that. Shii (tock) 22:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bearcat,Shii - Politeness is irrelevant. Verifiability is everything. Policies that you feel support your position are always "absolutely non-negotiable". NickCT (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

AYFKM? The manual needs work. I'm willing to accept that a man can become a woman, and that he doesn't need to do anything but want to be a woman for that to happen, but saying retroactively that he was a woman in the past is surely a bridge too far. The whole concept of "changing" sex implies there was one before the other. I'd allow for some slop in this, for cases where past events are adjectival, for example, "she was born in..." but saying something like (hypothetically, not about Manning) "she was the fastest boy on the high school team..." really gets strange. And I just don't like seeing a whole article redone based on events today. What happens with a transsexual (in general) if next week (s)he finds out there will be no way to receive hormones and gives up trying? I imagine that as our society becomes more enlightened about this sort of thing there really will be people who switch gender identity twice a month. (after all, what woman wouldn't want to switch around that time of the month?) Wnt (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone comes out as gay after being in an opposite-sex relationship, we don't write the article to state that they were straight up until a point and then turned gay, because our best understanding is that sexual orientation is determined at a very young age. The inference is that the person was always gay, even if they did not state it publicly (and may not even have accepted it internally.) Our best understanding for gender identity is much the same. Stating "I am a trans woman" carries with it the necessary implication that the individual has always been a woman, not that they decided one day to change their gender identity.--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, plenty of people will play around with gender presentation for casual fun or entertainment purposes (drag queens, Hallowe'en costumes, sex play, etc.) — lots of people in fact already do — but there's a big difference between playing around with it for fun, while remaining otherwise secure in the gender identity that you usually express in your regular daily life, and actually having the rare but very real medical disorder in which your internal sense of your basic gender identity is actually not in sync with the body that you're living in. The latter is not a decision one can undertake lightly, nor is it something you can just casually and freely change "twice a month". It's not something that someone just wakes up one morning and decides to do on a whim — just because she didn't publicly come out about it until yesterday doesn't mean she hasn't been dealing with this her whole life. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We should refer to Manning by the gender that the majority of reliable sources use. WP:RS is one of Wikipedia's core policies and should take precedence over any manual of style that editors have created. I have not looked through many sources at this time, so this should not be taken as an endorsement of any specific gender usage. I also recommend rewriting some sentences to avoid using pronouns where possible. --PiMaster3 ^talk 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentally this is a case of "verifiability, not truth", a principle which still stands though its detractors object to its bluntest expression. The inner mind knows what is true, but what we report is what is verifiably stated in sources. If all the sources from the time of his arrest say "he", then he was a he at that time, no matter what the "truth" may be. The gender identity we should report from a given point in time is not the innermost truth, but the outward expression indicated by his or her actions. And - not to suggest this for the article, nor to claim it is true, but only to make my point - I should say that I don't know that what you think is true is true. For all I know the gender identity disorder was a legal ploy. For all I know the living as a woman may be a way to get better conditions in jail or a better chance at parole. You don't know the truth any more than I do - we can only know what is verifiable.

The comparison to sexuality is not fully relevant, but I should just point out that I don't think we should accept as dogma that sexuality is unalterable. Some people say they have changed. Some people do change, at least in terms of what they do. If the subject of a BLP says he was always gay then he was always gay - that's basic sourcing. And if he says he was heterosexual and then he switched, there's no justification to doubt that - that's also basic sourcing. And if he doesn't say, then we should word our article carefully to avoid speculating beyond what we know. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the use of female pronouns in the article, as well as the inclusion of an explanation near the top of the page that Manning is a self-identified trans person, to help with possible clarity issues for our readers. Many parts of the article will have to be rewritten to make sure it flow correctly, however. NewAccount4Me (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously this is somewhat moot at this point in time, but the Manual of Style was produced by consensus and is based on reliable sources including other style guides. For instance, the AP style manual calls for using pronouns reflecting self-described gender. It seems to me that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS settles the matter in favor of following the MOS, at least until the MOS is changed. There shouldn't be a discussion here about whether or not to follow the MOS, there should be a discussion at WT:MOS regarding MOS:IDENTITY. In fact there is such a discussion going on at the moment that anyone who's interested should peruse. AgnosticAphid talk 22:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2013

KathrynBrooks1 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) There are many ambiguous pronouns in the article, making it difficult to follow. Also, there is one use of "they" that should be "he." This occurs in the section about secondary school in Wales.

KathrynBrooks1 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm in full support of pronouns changing to feminine per her request, there's several places where 'he' has been changed to 'she' but the 'he' wasn't referring to the subject of the article, but rather someone else (e.g. Adrian Lamo). —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support this full-protection. Despite attempts to discuss pronouns/names/etc. here, the article is seeing no end of conflict on the issue. I'd protect it myself, but it would be improper considering my involvement in the issue to date. Oops, I misread this request. Anyway, I'm currently going through and fixing any inconsistencies I find. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support this request. It's as if someone has used the "Find-Replace" tool in places. - AJF (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific where the error is, so that whichever admin is dealing with the request don't have to go through the whole article finding where you mean? -- KTC (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Passim. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Any changes should be in accordance with MOS:IDENTITY. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have changed all inconsistencies I could find. If I've missed anything, please let me know. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• A new edit request. There is a point where it says " if she wanted to harm himself, she could do so with her underwear or her flip-flops". It should be herself. Rgrasmus (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

but there's still a "himself" in a quote. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - it isn't a quote in the article, I was just using quotes in my comment to refer to what was written in the article. So it still needs to be changed. Rgrasmus (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Added a new {{edit protected}} for this. —me_and 21:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Yeah, it looks like it may have accidentally removed when someone undid an edit. Fixed now. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the edit that was requested but it must have been removed somehow (like how my comment above got mangled). What bothered me was 'it was felt she was "a risk to himself..."' It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to Pte Manning

What about for the time being moving the page to the gender neutral Pte Manning, till the name issue has been resolved. To demand a legal name change is asinine as many transgenders change their name years before the courts will allow a legal name change, and this is never made an issue, so to make that a key argument now is just plain mean. 69.244.220.253 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pte? What is Pte? Moncrief (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing move discussion above; I suggest you put your suggestion there, rather than starting a new discussion here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pte is the british Army abbreviation for Private (rank). The equivalent U.S. Army abbreviation is PVT. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Except Manning is, or was, a PFC (private first class). Pfe? That's a new one on me. Moncrief (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He was, but the court-martial reduced his rank to E-1, or private. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He was an American soldier, so "Pte" is no appropriate. Just spell out "Private". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be Private Manning or Pvt Manning but he will no longer be a Private when he is released and his dishonorable discharge goes into effect; this would not seem to be an appropriate move. While he is in prison, he is technically a Private but he is not afforded any military benefits. The E1 rank is only left to keep him under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and the military --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 09:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS-TW template

Just for transparency, I reverted an attept to add an Ominous Warning to the head of this talk page [14]. Many editors here are honestly discussing what the appropriate course is, and that includes consideration of whether certain style policies are correct. A banner suggesting that the policy cannot be debated, and that participants representing one side of the debate should be reported to a wikiproject (for some reason) is not helpful. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The talk page of any individual article is not the correct venue to discuss any potential changes to a general policy or guideline. -- KTC (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That warning was bitey and inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 19:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@KTC:, were you agreeing or disagreeing with 168.12.253.66? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Redrose64:, neither. I was solely pointing out that this talk page is not the location for debating policy/guideline. The only opinion I have express on this page (so far) is up above in the RM. -- KTC (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; which is why I added {{MOS-TW}}. Despite not being worded as an "ominous warning" - it states agreed procedures - this action was apparently bitey. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to place that disclaimer. Per WP:PG policies and guidelines should always be applied using common sense. Also, consensus may change and it would be better to let editors exercise their own judgement. Brandmeister^talk 09:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly we should use common sense. Manning has stated unequivocally that she considers herself to be a woman and has stated unambiguously that she wants to be called Chelsea and referred with female pronouns. This is the very definition of a trans woman - having a gender identity as a woman although assigned as male at birth. the MOS-TW template is specifically for articles dealing with these issues. Manning meets the definition of a trans woman, Manning identifies as a woman. Wikipedia has already developed protocols for these issues and we should follow them. The template is not bitey it informs as to these protocols and provides information if there is further issues. Bitey is removing a helpful template. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of trans people

Has anyone ever read biographies of people who are man/woman ---> woman/man trans? I assume they are titled with the name the person chooses after their identity switch is "cemented", so to speak, but how do such books approach naming, pronouning etc. within the text? Consistent usage throughout, or do they switch after the person starts identifying as the other gender? Do people think it is worth taking into consideration the approach of biographies of trans people? LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not read biographies, but the general press guidelines (Associated Press, for example) say to use the person's chosen pronouns even before they publicly transitioned. Based on personal experience, that's what trans* folk want, too. I could dig up a whole bunch of websites about trans* people (some self-authored, some with permission of the person in question) that also follow this convention, although I don't have printed biographies I can point to. —me_and 19:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Where by "even before they publicly transitioned", I mean when writing about times before they transitioned. I don't expect people to be precognitant! —me_and 19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, cheers. That would have been my guess, and has guided my vote to oppose. I'm sure that like at least some others here, I've never really looked seriously at sex-and-gender stuff, have never had trans friends or acquaintances, and so largely have treating people as individuals, being open-minded, conforming to someone's wishes, and just not being an asshole to rely on. LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would be great to look over some biographies that use the current (latest) pronoun throughout. I'm curious how that situation is handled in other situations. It might shed some light on how to approach the pronouns for this article (for example, how to talk about past situations in which Chelsea would have been assumed to have been male). CaseyPenk (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In practice, I think it is complicated. Some biographers choose to be consistent, others don't. Kate Bornstein (2012). A Queer and Pleasant Danger: A Memoir. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807001653, is an autobiography that is playful with the gender of its nouns and pronouns, and often intentionally juxtaposes them within a sentence, but that is very much Bornstein's approach to things. Similarly Helen Boyd, She's Not the Man I Married: My Life with a Transgender Husband (Seal Press, 2007) intentionally juxtaposes genders within sentences for literary purposes. Christine Jorgensen (1967), Christine Jorgensen: A Personal Biography, includes at least some referring to herself as a child as a "boy" according to the WP page quote of it. News agencies seem to aim to be more consistent in their editorial tone (rather than playful or thought-provoking, both of which are fair game for biographies). Also in the past, trans-folk had to be more careful about how they talked about their own past in order to continue to be eligible for the medical treatments they wanted. The last decade or two have seen more recognition that many different kinds of narratives about one's transness or past, might still warrant HRT or surgeries. Personally I know trans folk that always refer to their past selves using their current nouns/pronouns, trans-folk that refer to past selves with Gender-Assigned-At-Birth pronouns and switch at the time of transition, and trans-folk that use multiple sets of nouns/pronouns for their past selves. There is a lot of variation. Similarly, there can be differences between when one begins transitioning, and when one transitions "publicly." Lana Wachowski, for instance, transitioned and even completed her transition, years before she presented her transition to the press or public. Even with HRT, the transition process usually takes several years, without HRT ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.157.156.137 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK! Well, that puts paid to my hopes for a cut-and-dried affair, 98.157.156.137! I think I'll leave the decision regarding pronouning this article to others... Still, at least Chelsea wasn't man ---> 'neither', like some people I've read about! Whatever does one do then... ;D LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to thank the IP for providing one of the few calm, evidence-based and thoughtful posts in the midst of all the above discussion. I hope it gets considered. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also thank the poster for the thoughtful share. I would note that a number of reasonable arguments have been put forward by both sides, even though it seems to get drowned out by the confrontational noise. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This explains how the issue off Wikipedia is handled and why there is differences found. On Wikipedia however, a living persons biography, and mentions of them in other articles, adheres to the person's latest representation of themselves. This is cut and dry as Manning has stated unequivocally she considers herself female and want to have she/her used as pronouns and is also seeking to change her physical body to match her gender identity. If Manning had died we would have a different set of considerations and the most common name would come into play. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Timing

Are there any secondary sources that explain why Manning waited until the day after sentencing to declare her desire to become a woman? Does it have to do with transfer to prison? Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"She didn't want this to be something that overshadowed the case." googly-oogles. ViniTheHat (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's got to do with the lawyer trying to negotiate the sentence. Presumably, he's going to argue that Manning shouldn't go to prison, because the crimes were caused by "gender identity" problems. Especially not Leavenworth, which is male-only. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of caselaw stating that women, be they cis-, intersex-, or trans-, can be left in all-male facilities. Nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment does not require the separate placement of inmates based on sex. Galvan v. Carothers, 855 F.Supp. 285 (D. Alaska 1994) (The placement of a female inmate in an all-male prison wing did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.); Dimarco v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, 300 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1192-1194 (D. Wyo. 2004) (The placement of an intersexual inmate, who was of alleged female gender but was anatomically situated as a male due to the presence of a penis, in segregated confinement for a period of 438 days, with concomitant severely limited privileges, solely because of the condition and status of ambiguous gender was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment where the safety of the inmate and other inmates was secured by placing the inmate in administrative segregation, and the inmate was provided the basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing and medical treatment.); Lucrecia v. Samples, 1995 WL 630016 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (The transfer of a transsexual inmate to an all-male facility and her housing in an all-male cell did not violate the due process clause where the inmate failed to demonstrate the infringement of a liberty interest.). So your supposition is either based on lack of knowledge of the legal position Trans people are in, or something else. As for the public declaration, transsexuality is progressive, becoming more intense over time. Something we know was bad enough to cause suicidal ideation 4 years ago is likely much more intense by now. The only surprise to me is that she decided on the name "Chelsea" rather than "Breanna" - as reported in multiple sources back then. Just not emphasised. Zoe Brain (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, that's unverifiable speculation, and arguably an attack on the integrity of Manning's lawyer. Kindly refrain from both crystal ball antics and personal attacks. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Slate blog post about pronouns here

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

Edit request on 22 August 2013: Change Gender Identity Disorder to Gender dysphoria

Change "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria". The latter is becoming ever-more common these days, and is the preferred term in the DSM-5. Also, the former suggests Manning is disordered, somehow. AJF (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

seconded ViniTheHat (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. If she has gender identity disorder, she has gender identity disorder. That is, after all, the name of the article. — Richard BB 20:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose rename the article first. Many news sources describe her as having gender identity disorder. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the article. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I object to the use of the term "gender identity disorder" in the opening section. The term is controversial (many consider it bigoted) and is no longer used even by the APA. (It was replaced by "gender dysphoria".)

Moreso, Manning has never used the term to describe herself, and it is wrong to force such a stigmatizing term on her.

"Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood" should be changed to "Manning has experienced gender dysphoria since childhood" or "Manning has expressed that she has felt female since childhood". --71.116.34.80 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a really good point I wonder about too. I would change now but thought we could discuss further. Any objections? Moncrief (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of newspaper articles and defense testimony used the term gender identity disorder. We go by reliable sources. There are only a few exceptions - notably, which pronoun a person wants to use. But they don't get to choose which name, and they don't get to choose how their disorders are described by professionals esp when those are part of the documented court case. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Following an informal search engine test, at the time of this post Google returns 238,000 results for "manning 'gender identity disorder'" and 97,400 results for "manning 'gender dysphoria'". Bing, meanwhile, returns 90,100 results for "manning 'gender identity disorder'" and 6,170 results for "manning 'gender dysphoria'". CaseyPenk (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Gender identity disorder says that another name for the condition is gender dysphoria. There is also a Gender identity disorder in children. Given that Manning had gender dysphoria since childhood, would it not be appropriate to link to that article at least for that sentence (at the end of the lead)? Also, how about changing or piping all other instances to "gender dysphoria" since I'm pretty sure "disorder" is NPOV? The relevant section is WP:MEDMOS, which requires that WP:COMMONNAME is overridden for the titles of articles on medical conditions but which does not require every article on Wikipedia to conform to that standard. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If the medical community commonly calls it a disorder, it would be a violation of NPOV to censor their opinion. Whether they're right is another question entirely, but Wikipedia describes what is, not what should be. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's wrongheaded. The medical community is by no means unanimous on this or any topic. Also, there is no censorship; the title of the article Gender identity disorder is not in question here. Abductive (reasoning) 20:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling it "disorder" is a neutral point of view. If she has gender identity disorder, she has gender identity disorder. That is, after all, the name of the article. — Richard BB 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore. Abductive (reasoning) 20:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved the page back. Controversial name changes should be discussed and achieve consensus on the talk page first. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, under the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves," "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." CaseyPenk (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot to move the article and only did the talk page. Sorry about the confusion. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The present name conforms to WP:MEDMOS consensus. See http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender%20Dysphoria%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Go ahead and request the move back yourself. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) There's another specific reason to use the old terminology - one of our heavily used sources has a conversation including the term. Again, for the reader's benefit, we should try to avoid using both terms in the article and try to be consistent with the sources used in the article. Medical terminology is confusing enough. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "gender identity disorder" is no longer used by medical groups including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the largest psychiatric organization in the world. In May 2013, the APA officially started using "gender dysphoria" instead.

— Chelsea Manning's case puts focus on transgender rights in prisons, Amanda Holpuch, theguardian.com, 22 August 2013

2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:49D (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia uses the term gender identity disorder. Please keep a neutral point of view. Avoiding insult by changing facts, or names is not a productive change. Disorder does not imply a negative condition, in addition. It is possible to view gender identity disorder as something good, which I am sure Bradley Manning does, as he is not ashamed of it. Sovetus (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done: Sorry, but I don't see any consensus to make the requested edit at this time. As some of the other commenters have suggested, the proper way to decide this is by a requested move discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder. I suggest that editors try that first and then make another request here if the article name ends up being changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea E. Manning

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)

It sounds as though Chelsea signed the letter, "Chelsea E. Manning." CaseyPenk (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the letter. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edwardine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That sort of comment is not called for.Jbower47 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I saw it in the Guardian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think so. And I don't think you saw it anywhere else. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Elizabeth. News for "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" Appropriate humor is okay: e.g. Jesus wept. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sneering, transphobic sarcasm is not my idea of humour, but each to their own. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Politicized trash is not my idea of an encyclopedia. Deal with it. Clinton (talk)

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)

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)

What leaked material was actually classified

I would like to see this article be more clear about how much of the leaked material was actually classified. The section heading "Release of classified information" suggests that everything Manning leaked is classified. But I've seen op-eds saying that "most" of the material leaked by Manning was actually not classified—example: The Nation.

The classification information I've been able to glean from Wikipedia and cursory web searches is confusing and contradictory. List of charges against Bradley Manning says that a particular PowerPoint presentation and 51 US State Department cables, including the "Reykjavik 13" cable, were classified, implying that the rest perhaps was not. Meanwhile, the United States v. Manning article, in its summary of the List of charges article, only says that the Iraq war logs were classified. A number of media reports refer to the 2007 July 12 Baghdad video as classified, but United States v. Manning refers to the defense's January 2012 request to depose witnesses about the classification of material, including one who was expected to say that 3 Apache gunship videos were not classified at the time they were leaked—implying that there has been some retroactive classification of at least some of the material. I also get the impression that documents placed on SIPRnet, including all of the SIGACTs ("war logs") inherit some kind of classification, but it's not clear how that really works.

I feel it's important to resolve this. What was classified at the time of the leaks? What was retroactively classified? If we can't answer these questions, we should at least to state that there's uncertainty. And we should provide citations for any assertion that a particular set of material was classified. Can someone point to good sources for this information? —mjb (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Slate article

It might be worth reading this article which applauds Wikipedia for being so responsive and changing the page name:
Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning’s New Gender Liz ^{Let's Talk} 20:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth realizing that (a) this slate article is already linked at the top of this page, and mentioned in several sections, but (b) more importantly, the slate article is wrong (as it says there is little dispute, whereas, there is a ton of dispute here), and the fact that they applaud us should be embarrassing actually - at least w.r.t. to the name. We should NOT be ahead of news sources, we should be BEHIND them, especially when it comes to what we call someone or something. I think the only exception is the pronouns. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(a) it's a random Slate blogger, who appears to consider the US the world (b) we're not ahead of the UK media, who have gone pretty much to "Chelsea", "she", "her" as extensively documented above on this very talk page - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Slate is not a politically neutral publication Shii (tock) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was politically neutral. But I don't see how calling someone by their chosen name is a "political" issue. It has to do with WP:BLP and WP:Article Titles. This isn't the first transgender BLP on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2013: Swap army photo for photo of Manning dressed as woman

Since she intends to live as female now, perhaps we should swap

for

Non-free image replaced with link to image. Fair use rationale extends only to one particular section of the article; this being a talk page does not excuse its use here. matt (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

?

Not too sure about this myself, mind. AJF (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

see Kristen Beck - I ended up using two photos. But we should get a better photo first, if possible... does one exist? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) This isn't the person's facebook page. The person is the person, dressed up or not, and the military photo is far more informative as to the reason for notability. If Pte Manning ends up as a champion of the LGBT movement and that is the enduring legacy, sure, we should change it. For now, the photo we have is fine. It's much more recognizable anyway. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we use both, then. The female picture is more representative of her as a person, but the second picture is more representative of her notability. - AJF (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would qualify as fair use - as she's still living, it would still be possible to obtain a free image in the future. If we don't want to use the picture of her as a male (which I have no opinion on), then we should just remove it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. Posting a photo of Manning as a male would be false. ViniTheHat (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would qualify as fair use. After all, it's been released to inform the public. - AJF (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The first photo is of superior quality and a public domain government work. The copyright status of the latter is unclear. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've requested clarification on the image license from Manning's attorney in VRTS ticket # 2013082210012666 (requires permissions-commons access) and will post back if I have more details. LFaraone 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have contact info, why not reach out to Manning's attorney and request a better (and free) photo. The one we have is terrible...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; I requested a preferred photo in addition to requesting a license for the current one. LFaraone 22:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been done on the ticket. As it stands I think the grounds for fair use on that image are shaky at best. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to put too much importance on a photo of Manning "dressed as a woman". At least to my perspective, the differences are all fashion fads that are prevalent in more sex than another, but don't define sex or gender on their own. I mean, women look far prettier without that awful eye makeup; men look much nicer with long (real) hair; ties are a cultural foul-up nobody can explain ... when I filter out all these details, Manning seems just as much male in the wig photo, and of course he's always been somewhat female, especially in the face, in the other photos. So I think we should look more to the significance of the photos to the sources and not look for an ideological reason to feature a low grade B/W photo. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning isn't ideological, it's simply that Manning is uncomfortable in a masculine role and would obviously prefer to be shown as a woman. Hence the name and gender change. - AJF (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm using "ideological" in a broad sense here, such as statements about what someone prefers (how do I know? If he wants to make clear to us what he prefers he can donate a better-quality picture.... :) ) Wnt (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Manning as a male is what most people identify with. There is no disrespect in using the photo of them as a male, as the news events up until now have shown them as they looked. Enough pandering to this LGBT "respect", the photo of them wearing a wig should be presented in the section about their sexual identity. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not "pandering". Nor does wiki decide on article titles and images used based solely on how the public knows them. If a person identifies as another gender and states so publicly, the journalistic standard is to respect that identity and abide by it. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that person's identity and their public announcement of their preferred identity, but this should be done in a separate section. It is in that section that Manning's previous identity and images from that period should be presented, if at all. If you are concerned that users won't know where to find info on Manning as most know her from when she identified and prsented as a man, then make a redirect page and put "formerly known as Bradley Manning". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Manning identified themselves as, it matters what the rest of the world identifies them as. Until a few days ago, nobody conjured up that cross-dressing (and yes, dressing as a woman while having undeniable male biology is cross-dressing, that's the definition of it. When the legal or biological status changes, then they are transgendered. Until then, they self-identify as X. Note the difference: "Is" vs "Identifies as". Chelsea IS a man. She identifies as a woman. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You have your terms backwards: Manning is a male and identifies as a woman. The standard in journalism, medicine, psychology, and most other fields is to use the self-identified gender of the person when referring to them (the identity part), not the sex (the biology part) and not how the world sees them. This is also Wikipedia's policy. Also, that is not the connotation of cross-dressing; the term implies that the person does not necessarily identify with the opposite sex/gender. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Agreed, Manning was not notable for crossdressing, he was notable for the crimes he committed as an army private. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is not just "crossdressing". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that this is not what Manning is notable for. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Who says the photo has him dressing as a woman? What do women dress like? I don't know who added the photo, but why does it say "feminine wig"? What does that even mean? StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't even know what gender is anymore. I'm just an amorphous blob. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Microformat metadata

Since this article uses a custom infobox (won't {{infobox person}} do what's needed, perhaps with a module?), please add the following parameters

| bodyclass   = vcard
| titleclass  = fn

(their position is not significant, but near the top would be good), to generate an hCard microformat as used in regular biographical infoboxes. No visual change will occur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21

25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How besides self-declaring? --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

(edit conflict × 2) Well, there is "transgender and transsexual" in the same category name. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

How on earth does the fact that she's in jail inherently negate being transgender? Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Editing through protection

Would admins please stop editing this article, unless it's in response to an uncontentious edit request? Shii added the NPOV tag, meant to be used only as a last resort after discussion has failed (now removed by Mark), and Moncrief has removed the middle initial, showing he hasn't read the statement. The point of page protection is that editing is supposed to stop, except for minor requests such as fixing typos (and similar uncontentious things). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, there are advocates abusing their admin privileges to shape the article to their personal point of view. That's supposed to be against the rules. But the only rule in effect on this page at present is that imposed by the advocacy zealots. They've been chomping at the bit for months, waiting for this to happen. And now they've done it, policies and wikipedia's reputation be damned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite an accusation... what edits have been made that suggest that? – GorillaWarfare (talk)

Any edits made by advocates since they froze the page, are illegitimate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was to prevent edit wars. Presumably admins are wiser, and able to make tweaks as needed. Those sound to me like tweaks...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that a couple of very long in the tooth admins deliberately eschewed discussion/consensus-building/deliberation, and rapidly force-edited this, causing a riot to boot, I take now a very dim view of the actual wisdom of our admin corps. --Mareklug ^talk 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see 10 pronoun changes per this requested edit, the addition of a protection template, two infobox tweaks, the removal of an oddly-placed {{blockquote}} template, two additions of a missing quotation mark, a filename fix, the addition and removal of a NPOV template, the requested edit to add microformat metadata, the requested edit to add the Transgender and transexual military personnel template, the removal and readdition of Manning's middle initial, and the addition of a colon to introduce a quote. Which of these constitutes "abuse [of] their admin privileges to shape the article to their personal point of view"? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Until the advocate-admins move it back to the properly sourced title, Bradley, they have no business editing the article at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop perverting the Manual of Style

I keep seeing reference to the MOS, to wit:

"My move request is also not a suggestion of which pronoun should be used. WP:MOSIDENTITY makes it clear that in this case we should use the "she" pronoun."

This is not the intent of the clause being referenced.198.161.2.241 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributors. Also, WP:NOTFORUM. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The advocates, the zealots don't care. They're using it as an excuse to justify pushing their point of view, just as Manning's lawyer is trying to use "gender identity" as an excuse for committing crimes against the USA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs:, please comment on content, not contributors. Talking about people who oppose you as "zealots" is just as uncool as referring to those who have a preference that the article reflect the subject's former name as "transphobic". LFaraone 21:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) You must have missed the similar discussion from some months back, where editors were just dying to rename the article "Breanna Manning" or some such. Their arguments then were as valid as they are now. Namely, NOT. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says "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." That seems to clearly support referring to Manning as "she", considering that she most recently expressed the desire to be referred to as female. Where do you disagree? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no valid sourcing for "she". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is a perfectly valid source. Actually, Manning is the only valid source. Get used to it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple sources already use she. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/bradley-manning-woman-chelsea-gender-reassignment, for example. We can certainly wait until there is a greater consensus, but honestly it's probably inevitable.Jbower47 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I said a valid source. Once CNN starts saying "she", then you've got something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And I guess you get to decide what a "valid" source is? Fritzendugan (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian hates the US, so it's not a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This line of argument is unproductive. Shii (tock) 22:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's actually quite productive, all day today. It's a textbook example of what happens when changes are made without consensus, and when admins abuse their power to enforce their personal point of view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the Guardian is not a reliable source because you dislike its political viewpoint is sufficiently far outside any standards of citation on Wikipedia as to invalidate your entire argument and perspective here. That's just not how this works. If you think it is, you're so far off the reservation that you're no longer editing under the basic rubric of how Wikipedia works. Sorry, but this is so far past helpful as to constitute active abuse of the project and its rules. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No, the argument you gave above is indeed unproductive. Firstly, it's wrong. The Guardian is a highly regarded newspaper and generally accepted as a reliable source. Secondly, it's an entirely fallacious argument. Even if the Guardian would hate the US, why should that make a difference for its position on the gender of Manning? Jailing a man is neither better nor worse than jailing a women, or a transgendered person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is no more a reliable source than is the National Inquirer. Maybe less so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever that is true about that statement, at least in terms of Wikipedia's policies. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying National Inquirer IS a valid source??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're saying that Manning's own statement that she is female is insufficient to prove that "female" is her latest gender expression? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Some months back it was "Breanna". Tomorrow it could be "Zelda". Are you going to change the article on the subject's whim every time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And in either case, the pronoun would be "she". This particular section of the article is discussing which pronouns to use. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good for you Baseball Bugs. Now can you stop the crappy US-Patriotic zealous garbage you're spouting? --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My only POV is to oppose the abuse of wikipedia. Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it. Jumping on this PC-driven bandwagon, violating the rules in the process, thus making wikipedia look stupid, is what's "sad". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"convicted criminal" - like e.g. Nelson Mandela, Martin Niemöller, Giordano Bruno, Socrates, and Jesus? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall any of those guys having their attorney demand that the media start calling them by female names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The MoS has been "subject's preferred name and gender identity" for ages, Bugs. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My argument here is that when an individual very clearly says that she identifies as female, referring to her as such is exactly what the rules tell us to do. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MoS is a guideline and not a policy or legal rule. Shii (tock) 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And your argument is bogus. Once CNN starts calling the subject "Chelsea", then you'll be within the rules. The MOS is merely the opinions of editors, it's not a rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS IDENTITY doesn't require sourcing to agree that it's appropriate to call her she. All it requires is to reference that Manning has referred to herself as she. There is absolutely no disputing that the RS have reported that Manning is self-identifying as female. MOS: IDENTITY isn't based on the RS's take on whether they think it's valid; it's based on the individual. They have reported Manning identifies as female. Therefore, we should identify her, at the very least any present tense references, as female as well, including appropriate pronouns.Jbower47 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What we should be doing is trying not to make wikipedia look stupid. No valid source says Manning is female. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that the MoS is a rule - specifically, a guideline. There may be exceptions, but they need to be argued for on a case-by-case basis, and on terms better than "a major newspaper that is widely used as a reliable source throughout the site is not a reliable source." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A "guideline" is not a "rule". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this Bugs person a particularly unsavoury troll, or just spectacularly ignorant, prejudiced, and bigoted? See above, the section about what the E. stands for now, where he unashamedly ventured another nakedly transphobic remark. Has he been given a block warning? The guy should be roundly ignored. Is there WP:Don'tFeedTheTrolls? LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How dare you call me a "person"? I self-identify as a rabbit. So cease your bigoted remarks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Rabbits are persons, too! Stop speciism! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Leporidaephobia! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Yintan  00:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the word you meant to repurpose was leporiphobia. ~ Left-brain word fetishist Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Shit, it really exists... Yintan  14:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

When there's a recognized medical disorder in which it's accepted as being genuinely medically possible for a human to have the internal self-identity of "rabbit" despite having a human body, for which the only known cure is for the person to actually enter the process of living as a rabbit instead of as a human, then maybe your self-identity as a rabbit will count for something. Until then, the fact that you actually think that demanding to be called a rabbit is in any way a valid or productive or legitimate response in a discussion about the very recognized and very real phenomenon of transsexualism certainly says something about you — but that something isn't that you're a rabbit. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't you guys think you're being a little hasty? JDiala (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning has made NO move to legally change his name, which is quite within his power to do. Until such time he is legally, at least on this plane of reality, Bradley Manning. Male and Female you can debate all day, but he CANNOT legally enter a woman's bathroom or be housed in a woman's correctional center. Besides, the news stories are all HERESAY and Wikipedia is looking quite poorly now for now reverting and locking this thread and putting an illegal identification on its main news page. If he said he wanted to be called 'Barak Obama' would we be having this discussion?

You're right. All we have is a lawyer, grandstanding for his client, trying to lay the groundwork for an appeal. Wikipedia's advocate-admins swallowed that bait wholesale, and are making Wikipedia look (even more) stupid by so doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Conviction given undue weight

She is more notable as a whistleblower than for being persecuted by one country in its aftermath in retaliation. We wouldn't normally refer to a Soviet dissident only emphasizing their convictions. The first paragraph gives the legal proceedings/conviction (which are hardly recognised by most people in the developed world) after the case that made her famous undue weight. It would be more appropriate to have a first paragraph concentrating on her role in the WikiLeaks case that made her famous. Legal proceedings in its aftermath belong in a second or third paragraph of the introduction. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. You should be writing for the Onion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Bugs, you misunderstand the purpose of the Talk page. I would recommend you reread wiki policy. This is not a forum, place to engage in attacks on other editors, or a place for inappropriate humor.Jbower47 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to direct your complaints to the OP of this section. "legal proceedings/conviction (which are hardly recognised by most people in the developed world)"??? If that ain't soapboxing, nothing is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Felony convictions are pretty much legally recognized by most judicial systems and border crossing points world-wide. htom (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If the convictions were motivated by political objectives, no other country is in any manner obliged to legally recognise them as valid. Manning disclosed a long, persistent pattern of US interference in the domestic policymaking of other, supposedly-sovereign nations. I'd suspect some of those nations might not agree with the Obama régime's position on this matter, if only because they themselves want the US interference to stop. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:49D (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

She has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by former Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and there is a worldwide campaign backed by over 100,000 people in support of the nomination that has received significant media attention around the world, and that is also unprecedented in Nobel history. This needs to be mentioned in the article. [15] [16] Josh Gorand (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Literally thousands of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year. A nomination is not, of itself, at all noteworty in the general case - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, thousands of people are absolutely not nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize each year, the figure is much, much lower (less than 200). Only select people are allowed to nominate, such as former Nobel laureates, Norwegian MPs, and so forth. And thousands of people are not nominated by Nobel Prize laureates either, and there are not thousands of people whose nominations receive worldwide media coverage, or for that sake petitions supported by over 100,000 people. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of any similar case. This is clearly notable because reliable, third party sources say so. If media worldwide reported "thousands" of nominations for the prize, they would be flooded with them. Are they? No, only a handful of nominations at best receive worldwide media coverage. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a notable event but Manning hasn't been nominated for the prize. "A pacifist group has submitted a petition signed by 100,000 people online in support of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. soldier Bradley Manning" An online petition has been set up and it's been submitted to the Nobel Comittee. However "Petitions have no bearing on the selection of a recipient for the $1 million prize, though they are often submitted on behalf of a candidate, according to the Nobel prize committee.." I wouldn't call that a Nobel nomination, really. More like a request. Yintan  23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, which you would have noticed if you had read what I wrote above. She was formally nominated in June this year by Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and the nomination is backed by a campaign/petition signed by over 100,000 people. [17] Josh Gorand (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what you get for reading too fast. I stand corrected and will strike some of my comments. Yintan  23:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to admins

On User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Chelsea_Manning_2 it was noted by SV and Mark that there are a lot of non-minor edits going on in this fully protected page. After seeing the high rate of admin edits, including my own, I agree. Please stick to minor edits suggested and discussed on this talk page, to limit the number of disputes going on and prevent the dread Wheel War. Shii (tock) 23:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I think the move discussion is very professional and constructive. Quite a few of the other discussions are arguments about information that shouldn't be argued about. It shouldn't be about whether certain users who are against your position are trolls who are disrupting the Wiki. It shouldn't be accusation upon accusation of transphobia, as one editor noted earlier. It shouldn't be a bunch of sarcasm. What we should be talking about is what Manning should be addressed as. That's very simple. Could we please stop with the personal attacks and baiting now? --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a significant number of contributors are saying that the article should be a particular way because of a basic opposition to the notion of changing one's public gender identity is, in point of fact, virulently transphobic. There's not really a way to respond to it without calling it what it is. I'm far more concerned by people bringing bigotry into the discussion than I am with people calling them out on it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this talk page includes vast amounts of appalling hate commentary that obviously violates BLP (including comparisons of transgendered people to people claiming to be dogs). In fact, it's hard to see any other explanation for someone insisting on calling an individual who self-identifies as female by using their former name with which they no longer identifies, than virulent hatred of transgendered people. I say we end this discussion now, because we are not moving it anywhere because of some (mostly new?) editors' transphobia, and because Chelsea Manning is the only acceptable title per a very straightforward application of Wikipedia policy, and common human decency. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, your statements are pretty offensive. I support moving the page back to "Bradley Manning" simply because that is the name that is most commonly used for Manning. "Virulent hatred of transgendered people" doesn't factor into my reasoning at all. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• "a very straightforward application of Wikipedia policy" Absolutely untrue. Reasonable people can disagree, and a very sizable portion of people commenting on this matter have a different interpretation of Wikipedia policy than yours. If there was a Wikipedia policy that stated 'articles about trans* individuals should take the name of their current chosen name' the debate would be solved. But no such policy exists.

"common human decency" Again, people have different standards of what is common and what is decent. It's important, in my view, to understand why people say what they say and try to explain your perspective in a calm, rational manner. That encourages compromise and understanding rather than entrenched opposition. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Except for one thing: the people who are most directly affected by the situation get to hold the trump card in any discussion of what's offensive and what isn't in writing about their community. African-Americans get the final say in what uses of the n-word are or aren't offensive; lesbians and gay men get the final say in when it is or isn't acceptable to use "faggot" or "dyke"; trans people get the final say in how (gender pronouns, names, etc.) it is or isn't acceptable to write about a trans person — and if you're not in those communities yourself, then you don't get to say SFA about what those communities are or aren't entitled to be offended by, because they, not you, are the ones who actually have to deal with this stuff every day of their lives.

Trans people, not you, are the ones who can still, even 20 years or more after completing their gender transition, have to deal on a regular basis with people who still insist on referring to them by their birth gender and/or name. Trans people, not you, are the ones who still have to deal on a regular basis with having their genuine medical and identity issues dismissed as equivalent to somebody arbitrarily declaring himself to be a dog or Napoleon or an alien from the planet Xorfblarg. Trans people, not you, are the ones who still have to deal on a regular basis with people who think it's acceptable to ask invasive questions like whether she still has a penis or not. Trans people, not you, are the ones who still have to deal on a regular basis with day-to-day life issues like possibly not being allowed to use a public restroom because they're not "really" the target gender. All of which means that if you aren't one of them, you do not get to tell them what's offensive and what isn't — they get to tell you what's offensive and what isn't, and you get to shut up, smile and accept it with no ifs, ands or buts under any circumstances.

Whether you agree or disagree with how widely Josh appeared to cast the net, there has absolutely been offensive anti-trans hate speech being spouted on this page in the past 24 hours — and people who let that stuff slide without comment, but then get their noses out of joint about the word "bigot" being thrown around as if that were somehow more offensive than the original hate speech is, don't exactly get to claim the moral high road. Sure, it's possible that you're genuinely not a bigot, but if you get labelled as one in a discussion about a sensitive speech issue, then the onus is on you to consider how what you said might have come across that way whether you intended it or not, not on anybody else to grant you the benefit of the doubt — especially not if that person is themselves a member of the affected community, and thus their word on whether a usage is offensive or not is therefore the equivalent of a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

You want to earn not-a-bigot cred? Show me that you can find one of the numerous examples of clear anti-trans hate speech that are already present on this page. But make no mistake: it's your responsibility to earn that not-a-bigot cred, not anybody else's to grant it to you as a default position. My right as a gay man to not be subjected to anti-gay hate speech in the first place, and a trans person's right to not be subject to anti-trans hate speech, are infinitely more important than anyone else's supposed "right" not to be called a bigot. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Have your opinion however you want, but WP:NPA is granted automatically to everyone. So knock it off.--v/r - TP 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, there's nothing for me to knock off, because I posted one single, solitary comment on the matter — and secondly, the fact that hate speech is not acceptable is not just my "opinion". WP:NPA explicitly states, right in its very first example, that homophobic or transphobic hate speech is not acceptable — it does not say that responding to (potentially or actually) homophobic or transphobic hate speech to call it homophobic or transphobic constitutes a "personal attack". Saying "that was a transphobic thing to say" does not constitute a personal attack, no matter how deeply offended you are to be told that you've offended someone else — nothing about Josh's comment crossed any "personal attack" lines, because he kept his comment completely on the level of engaging the substance of the arguments being made and not one single word of it lapsed into ad hominem or epithet territory. The only people who have violated NPA on this page at all are the posters of the original anti-trans hate speech, and that is not just my own "opinion". Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm presumed to be a bigot, and I must prove to you that I'm not if I don't want to be called bigoted? Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really all that concerned with what you do or don't choose to take seriously; I'm concerned with the fact that virtually everybody who's appealing to WP:NPA in this discussion is glossing over the actual anti-trans hate speech that has happened on this page in the past 24 hours, and is instead training their guns on anybody who's responded to it even if those responses contained no personal attacks at all. If you do accidentally give offense that you didn't intend, then take ownership of that fact, and think about how and why your words might have communicated something you didn't intend — but if you don't want to be perceived as a bigot, then whether you like it or not you have to accept that trans people are the ones who get to decide whether you're coming across as an anti-trans bigot or not. If you don't want to be perceived as a bigot, then you have to listen when they tell you why something you said came across as offensive. If you don't want to be perceived as a bigot, then you have to take it seriously when someone tells you that you are being perceived as one.

You don't get to decide what trans people are or aren't allowed to be offended by; they do. Whether you like it or not, that's just how it works. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat, I just saw your post. I can see that you care passionately about this issue and I applaud you for having the courage to speak up about it. I would think it very difficult to do so in a society that tends to discount and belittle the experiences of trans people..

I have seen numerous comments that I find quite offensive. For example, the comparison to dogs above, to which I responded disapprovingly. You can also refer to my other responses throughout the page. I think it is rude to intentionally refer to Chelsea as Bradley or as a male or using the "he" pronoun. I prefer to refer to Chelsea using her current name and the "she" pronoun, as I have done consistently.

All that being said, I have no responsibility to prove that I am not a bigot. I do not need to defend my character against attacks I consider to be unfounded. I politely but earnestly ask that you comment on content and avoid drawing conclusions about the character of others. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "draw any conclusions" about the character of others; "commenting on content" is exactly what I was doing in the comment that you responded to. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• "because of some (mostly new?) editors' transphobia" - Josh, if you took the time to turn on WP:POPUPS and check the people involved in the discussion, many of these people that you seem to be attempting to demonize have been here longer than you have. I find it appalling that you resort to blackening the names of other people to fulfill your agenda. Having a look at the comments you have made here, I've seen a fare share of appeal to emotion, moralistic fallacy, appeal to ridicule and poisoning the well, amongst other things. There's all this talk about "human decency", as if the alternative to what you are calling for is inhumane or indecent. It's difficult to discuss things with you, because you like to place yourself on the higher moral pedestal with your self-flattering words. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect IMDB link

Under external links: "Chelsea Manning at the Internet Movie Database"

Wikipedia has renamed its article but IMDB hasn't renamed its page (or switched its pronouns). Therefore, this should still say Bradley, no? Oren0 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends if we see treat the link as a reference or as a description. If it's the former, it should be as IMDB is, and use "Bradley Manning"; if it's the latter, it should reflect the wording of our article and refer to Chelsea Manning. I don't know which we should default to (in a usual situation, let alone this one), though the two options—in terms of markup—are:

1. {{IMDb name|id=4808915}} — which renders "Chelsea Manning at IMDb"
2. {{IMDb name|id=4808915|name=Bradley Manning}} — which renders "Bradley Manning at IMDb"

There's no way I'm touching the article with a barge pole to make name or gender edits, though. matt (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Middle initial E. now stands for Elizabeth. News for "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" —Pawyilee (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

 Done Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that it's Elizabeth? Did Manning or her lawyer make another statement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Thryduulf:. Thanks for your prompt attention to this (diff). - Pointillist (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Semied

I semied the talk page due to the BLP vios that were coming from some new users. If any admin disagrees with this, feel free to remove the protection. If there is an IP/new user who would like to add a comment to this page, my talk page is open to you and I will gladly add it to any section. Merci --Guerillero | My Talk 01:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good protection. Hopefully we won't have to full protect. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, stop insulting people.

Let's keep discussion focused on the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I explicitly said it shows justice. If you are going to defame people as Homophobes be informed there're anti-defamation laws. --fs 02:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators editing through full page protection

Attention administrators: Full page protection means that YOU cannot edit the article for any purpose either, absent a clear-cut edit request. The next person who edits through full protection will be blocked for edit-warring. Risker (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker. Perhaps a new standard question at RfA should be: "Do you understand the difference between 'can' and 'may'?". Now, how about blocks for those who continue to accuse anyone who disagrees in good-faith of "virulent transphobia"? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a common occurrence. I haven't looked at every single edit yet, but some admins are completely out if line with their editing over full protection. It's a major crock of shit and is one of the biggest flaws in Wikipedia. I can't fucking stand how bad Wikipedia has gotten to tolerate major abuses. And every time this happens the offending admins never get punished. JOJ ^Hutton 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it ought to be less common in the future. I have blocked Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 for editing through protection despite the warning on this page. Two of those edits are controversial, at that, and none of them had talk page consensus. Their blocks are for the duration of the protection, and may be lifted by any administrator once the blocked editor agrees to not edit the article through protection again. Risker (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please update link to list of charges

Please update the link "List of charges against Bradley Manning" to its new title "List of charges in United States v. Manning". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daira Hopwood (talk • contribs)

 Done -- KTC (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Current event

I think it would be appropriate to add a {{Current person}} (or similar) template tag to the page. The {{Current person}} template looks like this:

Space simian (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• That current tag is about likely edit conflicts, not an alert to the reader that the subject is involved in a current event. Given that the article is locked down, no such tag is needed. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It would give a heads-up to the admins who are abusing their tools to edit the article, so that they won't disturb each other. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Current event templates states that "Current and future event templates are designed to indicate that an article or a section is describing a current or future event, and to warn readers about the fast-changing or speculative nature of the article." (my highlighting) Space simian (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And it's not changing fast, get it? Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

      We interpret it differently then, as I understand it the point is not to warn about edit conflicts but rather to warn readers that the article describes a person involved in a current event and as a consequence the contents might quickly become out of date and/or change. The fact that the page has been locked down by administrators does not change that. Space simian (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

For what it's worth, Bradley Manning had 173,000 views yesterday, while Chelsea Manning had 65,000. StAnselm (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How does this add to our understanding of the issue at hand? Pageviews do not dictate policy. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the suggested page move, the name that people are most often searching for may be an argument, thought that is more often a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC consideration. In terms of anything else, it simply serves to highlight how popular this page is right now. StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The other relevant statistic is that this page had 16,700 views. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when you say "the issue at hand", there are lots of issues discussed above, and I had started a new section. Did you mean the page move? StAnselm (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

These are useless statistics. The article was located at Bradley Manning up until 12:00 or 13:00 (UTC), around the time of the announcement; no one would have been going to Chelsea Manning before then. -- tariqabjotu 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do think this is something to consider. Above all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as the redirect is functional (and nobody is remotely suggesting that it shouldn't be), what is lost by simply allowing the person's former name to redirect to their current name? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Text of Chelsea Manning's letter to president Obama

http://www.startribune.com/nation/220585651.html
http://www.ktvb.com/news/national/220585211.html
http://boingboing.net/2013/08/22/chelsea-mannings-statement-o.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11112670
http://www.kansas.com/2013/08/21/2955981/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter.html
http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/08/21/5136944/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter.html
http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/08/21/2641833/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter.html
http://www.montereyherald.com/growth/ci_23912317/text-bradley-mannings-letter-president
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_23912317/text-bradley-mannings-letter-president
http://longisland.news12.com/news/text-of-bradley-manning-s-letter-to-president-1.5933688
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2013/aug/21/wikileaks-text-bradley-mannings-letter-president/
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What the heck happened to WP:COMMONNAME?

No, I didn't see that. I will close this section and post a comment above. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be titled by the most common name. Why on Earth was this article renamed? 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) 09:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Hello. I don't know if you noticed, but there's a WP:RM about this a bit further up the page. Does adding a new section discussing exactly the same thing help matters? Morwen (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes

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)

• 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)

• • Here. It was short, but claims of no discussion are simply factually incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• • • • 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)

• Oh, so now it's a "Reddit boogeyman" issue? Come on, is it really hard to accept that people might have a different opinion to you, and aren't part of a super secret conspiracy army? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And that's your interpretation.--v/r - TP 13:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

(@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Essay by admin

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 Dorosh^Talk 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Dorosh^Talk 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on, you're actually making this into a witch hunt. Countered (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

"[X] is imprisoned at Quantico, having been convicted of multiple charges of espionage." Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

german wiki: bradley again

the reason was an ongoing discussion which led to this decision i do support. there are folks from the english wiki spamming the german discussion board now in english language with long past discussion points. peace! Maximilian (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to request a fix

I can't edit this article. Maybe an admin can? It says: "On April 30 she posted on Facebook that she was utterly lost, and over the next few days wrote that 'Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment.'" I think that switching between "she" and "Bradley Manning" is confusing right there. The first few times I read it, I thought one person was writing about another. It would be clearer if it said: "On April 30 she posted on Facebook that she was utterly lost, and over the next few days wrote that she 'is not a piece of equipment.'" Saxman1984 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Direct quotes are specifically addressed by and exempt from the MOS:IDENTITY gender/name issue. As this is a quote by the topic thmesleves, and many of the arguments here are arguing that we should respect their own self-identification, we should not change this quote because it suits someone here's purposes/reading. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that link does not say direct quotes are exempt. It says they "may" in cases be exceptions: "Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text." So, yes, let's do as that link says, and avoid confusion very simply by starting the excerpt two words later and using a pronoun outside the quote rather than a confusing proper name inside the quote. Saxman1984 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy and guideline index

Disclosure: I (User:CaseyPenk) proposed the move request from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning.

For reference, here is a list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that people on this page have invoked. This list may help editors find arguments that others have found useful. This index is intended for convenience for readers who want to quickly glance over policies and guidelines that may be relevant; it is not a definitive guide. Please refer to policy and guideline pages for further reading.

Please feel free to expand these two lists; they are continually subject to revision. Please do not remove policies that others have added, even if you disagree with their applicability in this case. Sorted in alphabetical order by full Wikipedia namespace title. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Policies

• Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title (WP:CRITERIA)
• Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names (WP:POVNAME)
• Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (WP:COMMONNAME)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)
• Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)
• Wikipedia:Libel (WP:LIBEL)
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Guidelines

• Wikipedia:Manual of style#Identity (MOS:IDENTITY)

I'd like to point something out here

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I got edit conflicted, but yeah, basically that. Crisis.EXE 16:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are right, I admit defeat at the hands or your all powerful logic. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Similar to WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, it seems we need WP:Argumentum ad Gardneram now. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(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)

citation needed CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • He is notable for being widely considered a press freedom activist and human rights hero,[18] 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)

• Strongly Oppose The picture serves it's purpose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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.

Confusion for the sake of what?

I don't want to cast aspersions on the motives of anyone favoring either version of the title or which pronouns to use, but some of the statements above seem motivated by something other than reporting about Manning. By the way, what does trans* mean? In any case, this article is very confusing in its current state. Imagine someone coming to Bradlee Manning and seeing Chelsea Manning. WTF is a likely response. I see there is a sentance at the bottom of the first section explaining Manning's disorder. If that were moved to the very top it might stop people from scratching their heads. It also might help if an explanation were given as to why the article says "Chelsea" and uses female pronouns.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a template we could place at the top of the article to indicate that the article uses the subject's preferred pronouns, and not the birth pronouns? That would help alleviate reader confusion. If we don't have a template, I'd be happy to make one. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, I second. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify, the template probably only needs to refer to "the subject's preferred pronouns", We can put it at the top of every BLP page. Be they transgendered or not. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I oppose that idea. If the article is confusing, perhaps you could propose a change to the lead that would clarify things - though, it seems quite clear to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

With regards to changing the lead, we could say something along the lines of "she prefers to be referred to using female pronouns." But I think a template would help convey Wikipedia style guidelines as they relate to Chelsea's wishes. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. Use a few words in the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose template, that seems like a way of "warning" users that the subject "is not really female". Transgendered people should not have special yellow badges on top of their articles, that would be almost as bad as having "this person is Jewish" templates. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

... And its finally happend folks, Godwins law, lets have a round of applause for wikipeida for lasting slightly over 24 hours...(sarcastic applause) CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you were wondering that was a straw man but i couldn't help myself, sorry. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well Manning is not really female. But I suggest moving "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 and expressing a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy.[14]" immediately after the first sentance. That would address the name/pronoun issue right away.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she is female. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The facts are fairly clear, according to her, she is female, according to genetics, he is male. I don't think anyone is arging that.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Transgenderism can result from a variety of factors, granted, but in at least some cases it most certainly can and does happen that due to a variety of prenatal or epigenetic complications, a person can end up with a body that is genetically XX but develops male sex characteristics instead of female ones, or genetically XY but develops female sex characteristics. So unless you have personal access to Manning's DNA, you have no way of being able to actually verify which gender she genetically is or isn't. The only thing you can be sure of is that she was assigned to the male gender at birth by virtue of what type of body part happened to be externally visible between her legs — the fact that she had male parts doesn't, in and of itself, prove that she's genetically male. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a less than a %0.01 chance that Manning is afflicted by the disease that would make the body appear male but be genetically femal, if we are going to require that kind of rigor on wikipeida, we are going to have to delete ~%90 of the content here.CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you a world-renowned expert in the prevalence or non-prevalence of genetic abnormalities? I'm willing to bet that you're not, so on what authority can you presume to know how likely it is or isn't that she has any one particular disease, or even that there's only one disease that can cause a mismatch between a person's DNA and the kind of naughty bits they have? (In actual fact, there are several possible causes of that, not just one, and they're not even all "diseases" — and while it may be true that there's less than a 0.01% chance that she has any particular one of them, when you add up all the possible causes it's not that unlikely after all.) And indeed, my main point was simply that you made an unverifiable assumption about what combination of sex chromosomes she happens to have inside her cells — unless you actually have personal access to Manning's DNA test results, it's still an unverifiable assumption no matter how likely or unlikely you presume it to be. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we seriously going to the argument of "you've never seen his/her cells, you cannot prove that he/she is a man"? I know that the statistics claims being thrown around here aren't really supportable with evidence, but surely we're not headed towards the outrageous "not male until biologically proven with official test results" hole? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

CombatWombat is the one who asserted an unverifiable assumption as if it were incontrovertibly known to be true, not me. All I'm saying is that it is not up to you to decide what another person really is or isn't when it comes to gender. You don't get to make the decision for another person about what they really are or aren't when it comes to gender identity — you get to make that decision for yourself and only for yourself. And incidentally, there is no "not male until biologically proven with official test results" hole that we're headed towards either, and you're outlandishly misreading my comment if you think I'm pushing toward one — what I'm saying is that we don't get into unfounded and unverified speculation about people's chromosomal makeup at all, nor should we. I'm not arguing for genetic testing of our article subjects; I'm arguing against unverified assumptions about what genetic testing would find. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to argue by being purposely obtuse you are welcome to that approach, I suspect that anyone who reads your argument and mine will see my point. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being obtuse in the slightest. You asserted the unverifiable assumption that her chromosomal makeup matches her birth gender rather than her target gender as if it were proven fact, I'm merely pointing out that it is indeed an unverifiable assumption. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

People's genetics are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for trying to provide clarity to the argumet, but you said "she is female" without caveat. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think explaining the use of pronouns is stigmatizing. I think it helps the reader understand the topic. Imagine someone who knows absolutely nothing about trans* people. That person, when reading the article, might be very confused, and might jump to assumptions about who Chelsea is or how she identifies. By explaining the pronouns - laying out the rationale in clear language - we make it very clear what pronouns she prefers, as well as the Wikipedia style guidelines on pronouns. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I got involved in this discussion because I was searching for "Bradley Manning" and ended up on the Chelsea Manning page. I was unaware of the change in gender identification, so I was pretty confused for a while. Eventually I figured out what was going on when I read the Talk page. I agree that some clarification can be helpful. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with CaseyPenk above -- I think there's no particular need to add an explanation box to all transpeoples' articles, but in cases like this one where the person has notoriety under different identities that used different pronouns at the time, it's worth clarifying what choice Wikipedia is making and why. Chris Smowton (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What bothers me is that people are making comments based on their own personal agenda, this is not a place for that, please put your personal feelings aside and try to be neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about the first line

1) It's clear to me now that the rules seem to clearly support the name/pronoun changes in the article. I was surprised to learn that it in fact is a retroactive change. I figured you were supposed to use their old name/pronouns when talking in the past tense before they expressed a preference, but you learn something new every day. :-/

2) The change to the title could be argued either way according possibly via the common name rule, but as more media outlets make updates as they roll out new stories, it will probably be resolved in favor of the use Chelsea.

One question however. The first line currently reads: "Chelsea E. Manning[3][4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)..."

Would it be more clear, to people just jumping to the page, to say the following until she legally changes her name: "Chelsea E. Manning[3][4] (legally Bradley Edward Manning, born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)..."

I ask because the story I read mentioned that she would still need to be referred to by her legal name at times in prison and when contacting her in prison.

Shoeless Ho (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Legally" isn't too clear, as in many parts of the US simply using a new name can make it your legal one. LFaraone 20:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should note the date range s/he was "Bradley", rather than just a start date. Would be more informative. But no, noting the same legal and birth name is a bit pointless. Also, congratulations to this talk page for all the text it's produced! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

Claim of "Bradley Manning" neutrality and systemic bias

There is a common argument that using Chelsea Manning for a title would not be a neutral stance. It is true, using the Chelsea Manning name would be a political statement in support of gender as an identity that one can decide.

However, to claim that Bradley Manning would not have a neutrality issue is to suffer from WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Renaming to Bradley Manning would also be a political statement. That Biological gender or legal gender triumphs even the biography's subject's choice. Alternatives that make the title gender neutral also have that issue. It would be a claim that transgender people are a third gender or an ambiguous one.

In some cases, it is not possible to take a neutral stance. If neutrality has to be broken, I think it is best to put care into deciding in what way to break this neutrality. In a situation in which systemic bias is such a important factor, the popularity of an alternative shouldn't be the only decision factor. Vexorian (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since their notability largely comes from military service, has anyone considered naming the article "Private Manning"?--v/r - TP 17:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I also think a lot of people want this argument to happen (i.e. they are treating it as a social war that has to be won for their side). CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not our call to make, though. Neutrality in a Wikipedia context basically means to reflect reliable sources in the most representative way. So, for the time being we should wait and see what the media decides (and the article should not have been moved to Chelsea in the first place). Only if media ends up being permanent inconsistent or divided over the issue will we have to make our own decision. Iselilja (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that's out of the question. We are not going to move the article back, as it would violate BLP. Wikipedia's position is fairly clear based on the relevant policies, as explained by Sue Gardner and others on this talk page. And the media have long ago started using Chelsea Manning, as Sue Gardner demonstrated in her above comment. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, you do not own the article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For the nth time, Sue Gardner is not God, and her opinion is not law on the Wikipedia. There is a stark disagreement on how BLP is interpreted and applied to this specific case, and it'd be in the best interests of everyone involved if you stop claiming that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Deep and Tarc said it well, but I want to strongly emphasize to anyone reading that statements along the lines of "We are not going to move the article back" are generally not statements about Wikipedia policy and may or may not reflect consensus. In short, no individual has complete authority over what this page should be titled. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Sue Gardner, why is this person so important, and why do I keep hearing about her on this talk page? Should I care about what she thinks? Does her existence in this universe negate community consensus? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"… a political statement in support of gender as an identity that one can decide."
Firstly, I do not believe the issue (the article's title) involves politics.

Secondly, Chelsea did not decide to be born a woman in a man's body, so to speak. I did not decide upon my identity (straight male in a man's body)—I just am what I am. Same goes for her. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps the other policies. Thus the article is named Chelsea Manning. Case closed. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop doing this? It's tantamount to shoving your palm in someone's face and telling them to put a sock in it, yelling "case closed, go home". The reason that we have discussions on Wikipedia is because our content is consensus-oriented. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see why BLP mandates that we use the name Chelsea in the title. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't, it is being invoked for the proverbial chilling effect reasons. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus seems to favor moving it back and the folks who are hollering "case closed" are obviously troubled by that fact. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This was a controversial move made with little discussion. It would seem like the appropriate procedure would be to revert the move and discuss. I don't understand why this hasn't happened. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Especially as there are currently approximately 50 more "supports" than "opposes" and the majority of the "supports" policy-based, while many of the "opposes" are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based and some are outright soapboxing. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The numbers do not matter, what matters are the arguments, 1. This move was never reverted back to how it was going against WP:TITLECHANGES this article should have been reverted back to Bradley Manning and locked, thus saving a good article canadate. 2. Those who are opposing as said are citing WP:BLP with nothing in that policy that mentions title changes, it says in MOS that title changes are referred to in the Title changes policy, nobody has been able to counter this argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record I support changing this to Private Manning per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

Footnote 4 in the lede has extraneous punctuation in the date "22 August= 2013". Should be changed from "August=" to "August". Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Attn: Mark Arsten, et. al.; that is what an uncontroversial edit looks like. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Suspending GA status

I'm not going to bother linking to all the numerous discussions about it, but the latest big thingy is this person being sentenced to prison and then asking to be known as a woman. As the article was promoted to GA more than a year a go, I propose it is temporarily demoted, "suspended GA", until it's all quietened down when a reassessment can be conducted. This suspension should take place as soon as possible and a proper rewrite should be done after the fuss has subsided so that it complies with the manual of style and references and all the rest of it. If you'd consider this, that'd be good. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This was attempted, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has he/she formally changed his/ her name? Soranoch (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That rather depends on your definition of "formally". Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the US there is a formal method for name changing. Like notifying Social Security, driver's license bureau, IRS, banks etc. You can't just decide to informally change your name for it to have any meaning. Soranoch (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

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

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)

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)

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)

References allow for an argument under WP:COMMONNAME. LFaraone 20:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

You mean the original BLP considerations that you still have not seen fit to explain? Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'Speculation from some random lawyer' doesn't usually pass WP:RS, regardless of the issues involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Temporary Neutral Alternative: Private Manning

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • It's a little late for that. If "the normal procedure for requested moves" had been followed here, the page would be at "Bradley Manning". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
  • (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)
  • (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)
• 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)

• Oppose, not in accordance with naming conventions at all. The name according to policy is to be Chelsea Manning. And emphasizing being a former private first class in an article title is just ridiculous. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, NPOV term as last resort. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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.

Prisoner of conscience

Is he a real prisoner of conscience? Unlike the others, he is neither thief nor terrorist. What does it mean? Really, we talk about the whole USA or about some stupid officials from Defense Department etc.? --Søren 21:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, he's a military prisoner for a military crime. --Niemti (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning does seem to fit part of the definition in our article: "those who have been imprisoned...for the non-violent expression of their conscientiously held beliefs". It might be argued that the beliefs in this case were misguided, but I have not heard any alternative theory as to what motivated Manning. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot understand the motive for his crime (if Manning is a criminal). He doesn't seem to be a spy. If he was insane, he couldn't have a "mens rea", so Bradley cannot be sentenced. --Søren 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she is a classic prisoner of conscience, and the repicient of several human rights accolades[19], who has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Mairead Maguire. She is the American equivalent of Carl von Ossietzky. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a question we here need to decide. We can note the different views on the matter easily ("is argued by X to be a prisoner of conscience"). But a formal decision at this point, when the world itself isn't sure, is not ours to make.

My view on name change

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)

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)

There is no requirement that anyone go through a legal process to change their name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

(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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Use "Pvt Manning". Serves the purpose and should be entirely non-controversial. (edit conflict) —me_and 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely don't use "Pvt". If the title is required (and I'm not sure it is) then use "Private". Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• support Very good point - the name Bradley should be more prominent esp for mobile users.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia-wide article name policy

Hi all, I encourage you to discuss Wikipedia article naming policy over at Wikipedia_talk:Article titles. Note that that discussion is for multiple articles, not just for this one. In other words, THIS talk page is the better place to discuss Manning specifically. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification (Minor edit request)

The text " the CPU is not made for this motherboard" (#Loss of rank and recommended discharge 1st para) is an analogy that most may not understand, seeming to be a non sequiteur.

Any opposition to editing it to read:

"[...] plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ..."^CITE (meaning, the brain is not a match for the body.)

This would clarify it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Most people aren't familiar with computer hardware. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree it needs clarification. Not sure the proposed explanation is perfect (it might be, just not sure). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, it looks odd to single out one expression and explain it, and anyway this is the kind of normal editing that can take place when protection is lifted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any other statements of that ilk in the article :) That's just how it is. One statement is unclear. Saying "it would be odd to single out one" when none others exist would be a curious comment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of remarks in the chat that readers who aren't computer literate probably won't get without looking things up, e.g. "penetrating US classified networks, mining data ... date time groups, lat-lon locations ... transferring that data from the classified networks over the 'air gap' ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it ... while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage ... weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why cant we do this? - Make wikilinks to CPU and motherboard? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it doesn't explain the analogy.

(To put it in a context that's as alien as motherboards will be for many people - if someone gave an analogy for some reason, that you or I didn't understand, that "the boson doesn't share symmetries with the quark", it wouldn't help us make sense of the weird comment to wikilink the words 'boson', 'symmetry' and 'quark' to their actual articles.)FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree we can and should wait until protection is lifted, if any change is to be made there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unless we can quote a reliable source's explanation for the metaphor, any clarification we write should probably be in a footnote. I do understand the metaphor, so it's not easy to read this from the perspective of someone who doesn't, but I would expect to want a bit more context than Anthony's suggestion offers (although it is a good start). I've disabled the edit request for now, as there is currently no consensus for the specific suggestion, but there is no reason why it can't be discussed further. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

I'm sure they appreciate your totally altruistic statement of concern for their well-being. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What section of BLP policy are you specifically referring to? --RA (✍) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ, read the talk page, don't feel like reiterating it for the 200th time. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No, because I said no. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Chelsea Manning" is not Mainstream in the media is the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We're not deciding the subject's name; we're deciding the title of the article. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

His parents named him Bradley. So you think parents should get precedence?Pass a Method talk 04:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Serious question

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)
  • How would a Wikipedia article title prevent someone from changing that person's own name? Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • @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)
      • 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)

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)

• (@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)

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"

• "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is no requirement for a "legal" name change

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.[20] 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

"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)

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)

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 [21]. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh yeah, no trans-phobia there at all... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is clear on this issue, take a look. U-Mos (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think nothing whatsoever will stop the rehashing of discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And WP:BLP. Her gender identity is female and her name is Chelsea. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Forbes, US Using feminine pronouns. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

but warred back to Chelsea Manning (and locked there) And warred back even after the lock... -- tariqabjotu 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Which would be the entire page, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Okay, sounds good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

/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)

let's fight about Manning's name again!

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)

"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)

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)

Threats from trolls to editors

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

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)

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....”? --Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

LGBT studies

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