Talk:Chelsea Manning

Template:BLP noticeboard

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 serve on a three-administrator panel that will close it after 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 October 2024 (UTC); new comments belong to today's section on basis of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Replies are still welcome in collapsed sections.

22 August 2013 (UTC)

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) A completed legal name change is not the standard that a transgender person has to meet to have their chosen name accepted as their name. As I've noted elsewhere, you will never have access to any reliable sources can properly which confirm that her legal name change has actually taken place, because her legal records are covered by privacy laws. For any other celebrity who changes their name, we accept a public statement of their name change, and do not make acceptance or use of their new name conditional on them handing out legal records that we do not actually have any right to see — so what valid reason can there possibly be to force a transgender person to meet a higher burden of proof than Metta World Peace had to? Especially when it's a standard of proof that, due to privacy law, can never be properly met? Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 26 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 [1] [2]. Your post implies you've seen a lot of negative commentary from established media outlets, so I'd be interested in seeing the list. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 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 Oppose 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. At this point, a return to Bradley would not be to the benefit of Wikipedia. However, the two admins involved should not get a false sense of 'right'. The "end result" was right, but their method was an abuse of power, procedure, and trust. Their subsequent nonchalance over the questions of their actions violates WP:ADMINACCT and the use of protection to force their will violates WP:INVOLVED. An Arbcom case is on the horizon and I foresee at least one of these admins losing the tools. But on this particular article, their actions are the inevitable and we lose legitimacy by returning to "Bradley" on procedural grounds alone.--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 ([3]) in consulting with the wider WP community (perhaps so that they could get the name change through before this article was locked). Thus the previous move was arbitrary and should be reversed. --Tocino, 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 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) Edit: Should mention that while in some cases such romanisations issues are dealt with by naming convention guidelines which our COMMONNAME explicitly noted may very occasionally overirde COMMONNAME, there are definitely cases where the MOS deals with it as well. Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 26 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)

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.) [Added later 8/26/13: This current sentence "Manning was by then living as an openly gay man. Her relationship with her father was apparently good, but there were problems between Manning and her stepmother." makes it clear how absurd it is to call Bradley a female before Chelsea came out as a female four days ago. 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) Edit: I would add that to some extent we're fortunate that Manning did not feel it better change his surname/family name as e.g. Brandon Teena. While this discussions is only about the title, and many supporters of Bradley have noted we should use Chelsea in the article intro, this is fairly normal. What is AFAIK abnormal is for us to use one surname in the article and another in the title. Most of the examples cited e.g. Lily Allen, Malcolm X (which because of the X uses Malcolm X) do not do so. Yet IMO there's even less justification to do so under out policies in this case or in other examples I outlined (e.g. even if Malcolm X was still commonly referred to as Malcolm Little despite a clear strong adversion to the surname Little. One thing I forgot to mention before, I acknowledge that precisely how strongly Bradley feels about the name thing may not be entirely clear, IMO the evidence is strong enough, even with the most recent statement shown below that it is something she cares a lot about even if she knowns in some circumstances it will be unavoidable. Nil Einne (talk) 23:38, 26 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)

Extended content

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. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 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. --cyclopiaspeak! 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) I am confused. Since when do trans issues and beliefs dictate policy on Wikipedia? Nobody is saying his gender isn't real. He has a penis, prostate and testicles. He is male. He can call himself an astronaut if he wants, but until he flies in space, he isn't actually an astronaut.yonnie (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Nope, not how it works. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Care to elaborate instead of making a useless, vague comment? yonnie (talk) 19:17, 26 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) Would the latter topic be notable enough to warrant an article? Manning is known for their actions as a (former) Private First Class by the name of Bradley who leaked certain documents, and not for any actions done whilst he assumed the name of Chelsea. If there is a split, how would you justify the existence of an article for the second topic? --benlisquareT•C•E 04:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Notabilty would be inherited, as they're the same human being. At the moment, the Chelsea article would be short; as the appeals grind on, it will grow. htom (talk) 17:11, 25 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) I will take a crack at the question about harm. Recapping: BLP says the possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This matters because BLP trumps COMMONNAME. (I am setting aside the question of MOS:IDENTITY for the purposes of this comment.) It is reasonable to believe there's a possibility Manning could be harmed by Wikipedia retitling the article Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning, because she made a formal announcement explicitly asking that "starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun." Wikipedia is an important site: the #5 most-popular in the world, read by a half-billion people every month, more widely-read than any other news or information site. If Wikipedia were to call its article Bradley Manning, Manning might believe that Wikipedia is rejecting her requested name and/or gender characterization. It is not uncommon for people who feel dissonance between their experienced gender identity and the gender they were assigned at birth to feel significant emotional distress, at least some of which is due to how they're treated by society. (See this article.) And indeed, in Manning's May 2010 chat logs she describes herself as having GID (gender identity disorder), as having had three breakdowns, as being "in an awkward state," "uncomfortable with my role in society," "scared of being misunderstood" and "isolated as fuck." She says: “i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…” I think it's clear that Chelsea Manning hopes and expects that people will use the name and pronoun she asked them to, and that to the extent people do not, they risk causing further trauma to someone who is clearly already significantly distressed. Sue Gardner (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) That seems like quite a stretch. And actually, you shoot yourself in the foot. You quote Manning saying "I wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me... plastered all over the world press... as boy..." So... are pictures of Manning as, by most people's observation, a boy or a man [i.e. almost every picture of the subject in the article] also violations of BLP? I sure hope not. Either way, even if we were responsible for people misinterpreting what it means for something to be the title of an article, Manning is going to spend the next thirty-five years in a maximum-security prison, where, presumably, there is no Internet access; Manning will probably never experience the trauma of seeing a Wikipedia article with a title against one's wishes. -- tariqabjotu 03:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Sue, thanks for your thoughtful commentary. I absolutely agree that the WORLD should, ideally, comply with Chelsea's request. But what if it doesn't, and in a years time, most outlets are back to calling her Bradley? I know Jimbo has argued for a bit of "editorializing" on this, and has proposed IAR in order to keep at Chelsea. IMHO, wikipedia should not LEAD the pack, or even necessarily be on the bleeding edge. We should follow the pack, and come in late to the party - otherwise we risk being a cause of citogenesis, and, by our actions, changing the way the world talks about and names things - that should not be our role - we are supposed to be neutral documentarians. There is reason to believe that there are LOTS of things in wikipedia articles that could cause harm to subjects that we righteously keep - for example, mentions of crimes they've committed, or indiscretions, or even minor things like birth dates (see recent Tammy Duckworth RFC, where, in spite of Duckworth's request, oodles of editors voted to add her birthday to the article). Another great example is Burma and Ivory Coast - both of these were subject of much debate, but have ended through consensus at what are seen to be COMMON english-language titles (which personally I don't agree with, but that's the way those cookies crumbled). In the case of Cote d'Ivoire, the government has formally requested, on several occasions, publicly, that the french name be used, but not all American/British media has followed suit, and since we follow media, we have "Ivory Coast" (but thankfully, we still have Costa Rica and not Rich Coast!) We risk offending millions of citizens of those countries, and officially pissing off their governments, but I don't see intervention from WMF on these matters. What I fail to understand is why TG people merit such a special exception to our article titling policy - I understand and agree with the pronoun issue, but the title is their to affirm to the user that they have arrived in the right place - so we need to balance that UI requirement for the user with the possibility to hurt the feelings of a BLP. A screenshot on this page demonstrates the silliness of the current article - when viewed on a mobile phone, the words "Bradley Manning" appear no-where on the first page - in spite of the fact that Bradley Manning is still searched 100s of times more frequently by Google users. Why would we not accede to Cat Steven's (30-year old) rename, or any of the other examples that have been trotted out - and the reason is, the article title and the article is first and foremost for the reader (while balancing BLP needs of course). The only way I can see implementing your ideas at scale is to say, there is a new change to the BLP policy, ONLY for trans* people - as soon as they announce a new name, the article is moved immediately - and it doesn't matter what reliable sources do (because if we do this, we should do this for everyone, not just Manning). But I don't think we should add such an exception, and I don't think the argument of harm to Manning is very strong in this case, especially if the first line says in bold "Chelsea Manning, (born Bradley Manning)" etc and clearly states that her preference is to be Chelsea and "she". Calling that "harm" is stretching the definition a bit too far, and equates the article title with the subject's legal/official/desired name (which is categorically not the case for other bios, and is also not what the article title MEANS). If we're so concerned about harm there is much lower and much harsher hanging fruit we should be going after - imagine if instead of this epic debate, people were removing unsourced bullshit from our hundreds of thousands of BLPs, or de-ghettoizing them in their categories, or any number of other things that are rampant and vicious (I'm sure you remember our friend Qworty and the damage he did - which is STILL not cleaned up fully). But an article title? We should be late on this, not early, and we should follow what the world does, and we should balance concerns for the BLP with concerns for our readers. If the world itself doesn't come to a clear conclusion, then we'll have to make a call, of course, but it should be informed BY reliable sources, not by a normative sense of justice. I just don't think it's our job to be progressive in these matters.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 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. DracoE 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. DebashisMTalk 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) WP:COMMONNAME applies: CNN Still using Bradley Manning (News article made 30 minutes ago from this post) Boston Herald (News article made 18 hours ago from this post) USA Today (News article made 6 hours ago from this post) Fox news (News article made 14 hours ago from this post) BBC still referring him to Bradley (News article made 14 hours ago from this post) All recent sources calling him Bradley Manning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC) CNN piece-- This provides no support for your claim. The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) issued guidelines for reporting on Manning's transition, advising journalists to "use the name and pronouns that someone prefers," citing AP style and suggesting "that she be referenced as 'U.S. Army Private Chelsea Manning, who formerly went by the name Bradley. (emphasis mine) The issue of pronouns and gender identity resurfaced this week when Army Pvt. Bradley Manning announced his intention to transition from male to female in a statement signed "Chelsea E. Manning."-- Neither this or the above quote is evidence of CNN calling Manning by either name, and the later is referring to the chain of events and using Bradley is necessary to describe the change. Boston Herald - The Boston Herald is a tabloid newspaper, so this isn't exactly reliable on issues like this one. US Today - This is an editorial piece, not something we can use to establish WP:COMMONNAME. Fox News- The Army won't pay for Private Bradley Manning to become Chelsea Manning is the only sentence that uses Bradley. It doesn't call Manning one or the other definitively here. Later on, they quote the ACLU which calls him Chelsea. None of this supports your claim. BBC Article - Y So, you've got one legitimate article that actually names the subject as Bradley, that's almost a day old. This is unconvincing, and my and many others' points about the MOS still stand. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC) In fact, I'm not even really convinced that WP:COMMONNAME is going to help us arrive at an answer. It's an unhelpful policy for determining the subject's name in this situation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose Excerpted from my previous post (with apologies for the clutter; I've been away for some time and am a little rusty / didn't notice that there was a vote brewing): I get that I'm probably the last person anyone wants to hear about Manning's gender identity from, but that's the nice thing about Wikipedia - the last person you want to hear from is still someone you may have to hear from. As a realpolitik-loving, pragmatic kinda person, my gut reaction to the issue of the name change was similar to that represented in many posts prior "Oh what, if someone wakes up one morning and decides to identify as (whatever), that's notable & verifiable?" But upon a second or two of longer consideration, that's not the case here. Manning being trans has been a matter of discussion for years now (which is partially my fault - sorry ;x) so while the name change is sudden, the concept is not. Instead, the question of Manning identifying as female has been a consistent and unwavering detail throughout this entire affair. Certainly during the trial the preference was that references be made using the male pronoun, but that's a rather split hair - asking to be formally referred to as one thing doesn't imply that the identification has changed. It's more of a "Let's not make an issue of this just now" sorta thing. So given the aforementioned, this isn't a case of sudden whimsy. It's a longstanding conviction by a notable subject who was under no obligation to express a firm preference at any prior point. Moreover, having your legal counsel read a prepared statement on national TV isn't quite an arbitrary expression of opinion - it's probably the firmest way you could say something short of skywriting or full page ads in The New York Times. /Legally/ the name remains Bradley Manning. But all things considered, at this late date the legal name carries less weight than the preferred one, and unless Manning makes an additional change at some future point, can probably be deemed permanent. With musicians or performance artists electing a stage name (which I know isn't exactly fungible here, but bear with me) some amount of acceptance in circulation may be needed in order to acknowledge it; in this case the name has been imprinted onto the public consciousness just as fully, but by other means. Why quibble?<< The point at which a discussion such as this one becomes more about internal bylaws and less about providing timely and relevant information is the point at which discussion is no longer all that useful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and a place to bicker about technicalities second. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 23:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

25 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Strongly Oppose I believe that any gender references should be applied after the date of the announcement, lest the changes give the impression that the events were performed by a woman which changes the nature and character of the conversation. Srlevine1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Strongly Oppose Per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY. Thatbox (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Strongly Support, <redacted per BLP> MOS:IDENTITY is irrelevant. He didn't know what he was saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychologicaloric (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I have redacted a portion of the above comment per WP:BLP, as it was an entirely-unnecessary and hopelessly-inappropriate personal attack on the article subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I note that Srlevinel, Thatbox, and Phychologicaloric are all accounts that haven't been active in 4+ months, and all 3 accounts have less than 20 edits (counting deleted contribs too). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support, as he's more commonly known as Bradley, at least until he gets a legal name change. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP, and the arguments of Sue Gardner, Blue Raspberry, GorillaWarfare etc etc. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Strong oppose it really is a matter for the transgendered subject to make. And for anyone to claim that Manning was "in a state of psychosis when he decided he was Chelsea" and that "He didn't know what he was saying" is not doing their research, is being very insensitive and perhaps even outright insulting. I had reverted the mention of the gender issue back before it was clear that the subject did identify as a female and that they had made a public declaration. This isn't a political or social issue...its personal. If the subject identifies, not only in regards to gender but to name as well, it is a part of the transformation. Since Manning is in Federal Prison it is unlikely that they will receive the gender reassignment surgery (although it is possible as there is some word that the state of California may allow this eventually), but I do believe that the hormone therapy has either begun or been requested to deal with this medical issue, which this is considered by the US government federal system I do believe.--Mark 01:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Strong oppose. A transgender person should be referred to by the gender the person truly is, as substantiated by WP:RS. The Guardian, for one, has also used female pronouns to refer to Manning, and has used her new name, as well. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) There are plenty of sources listed in this discussion that use the term "Bradley" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC) The gender that Bradley Manning truly is, is male (until he undergoes sexual reassignment). A person may assert their gender to be anything but the true (true meaning actual, as in what physically exists in the real world and not exclusively in the conceptual sense) gender which they actually have in reality is that of their biological sex. Walterego (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) This has been said around a dozen times here, but Walter please read Sex_and_gender_distinction for the distinction between (physical) sex and (psychological) gender. The essential idea here is not accurately describing the person's genitals as a matter of fact, but accurately reflecting their chosen identity as a matter of etiquette. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Comment - I remember discussing the exact principles floating here, in a slightly less contentious manner at the RM for Talk:Laura Jane Grace. Participants of this discussion would have been better acquainted with propriety had they respected that a consensus for best practice had already been hammered out. Also notice if you are so compelled that in the midst of similar arguments, no homophobic labels were applied and no users were faced with AN bans or similar sanctions. :) John Cline (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Seems like the guidance for what to do in an article when someone declares their gender and name change should be covered specifically in a policy, to avoid any more of these types of long discussions in the future that seem to involve armies of editors, whose time might be more productively spent editing other articles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose moving back, on balance. Reasonable arguments can be made either way, but enough sources have made the change, and policy favours self-identification; together, these factors tip the scale. Andreas JN466 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support moving back for procedural reasons (the move to Chelsea Manning was not vetted) and per WP:UCN (use common names). Wikipedia follows what reliable sources use. (And MOS:IDENTITY says nothing to contradict that.) While usage may shift soon, it hasn't happened yet. Good luck to the admin who closes this one. —  AjaxSmack  05:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Reliable sources have already begun referring to her as Chelsea. While MOS:IDENTITY does not speak of article titles, it seems common sense that referring to "Bradley Manning" as "she" would be, at the very least, awkward and confusing. To fully comply with MOS:IDENTITY, the title needs to be changed. I don't see any point in reverting the article title if we're just going to use Chelsea anyway. The initial, bold move seems legit to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support Manning is notable for actions undertaken when he was Bradley. The lead makes no sense now since it says Chelsea was convicted, but Bradley was convicted and the refs say so. Changing the whole article to use female gender and the chelsea name is just awkward. A subsection indicating the desire to be referred to as Chelsea makes more sense. He is not legally Chelsea, are we going to change the title again if he decides he wants to use the name Tammy next week? --Daffydavid (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support Manning is indeed "notable for actions undertaken when he was Bradley". The article should only used "she" and "Chelsea" for actions undertaken before his announcement. We just cannot write things like "she was raised as a boy", "she joined the army...", "she gave documents to wikileaks", etc : it is just too confusing and IMHO unfortunate. I have no doubt that Manning's personal journey is something serious, which I respect ; but writing the article like that just makes him/her look silly. I don't think we want that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Strongly Oppose The first line of the article can simply clarify the change to avoid confusion. --Lyo (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support as the actions for which Manning is famous (the leak, arrest, detention, trial) were carried out as "Bradley Manning". Manning's actions as "Chelsea Manning" have not eclipsed these. McPhail (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support I think move a like this, which was bound to be controversial, should have been discussed and a consensus reached before the change was made. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Comment: We should just wrap this up early per WP:SNOW: there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that any persuasive new rationale is going to come out in the remaining time. If we're not doing a poll (and if we are, I support per commonname & resistance to the original violation of policy involved in the peremptory move), then we should just close up the shop and let the admin team decide.  — LlywelynII 17:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I disagree with wrapping it up early. WP:SNOW applies to debates where one side is definitely going to win and the other side has no chance of winning. That is not true in this case. In this case both sides of the debate seem fairly evenly matched. Cutting off the debate early could lead to Wikipedians complaining that they didn't have enough time to participate in this debate. It would be best to just let the debate last until it is scheduled to end so nobody will be able to complain that they were excluded from the process. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support: Nobody knows (or cares) who "Chelsea Manning" is. "Bradley Manning" is most well known for the release of documents to Wikileaks and subsequent trial. LionMans Account (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose: If she identifies as Chelsea, that's where the article should be, with a thorough explanation in the lead. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC) If he identifies as Yusuf Islam, that's where the article should be. Oops, it's at Cat Stevens. Oh! So we follow usage in reliable source to decide titles, not how the subject identifies! Got it. Do you? --B2C 02:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC) A simple name change is a far different thing than a sex change to match gender. So I'll clarify: if a transgendered person identifies as gender n, the article should identify that person as gender n. Reporting a transgendered person's gender by their birth sex can be seen as an active rejection of their transgendered nature, a potential insult that doesn't come into play with "only" name changes. Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Support: Support per WP:NOTABILITY and multiple widespread sourcing. Manning chose to identify as a male when he enlisted in the Army. Manning became notable for his actions while identifying as a male. This WP article was created because of his notable actions as a male and the article title should reflect the name Bradley, which he chose to identify himself as, at the time of his actions. Now that he has chosen to identify as a female, that choice too has become notable and should be covered in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose: Basic human decency requires that we do not continue to use Chelsea Manning's old name, given the real distress it would cause her (supporting evidence: the chat logs with Lamo in which she says that having her male persona splashed across the media would be nightmarish). Wikipedia does not exist in a moral vaccuum, and an encyclopaedia should not contribute to the making nightmarish of a mentally vulnerable person's life. 7daysahead (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC) As far as the effect on Manning, Wikipedia's title is negligible if it is based on what the prevalent name used in the sources are. There's much more chance that in prison Manning will be seeing newspapers, etc, instead of this Wikipedia article. And if Manning does see this article in prison, it is only one article compared to the many articles or TV programs in the media. Manning's real distress will be from being imprisoned for at least 7 years. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC) The precise quote you mention is actually: i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy… So, it seems Manning prefers that pictures as a boy or a man be removed. Should we honor that request? Is it our place to remove File:Bradley Manning US Army.jpg from the article? (Or this and this, released by Manning's own family?) Wouldn't that be the right thing to do, for the sake of 'human decency'? No, probably not. And this is why our policies are not governed by doing what subjects want (and why we request that people not write about themselves). -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) There is a very real difference between "what subjects want" and "what will cause distress". I suspect that you are not transgendered, and I invite you to do some reading about the subject: it would make this talk page a lot easier for you to understand. Bob's argument ("other people will cause distress, so wikipedia should not worry about whether it causes distress") holds no water (and neither does their bald assertion that Manning will be more distressed by prison than being forced to present as male). 7daysahead (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Don't patronize me or insult my intelligence. I need not be transgendered nor read whatever advocacy materials you want me to read for my comment to be relevant. You mentioned those logs as reason to have the article at Chelsea Manning, and I pointed out that what Manning actually wants is for pictures as a boy excised from media attention. We are not compelled to give into that demand, however you choose to describe it. -- tariqabjotu 19:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Tarigabjotu, this is a red herring -- nobody is arguing for removal of the photo on the basis of the chat logs. The photo is a historical document of how Manning lived and represented herself at a particular moment in time, and assuming it's presented as such personally I don't see any issue with it. What's under discussion here is how Wikipedia should frame and represent Manning *today*, in the present tense --- that's why the article title, pronouns and first name matter. The chatlogs are simply evidence that Manning will experience distress if she is misgendered publicly, after having made it clear she is female. I also reject Bob K31416's argument above, that any distress Wikipedia causes Manning doesn't matter because she might not see the article, and/or the pain of prison will be worse. An argument that hinges on Wikipedia being irrelevant or unimportant is doomed out the gate. And, from an ethical standpoint, any pain we risk causing Manning needs to be considered independently of pain caused to her by others. Sue Gardner (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) For reference, here's my original remark that Sue Gardner is commenting on, "As far as the effect on Manning, Wikipedia's title is negligible if it is based on what the prevalent name used in the sources are. There's much more chance that in prison Manning will be seeing newspapers, etc, instead of this Wikipedia article. And if Manning does see this article in prison, it is only one article compared to the many articles or TV programs in the media. Manning's real distress will be from being imprisoned for at least 7 years." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I'm having a hard time understanding how this is a "red herring". 7daysahead said s/he believes the article should be at Chelsea Manning because the previous name would cause the subject distress, as evidenced by the chat logs. Full stop, no further detail. That may not be your argument, or the arguments of most of those supporting the name Chelsea Manning, but it was 7daysahead's, and that is who I was responding to. I am pointing out that the chat logs actually refer to pictures as a boy or a man, not seeing the name "Bradley Manning". And yet, as you said, of course, no one has suggested removing those types of pictures. If 7daysahead is going to take this approach, he's going to have to explain why s/he feels human decency is needed for the article name, but why it's not (and has not been, and likely will not ever be) afforded for other aspects. As you can see from the logs, to Manning, those photos are not "historical documents", but reminders of a life Manning doesn't want to be presented, much like -- presumably -- the name Bradley Manning. -- tariqabjotu 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC) At the moment no one is suggesting that we remove those pictures, and that is not this conversation. The article title is more likely to cause distress than the photographs on display. This is a red herring. (Briefly, I would support updating the article if more up-to-date photographs were to become available.) 7daysahead (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Strongly Support: Bradley Manning is a traitor and convicted felon. He will be spending the majority of his (redacted) life at Fort Leavenworth, which for those of you who don't know, is hell on earth where they send (redacted) like Manning to make big rocks into little rocks all damn day long. Why are we wasting time and making a mockery of this article by trying to 'comfort' Bradley Manning or 'make this transition easier on him?' Where he's going, the last worry he'll have is the pronouns they use to address him. And this is just beside all of the basic logic and reasoning that says he is a male, has always been a male, and likely always will continue to be a male and the WP has just bought into one of the lamest PR stunts in recent memory. Has everybody opposed to this moved forgotten that he is a criminal??? IFreedom1212 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I am going to assume good faith, and therefore assume that you merely forgot that have already registered a "support" vote in this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Funny, I thought the word "freedom" in your username meant freedom of self-expression like in gender identity. But now I notice your username reads "IFreedom", so I guess that only applies to your laughable arguments here. I don't even know where to start. Why, for instance, do you get an ideological monopoly on what constitutes "basic logic" on gender? How is this PR stunt? Why is it at all relevant that Manning is a criminal? If you want to dig your hole deeper and respond, you are certainly welcome, but what you really need a is a heavy dose of imagining others complexly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC) You can't self-identify your own gender just like you can't self-identify your own species. Bradley Manning still has a Y chromosome and you can't make that up. The 'basic logic' behind it is that he has a penis and the only reason his gender is being brought into question is because of his own words and actions. Actions and words which should be given far less consideration because he is an enemy of the state and has been shown to act recklessly and without careful thought in the past. That's why his conviction is relevant. IFreedom1212 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC) You can't self-identify your biological sex. Gender identity, on the other hand, is something entirely different. Your failure to understand this fact does not make it less of a fact. Also, by what means do you know that Bradley Manning has a Y chromosome? I honestly thought this was a joke at first. All males have Y chromosomes. Bradley Manning is a male, therefore he has a Y chromosome. IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Apparently you've never heard of XX male syndrome, XY gonadal dysgenesis & Intersex. Have you conducted a blood test on Manning to know what chromosome makeup she has? KTC (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Your POV that Manning "is an enemy of the state" is entirely nonsensical in the context of Wikipedia and has no bearing on this issue. An enemy of which state, defined by whom? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Uhm, the state?? United States v. Manning IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Whose state? Not everyone on the English Wikipedia is an American. Nor does every American view Manning as an enemy. Regardless, the fact that she has been convicted of a crime does not give anyone on Wikipedia carte blanche to reject her gender identity, mock her or otherwise degrade her. She is entitled to human decency on Wikipedia just as every other living person is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Strongly Oppose: Transgendered persons ought to be referred to by their preferred name and gender pronouns. To do otherwise is transphobic. This is in keeping with Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY policy for how transgendered persons are to be identified on this wiki. And most news organizations and reliable sources have already started calling Chelsea Manning by her new name. Most of the arguments in support of moving back to Bradley Manning, such as claiming there aren't reliable sources to back up the name change, are red herrings. --Yetisyny (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Support - To the military he's Bradley Manning. To common usage he's Bradley Manning. To the prison system...well that'll be something to see. This article title should absolutely be at Bradley Manning. In the first line of the lead, assuming the gov't recognizes a legally changed name, that's where one would place Chelsea E. Manning. Nowhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Comment - I have already expressed my support above, but I have noticed that a lot of people here are citing BLP as a reason for opposing the move back to Bradley. BLP basically states that the article can't have anything negative that is unsourced. There are a lot of sources that still refer to Manning by the first name Bradley, so even if you do consider using Manning's legal name to be a negative statement (which is really a stretch even without sources backing it up), BLP would still not apply here because there are many sources that still use the name. --PiMaster3 talk 22:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Sources since the name change, you mean? (Remember that the redirect from Bradley Manning still works.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, that is why I said still use. What does the redirect working have anything to do with whether or not there is a BLP violation? --PiMaster3 talk 23:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC) You're mistaken if you think BLP only says we can't have anything negative that is unsourced. BLP also prevents undue weight being put on sourced negative material and other things. In terms of the wider issue, there's already been so much discussion concerning BLP that I don't think there's anything useful to say about the applicibility of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I oppose reverting to the "Bradley" name Chelsea was very clear of her intentions and even stated, and was printed in leading newspapers and on national television, "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)." As she is a living person Wikipedia must respect her wishes. Shezthemann (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Comment posted by User:Guerillero as requested on his talk page; requesting editor, User:Shezthemann, has very few edits, all at User talk:Guerillero, and all relating to this article. bd2412 T 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

26 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Comment: As others have noted, the move to Chelsea was premature and should have awaited fuller use of that name in reliable sources (see WP:COMMONNAME). A parenthetical statement in the lede about her preferred name would have sufficed until then. On these procedural grounds I support returning the article to Bradley, but by the time this discussion is closed, I expect the preponderance of sources using "Chelsea" will make this point moot. Subsidiary comment: The personal opinion of many here is to accept her self-identification out of human decency, because gender is more complicated than genitals and chromosomes. But, for the sake of Wikipedia, those opinions are academic and immaterial: we generally have to go by what the aggregated sources say, not by what's right. --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 05:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I agree with everything you've said there, but my sense of inertia prefers not to do a temporary move that I reasonably expect will need to be undone shortly, even to revert a premature move. It is unpleasant to "reward" people for having a hair trigger on the Move button, but when we've acknowledged they probably will be right soon enough, might as well let them get away with it. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. As I've already noted in other comments, making acceptance of a transgender person's chosen name conditional on her compliance with further conditions (complete the legal process, have the surgery, etc.) is not acceptable — for starters that's a higher burden of proof than we place on any other celebrity who happens to change their name, and even more importantly both her legal records and her medical records are covered by privacy laws and thus her completion of those tasks will never be properly verifiable. (What's our test going to be? She can't be "Chelsea" until she personally uploads a photograph of her groin to Commons to prove that she doesn't have a penis anymore? That's ridiculous and invasive, obviously, but what other evidence can we possibly ask for if "have the surgery first" is our standard?) Furthermore, no other type of person on Wikipedia is subject to any requirement that we must necessarily lock the article into their legal birth name, regardless of any other titling consideration — and thus imposing that as a unique rule that is binding only on transgender people is a clearcut act of transphobia. COMMONNAME is also not a compelling argument, because that rule explicitly states, right in its own text, that there are sometimes legitimate reasons to privilege another name over one that's technically more common — so the question becomes, why should a transgender person not be one of those cases? And COMMONNAME also explicitly says that sources published after a name change count for more than those published before — so leaving aside for the moment the fact that there's already been a documentable shift, it still needs to be asked what volume of new sourcing has to be provided before people will be satisfied that the balance has finally tipped over to Chelsea instead of Bradley? Is it 100 articles? 1,000? 10,000? What's the number? Or is it going to be, my real suspicion, a moving target which always consists of "some unspecified number of additional sources beyond what we have now"? And if the argument is based on "Chelsea" being a violation of POVNAMING, then you have to face the reality that "Bradley" also poses just as much of a POVNAMING issue — because it also represents a POV assertion about the validity of her identity change. So if there's no wholly NPOV naming option available, then in a BLP you've got to err on the side of the subject's dignity. As I've said elsewhere, the only appropriate, WP:BLP-compliant way to write about a transgender person is to accept her chosen name and gender identity. BLP requires us to write our articles with sensitivity, and paying mind to the possibility of harm to living subjects. While it's true that media outlets vary in how well they adhere to these principles, virtually every media style guide of any reputability whatsover (AP, Canadian Press, GLAAD, etc.) advises that a transgender person's chosen name and gender identity must be respected without condition — doing otherwise is inherently causing harm to the subject, and violating WP:NPOV by casting judgement on the validity of her gender identity. The fact that a few readers might be a little bit confused, furthermore, is covered by the fact that "Bradley" is still in place as a redirect — so people are not going to fail to get here because they typed the wrong name into the search bar, and given the volume of media coverage her announcement has been getting I sincerely doubt that there are five people left in the Western world who are going to be surprised. And furthermore, our WP:NPOV rules themselves require us to evaluate the POV of the sources, and to deprecate sources that are being inappropriately biased or non-neutral in their presentation of the story. We do not, for example, cite stuff to sources that use prejudicial terms like "faggot" or "n-word". And any outside source that fails to use Chelsea instead of Bradley, once she's announced that her preferred name is Chelsea, is itself committing a POV act — the very act of discounting her stated name is a POV statement in and of itself — which means that if we're really serious about following NPOV properly, we have to accept that as of August 22, 2013, any source that still uses "Bradley" instead of "Chelsea" is, by definition, not appropriately neutral enough to even be considered at all. There is only one WP:NPOV way to write about a transgender person, and that is by her preferred name and gender identity — any source that still calls her "Bradley" once she's announced that her name is Chelsea is committing a biased, non-NPOV act. No matter what their reasoning is — deliberate transphobia, unintentional ignorance of the correct practice, simple laziness, whatever — the doing of it is an act of anti-transgender bias. And we simply cannot make it Wikipedia policy that we deprecate clearly biased sources in every case except when the bias is an anti-transgender one. So simply put, for all of those reasons I have to take the position that the article's proper and correct title is Chelsea. Bearcat (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Who decided what "the correct practice" is, why do they have authority, when did they do it? People keep implying that there was this big meeting and we all decided what "the correct practice" is, I think I missed that meeting, does someone have the minutes? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC) You don't get a say in what is or isn't correct practice in writing about any identity community in which you do not have a direct personal stake. There was no obligation for "we all" to have been part of the decision; in exactly the same way as is true for racial and ethnic groups, LGBT people, and their doctors and therapists and other people with a direct stake in the issue, get to make that decision unilaterally. You're certainly not obliged to follow if you don't want to — but you don't get a right to dictate that your preferences override those of the affected parties, or to decree that nobody else is allowed to call you out on your decision, or to question what is or isn't correct practice. You certainly have a right to follow either correct or incorrect practice in your own life — but you don't get consultation rights on which practice is the correct one. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, when did all people with a direct stake have a meeting and where are the minutes? How do you know I don't have a stake?CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC) GLAAD's Media Reference Guide; AP Style Guide; any acceptably WP:NPOV book at all on transgender issues. And incidentally, the process of establishing consensus on matters like this does not require that every single transgender person personally attended a meeting with posted minutes and a unanimous vote at the end — it's allowed to happen through the exact same sort of social processes (literature, one-on-one conversations, political activism, appeals to basic human decency, etc.) that contribute to the evolution of any other social or cultural convention. And as for how I know that you don't have a personal stake in the issue, you wouldn't be taking the positions you're taking if you did. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1. Does GLAAD represent all people that have a stake? I was not informed. 2. AP does not meet your defention of "having a stake" so why do you refrence them? 3. What position have I taken? 4. If I have taken a postion why is it impossible to have that position and have a stake? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1. Yep. 2. AP reflects the established practice, and is thus acceptable for consultation purposes. 3. & 4. Agreeing that it's ever appropriate to give a transgender person's birth name precedence over their chosen one, or to disregard their own stated gender identity, are not positions which a transgender person would ever typically take. I suppose it's theoretically possible that there might be a few transgender people out there who do disagree, but that's implausible enough to belong in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category — and even if such people did exist, the established consensus of most transgender people would still prevail over the opinions of one or two fringe dissenters. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1. We both know you are incorrect, but you obviously don't want to argue. (Fair, but I'm going to assume it's because you realized that I was going to be right and you wanted to head the off at the pass) 2. Resonable point, but still against your argument. 3. When have I ever "Agreeing that it's ever appropriate to give a transgender person's birth name"? 4. So "minority"/"fringe" oppinions don't count? CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1. GLAAD most certainly is the final authority on what is or isn't discriminatory or biased language when writing about LGBT topics. They don't have to be the universal representative of all LGBT people on all possible LGBT issues whatsoever — but they are the Supreme Court on this. 2. Nope, not against my argument. People outside the identity community are allowed to be cited as authorities on what the consensus is, if they are correctly following it — as an outside party, the only thing they're not allowed to do is override it with their own alternative rules while still being accorded equal weight. 3. You've been arguing for the move back to the old name; that, by definition, is giving her old name precedence over her current one. 4. When it comes to the question of what Wikipedia should or should not reflect, if they can't be well-sourced as significant minority opinions that have a weight of credibility behind them then indeed, no, they don't count. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Alright, you are clearly so incapible of seeing your own logical fallicies that it is no longer interesting to try to get you to understand that there is no consensus on this topic and for you to keep claming that there is is driving people away from your arument. We need to have a rational discussion about this topic without either side making appeals to authority or personal attacks. I really am on the fence about the issue, but the fastest way to drive me to one side is for the other side to falsely claim that the matter has already been decided in their favor. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Nope, no logical fallacies at all. I've acknowledged all along that not everybody in the world actually follows the correct practice in writing about transgender issues — but that fact does not mean that there isn't an objectively correct practice. When writing about any identity community (race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.) which is subject to bias and misrepresentation concerns, the correct practice is always to follow that community's own internal consensus about what does or doesn't constitute biased language about them. This is not some special privilege that we extend exclusively to transgender people — it's the standard practice that should be followed for absolutely any identity group (racial, sexual, ethnic, gender, whatever) that is known to be subject to biased or discriminatory language and unfair media misrepresentation. You certainly have the freedom to disregard that practice and continue to use derogatory or biased language if you wish — but you do not get to deny the fact that there is a correct practice, which is supported by a valid, properly documented consensus of the only people who actually get to have any say in the matter of what is or isn't correct practice, and you don't get to claim immunity from other people calling you out on your language choices. But if you want to be perceived as fair and respectful and polite and unbiased, then there's really no other way besides accepting that the group being written about gets to be the arbiter of what constitutes unfair or hurtful or discriminatory language about them. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) "there is a correct practice" No way. There is no "correct" or "incorrect" when it comes to journalism. There are no binding standards; there are no punishments for breaking with the rules; there is no enforcement. In short these expectations are not rules. They are opinions. It's analogous to the difference between Wikipedia essays and policies; some may strongly support an essay but we ultimately follow policy. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Yes way. Journalistic outlets certainly retain the freedom to be incorrect about it if they choose to be, but there is an objectively correct way to write about an identity community (racial, sexual, ethnic, whatever) that is known to be subject to hurtful, discriminatory or biased coverage — and that way is to respect what those communities tell you about what constitutes hurtful, discriminatory or biased coverage of them. You can still disregard it if you really want to, but you are not being WP:NPOV if you do. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Please tell me where WP:NPOV states that we must follow the style guidelines laid out by minority communities. Let's not refer vaguely to very tightly-worded Wikipedia policies; please be specific. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC) WP:NPOV unequivocally prohibits us from using discriminatory or biased language. So since minority communities are themselves the only acceptable authority on what constitutes discriminatory or biased language about them, who else would you propose that we even listen to? Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I certainly see where you're coming from and I personally agree that we should follow the standards set by the groups and the people themselves. Just as we should follow Chelsea's pronoun preference we should theoretically follow GLAAD's guidelines when referring to LGBT people. However that is my personal belief and I would not foist it upon Wikipedia. Others who have deeply-held personal beliefs think theirs are equally valid. Hate groups, for instance, may feel very strongly that we should do the exact opposite of GLAAD. What I'm saying is that we fundamentally disagree about who has authority on media coverage; you think pro-LGBT groups do, while I think anti-LGBT groups / LGBT-neutral groups also have authority. WP:RS requires us to weigh the options. If there comes a time when journalistic organizations are united in referring to LGBT people in a truly sensitive way, we can follow their lead. But that time has not yet arrived. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't write about the existence of anti-LGBT or racist or anti-trans sentiment; as much as I may hate those things, they do exist and are legitimately notable topics. But what we can't do is write that Metta World Peace and Sean Combs are "n-words", or Elton John is a "filthy faggot", or Ellen DeGeneres is a "f*cking dyke", or "Bradley" Manning is a "man who thinks he's a woman", and on and so forth, just because some people might prefer to see them described that way instead of with neutral terminology. We can talk about the existence of anti-LGBT or racist or anti-trans beliefs in the appropriate articles; we just aren't allowed to use anti-LGBT or racist or transphobic terminology as objective descriptors in our articles about those groups or individual people who belong to them. That's all I'm saying. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) In terms of our personal views we're so very close. But I just don't view GLAAD as being the only source of note, as much as I support what they're doing. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Did you just compare titling the article Bradley Manning to calling black people the n-word? Or gay people faggots? Unbelievable. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC) It is comparable, because it is discriminatory to discount a transgender person's chosen name. And in case you aren't already aware of this, I am a gay man — so I most certainly do have authority to speak on whether a point of language usage is or isn't comparable to calling me a faggot. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, I was aware of that, as it's on your userpage. And it may lead people to wonder whether your advocacy efforts, and your inability to see how misguided your concept of neutrality is as it applies here, might be motivated by your sexual orientation. But I didn't bring that up because your sexual orientation shouldn't be a reason for people to diminish your views, nor should it be a reason -- as you have done -- to prop them up. Likewise, I will not take the easy route by matching your tenuous appeal to authority with one of my own based on my race, sexual orientation, religion, or membership in any other group that I have chosen to not broadcast loudly on my userpage but you apparently have chosen to guess for convenience. -- tariqabjotu 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Mmmmm, yeah. People are actually trying to use her, right on this very page, as a platform for waging war on the very concept that the recognized medical condition of gender dysphoria even exists, and I get the rap for "advocacy efforts" for arguing against biased and discriminatory and non-NPOV language? That's really kind of rich. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Um, everyone else? Neutrality means considering the opinions of all groups and weighing them accordingly, not listening to just one group and ignoring everyone else because they don't suit your point of view. That's basically the definition of neutrality. There are reliable sources (including the AP, which you claimed immediately started using Chelsea) that continue to use the name "Bradley Manning", and you seem intent on diminishing them to "wrong". -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I said that AP's style guide states what the proper practice is; the fact that not every AP publication is actually following it yet does not negate the fact of what the style guide says. And neutrality means that we also have to take the POVness or non-POVness of the sources themselves into account: we do not accord equal weight to all possible sources, but in fact routinely deprecate sources that can be demonstrated to be portraying the story in a biased or inaccurate way. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, I covered that; as I said, considering the opinions of all groups and weighing them accordingly.As noted below, the New York Times, the Independent, the BBC, and Reuters have used the name Bradley Manning. Are they also POV sources? And I'm struggling to find the non-POV sources (The Huffington Post? No. Salon? No.) that have switched over to Chelsea Manning. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Even a generally reliable source can still cover a particular story in a way that precludes that specific article from being cited in an NPOV encyclopedia. You have to review the potential bias of every individual story; a broad sweeping judgment based solely on who's publishing it is not sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Your remarks are beginning to suggest that you're motivated by advocating for minority groups, rather than adhering to our policies. While advocating for minority groups may be admirable, Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for that purpose. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Er, no. People on this page have denied the proven medical fact that gender dysphoria even exists at all — that's an advocacy position. Arguing that her status as a convicted criminal should invalidate her right to even receive medical treatment for her condition at all is an advocacy position. Respecting people's right not to be subject to hurtful or discriminatory or biased language is a simple human dignity position, not an advocacy one. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC) The fact that others might be using Wikipedia for advocacy doesn't mean you aren't. You argued that minority groups should be the arbiter of what is hurtful, discriminatory, and biased. That you cited our neutral point-of-view policy in the next sentence shows your lack of self-awareness. -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Nope. Using hurtful, discriminatory and biased language is an NPOV violation. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Again, "hurtful, discriminatory and biased" are utterly subjective. What's hurtful today to a certain group may be acceptable to another; what's hurtful today may not be so tomorrow. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Exactly. Bearcat, if your idea of neutrality decided by one group were really true, discussions like this one would have ended differently. The rules shouldn't change because the group is this one. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I'm talking about points of language usage in a WP:BLP about an individual member of an oppressed identity community. I'm not an expert in, and have no opinion on, how the Muhammad cartoons controversy should or shouldn't have been handled — but they're not the same thing as the matter at hand. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Support moving the article name back to Bradley Manning for now. In essence it's been decided that an established policy WP:COMMONNAME should be overruled and that anyone who wants to abide by the established policy is somehow prejudiced towards the person. Either the clearly established policy should be adhered to or it should be changed (along with WP:NPOV) to reflect the new political reality. Editors should be castigated for their adherence or otherwise to Wikipedia policy, not for their (presumed) views, unless Wikipedia starts censoring views as policy. My suspicion is that the references to Bradley Manning will become rarer and this will simply default to Chelsea, but I am uneasy about the precedent of break the rules if it matches the political views of the majority of admins that is being set here. JASpencer (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC) COMMONNAME is not being overrruled; COMMONNAME itself states that there are valid reasons to choose a technically less "common" name sometimes. It explicitly allows for exceptions right in its very own definition of itself, and it is not "violating policy" to treat a situation as an exception to a policy that has room for exceptions written right into the policy itself. As well, COMMONNAME explicitly says that when an article topic changes their name, any decision about which name to use has to give more weight to post-name change sources than it does to pre-name ones — and that shift is already happening in the sources. (And as I've said before, calling a transgender person by anything other than her publicly stated preferred name is, in and of itself, an act of anti-transgender prejudice. You may not have deliberately prejudiced reasons for doing so, which is why I've always taken the utmost care in this discussion to respect the difference between labelling the argument and labelling the person, but the act of not respecting a transgender person's public statement of her name is a prejudiced thing to do.) Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Compromise: since "Chelsea" seems too controversial, let us rename this person "Peyton." Torquemama007 (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Torquemama007, as best as I can tell yours was a sarcastic remark. Please correct me if that is not the case. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Support I am not as heavily swayed by the argument that we should wait for SRS or some kind of 'legal name change.' I do understand the draw; they provide a single, verifiable way to determine a persons gender. They are also arbitrary, unverifiable, and ultimately irrelevant (we are not tied to the United States government, so why do we care so much what they think?) I am, however, swayed by the "Golden Retriever Problem"- if Manning said "I'm a golden retriever, and my name is Rover", would we accept that? Of course not. It would be an inappropriate value judgement to say in this case that Manning has such definite control over his name, yet in other cases ignore obviously spurious 'name changes' - without violating NPOV, how could we make a judgement? (Breaking in the middle because your post is extremely long). Could I ask you to read the very short essay Wikipedia:Gender_identity? It answers your question. Briefly, there is no accepted medical condition which leads people to identify as dogs, the only treatment for which has been consistently shown to allow that person to live as a dog. Your argument has been given several times on this talk page. 7daysahead (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC) The answer at the essay you provided was "Coming out as trans can not be dismissed as an arbitrary or irrational decision. It is a deeply personal decision recognized and supported by mental health professionals." I feel the answer is hand-waving. It is an appeal to authority; that authority may be qualified to diagnose Manning with GID (or whatever, I think the name of the disorder may have changed.) but that authority does not necessarily carry over into how we otherwise present Manning. To wit, a doctor could advise Manning to use to a feminine name, but that does not in and of itself rename Manning. Manning is only renamed to the extent that the new name is recognized at large. I do not feel the essay addresses this concern. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Also: what counts as "obviously spurious"? Harpo Marx? Screaming Lord Sutch? Nate Dogg, Bow Wow, or Snoop Dogg? "Chelsea Manning" seems pretty sober and sensible by comparison. --GenericBob (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The difference is those names have been generally accepted by reliable secondary sources, but the name "Chelsea Manning" has not been accepted in the same way. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The claim that there would be some sort of BLP violation or harassment seems ridiculous. If we're harassing, then what are the news organizations (such as, I understand, AP) doing? As to BLP, the three main issues are NPOV, V, and OR. I do not see NPOV as being an issue considering the continued use of the name "Bradley" by many news organizations. As to Verifiability, there is no question there. As for OR, it seems to me the "Chelsea" supports could be conducting their own Original Research by synthesizing that the subject of the article's name is Chelsea, without that being supported first by reliable sources. The rest of BLP seems to deal with the privacy of the subject, but that is not relevant here because the name "Bradley" has already all over the news. The title "Chelsea Manning" is (potentially) confusing to many readers. Readers not familiar with the case will be surprised to find an article named "Chelsea..." when they typed in "Bradley..." I suspect they could even navigate away from the page, if they know the subject to be male, yet the article is, at a first glance, about a woman. To reply to Bearcat, above, if it is POVNAMING in either case, I find it to be a legitimate option to simply defer to reliable sources. I have not yet seen a meaningful analysis of how different reliable sources handle this issue. I do not believe we are impacting the tone of the article or dignity of the subject. The simple truth is that Manning has not used the name Chelsea at all (AFAIK) until very recently. As to gender identity, if Manning has been consistently identified as male by all secondary coverage until now, how are we creating an 'unduly negative' article by reporting that? In addition, my understanding is that the AP has not transitioned to using the Chelsea name. I think I read [somewhere] an editor claiming that "Bradley..." would hurt the '[transgender] cause' which is, I feel, a very poor argument in this context. I think Rae, above, makes a good if unfortunate point. OSborn arfcontribs. 14:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC) As I explain here, we should use information from reliable sources at the right level. Normally the choice of that level doesn't matter; a pile of molecules that happens to be a Zebra won't be interpreted as an Elephant by someone else. In this case the problem is that the primary information about Manning's gender identity issues leads to a different conclusion about her gender when we use our policies compared to some newspapers. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC) "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:SOURCES) indicates to me that we should prefer secondary sources over primary sources, in general. (I find our guideline at MOS:IDENTITY problematic, as a 'special process' for transgender, and only transgender persons.) Although I may not entirely understand what your argument is; we don't really have "policies" on this sort of thing. Our policies, in my experience, have been to neutrally present available, reliable information. Any guideline on content is simply a summary of how to do so. I think the essay WP:TRUTH also supports my argument. OSborn arfcontribs. 15:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, but the issue with primary/secondary sources has more to do with wanting to have a solid review of the primary facts that reflects current scientific consensus about the topic. But in general, you have some source and different levels of information exists in the same source. E.g. in case of a crime, you can have many reliable sources that agree with each other on the factual issues, but they differ on whether or not to call the perpetrator of the crimes a criminal. We can then easily bypass this problem by focussing on the facts on which there is then no diagreement about from these reliable sources and use our own BLP policies to decide whether or not the responsible person should be called a criminal or not. Saying that "X is a criminal" is higher level information than saying that "X has commited acts Y and Z". Our policies may e.g. compel us to refer to X as a "suspect", even if most sources use "criminal". Count Iblis (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) To clarify your analogy, if "X has committed acts Y and Z." (and Y and Z are criminal acts) then by definition "X is a criminal," not "X is a suspect." "X is a suspect" if "X has been accused of committing acts Y and Z." My understanding is that the situation you are referring to would be a BLP violation partly because it could expose the WMF to litigation. (From what I understand.) In this case, there's no judgement call of "Manning is a criminal." AFAIK IANAL this isn't a situation where Manning could litigate (not that we should only do things under threat of litigation...) and so isn't quite the same in that regard. Anyways, we would never make-up a term for someone, we would only use verifiable information. Clearly, we don't go for the most extreme information; we avoid being inflammatory. This is the other part of not calling someone a criminal. But I don't really see the 'presumption of innocence' factor as leading us to use the newer name. I think the "Golden Retriever Problem" I mentioned above explains this. The big question I have is "why do we not extend skepticism to Manning's own statement?" OSborn arfcontribs. 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) There is, as has already been pointed out above, no such thing as the "Golden Retriever Problem" when it comes to transgender issues. Gender dysphoria is a real, recognized medical condition, which has substantial medical research behind it to confirm that transgender people really do have physical brain structures that are consistent with the target gender rather than the one that would be consistent with the kind of sexual organs they have down below — and the only known treatment for that condition is for the person to undertake some form of transition into living as the target gender. You don't have to understand how it could be medically possible for that to happen — but it is. There is, however, no recognized medical condition in which it's possible for a human being of any gender to actually have a dog's brain inside a human body — there are certainly disorders in which it's possible for someone to think they're a dog, I won't deny that, but there are no known medical conditions in which it's possible for that belief to turn out to be true, or for which the only treatment that even exists at all is for the person to actually switch over to living as a dog. So until medical science finds a a real medical disorder which lifts "I'm a golden retriever inside" out of the realm of psychotic delusions and into the realm of things that could actually be true, the "Golden Retriever Problem" is not a valid analogue to gender dysphoria. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC) I agree that the "Golden Retriever Problem" is not the best argument to make here, but on the other hand I think that we still do not have to change the article title. Wikipedia has not always respected the wishes of the subject with respect to their identity. We have declined to move Jay-Z to Jay Z, for example. Edge3 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I don't really see how taking or not taking a hyphen out of a name that's still fundamentally the same otherwise really tells us anything either way about how to handle a person who comes out as transgender; as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are numerous other articles where we did respect the subject's wishes by moving the article right away upon a name change announcement — and that's the standard that's always been considered the precedent for transgender people. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I bring up the "golden retriever problem" as an analogy for someone simply declaring their name to be something different. I'd like to clarify, as I think it may be misunderstood, that I am not drawing an analogy with regards to trangenderism per se. The point of the analogy is that the subject has simply announced a change in name and that change in name has not been generally accepted. I realize now this may have been a distracting analogy. As I answered above, that Manning has been advised to change his name does not seem specifically relevant. We summarize reliable sources, and my understanding is that reliable sources have not transitioned to "Chelsea" in a way as to trigger such a change. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I respect the arguments in opposition, but the move was premature, the subject of the article is still most widely known as Bradley, and Chelsea is not yet prdominant in new reporting. I support the use of Chelsea/she, etc. within the body of the article.Skyraider (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Support this individual is morphologically, chromosomally, and most important legally still male. of particular note is that at the time of his enlistment and service, from which springs his entire notability and notoriety, he was male. until 8/22, 100% of the news coverage was of 'bradley' manning. while i am a liberal on the issue of gender politics, this seems to me an unnecessarily pov sop to the lbgt community, and a kowtowing to political correctness.Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Legal status is irrelevant to the question of what a person's gender identity is or isn't, and you are making an unverifiable assumption about her genetic karyotype. There are real, documented conditions within the transgender spectrum in which a person can have male sex organs while actually being chromosomally female — so unless you have Manning's DNA tests in your personal possession you have no way of verifiably knowing whether she's chromosomally XX or XY. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose In danger of appearing to be WP:WL, I think a certain amount of the legal dispassion needs to be applied to this argumentation. WP:BLP is a broad policy, one which relies on MOS:IDENTITY in order to interpret properly. The most specific direction in this case comes from MOS:IDENTITY and we have discussed it ad infinitum here. The bottom line becomes that "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. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." There is no clearer statement of direction available to us in the style guides or the policies. To refer to any person who has expressed a different self-identification as their birth gender reflects an inherent bias against their choice, regardless of the intent used when crafting said reference. Because of this fact, there is no clear position that reflects WP:NPOV, and as such, WP:BLP dictates that we follow the course charted in MOS:IDENTITY and use the proper nouns, gendered pronouns, and possessive adjectives that respect the choice of that individual. Furthermore, some people have questioned the change on WP:V violations, attempting to steer the conversation in their favor. I believe this argument to be specious in the extreme. WP:BLP is explicit about acceptable sources and one of those is documented in WP:SELFPUB. Chelsea Manning's declaration about her gender self-identification satisfies completely and utterly the requirements of WP:SELFPUB and, as a consequence of this fact, WP:V. When you strip the emotion from the conversation and look at it from a purely facts-based perspective, the decision to move the page to Chelsea Manning and replace the male-gendered pronouns with their female-gendered equivalents was not only correct, but needed to be accomplished rapidly in order to satisfy the Damoclean Sword of WP:BLP. My 2c. QuackCD (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I was going to support on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that we follow where reliable sources go, and we should follow rather than lead on issues such as this. However, when looking for sources to back me up, I came across this very recent addition which I think alters the balance. If the NYT and AP are doing so, we should follow suit. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support He's still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths. WeldNeck (talk) 02:03, 27 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)

The parallel I gave was Sears Tower. Wikipedia wasn't in business when it was renamed, but I doubt it would wait long to title the article according to the new official product placement. I think it is acceptable to retitle the article according to an official new name, even though most people aren't using that yet. Even though I favor using "he" and "Bradley" in descriptions of the earlier events. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is probably what you are looking for: [4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you mean this: [5] --Yetisyny (talk) 19:42, 25 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)

There is no policy on Wikipedia which contains anything that would overrule MOS:IDENTITY. And guidelines are just as binding as policies in the absence of a compelling reason to make an exception. In fact, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is very specific on this point: Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. The only difference between the two is that guidelines may have valid exceptions in some circumstances — but unless there's a clear consensus that the case at hand is a valid exception, guidelines do still have to be followed every bit as much as policies do. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Policies such as WP:NOTABILITRY a core Wikipedia policy (person notable for being Bradley manning) and WP:COMMONNAME Bradley being used more do outweigh it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:N does not require an article to always remain at the title that a topic first became notable under; it just speaks to whether a topic should be included or excluded and has no bearing on what an article's title should or shouldn't be, or whether you can or can't move an article about a topic whose name changes after notability has already been established. And WP:COMMONNAME also explicitly says that there are numerous valid reasons why an article can be located at something other than the topic's "most common name". We title North American radio and television stations' articles with their call signs rather than their on-air brand names, for instance, because even though the on-air brand names are almost certainly more commonly known, they're rarely or never unique. We title most animal and plant species with their scientific (i.e. Latin) names rather than their common ones. We frequently choose alternate titles as a way to avoid spelling disputes between American and British English. And feel free to fill yourself in on how we dealt with the Derry vs. Londonderry and Dokdo vs. Takeshima "common name" disputes, too. COMMONNAME is simply not an invariable rule. So nope, neither of those policies is in conflict with MOS:IDENTITY at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 26 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)

But surely that would be the cart driving the horse. The pronoun question is separate to the article name question, and there is no reason to suppose that one is more important than the other - though it's the latter that's receiving all the attention right now. I agree with the OP on this thread - MOS:IDENTITY does not answer the article title question. There's no reason why we can't call the article "Bradley Manning" and then have "she" throughout. Having said that, though, I think the article name implies a change of the lead, as well as a change of the infobox heading. StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, some baby name websites (e.g. [6]) list Bradley was both a boys' and girls' name. I can't find any notable women of this name, though I found this discussion forum which shows that some girls do have the name. So, Manning could have come out as a woman and kept the name Bradley. Now, it may be significant that she chose not to. I wonder if all transgender people like to change their name when they come out? I asked the question at Talk:Transgender#Names? but I haven't got an answer. 05:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the close

Just noting here that I've asked on WP:AN/RFC [7] and WP:AN/I [8] 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)

I don't believe Wikipedia would dissolve a gay marriage just because the couple moved to "a jurisdiction with inadequate legal provision" but I believe there would still be the expectation that if there was a gay marriage then there had to have been a prior legally recognized marriage SOMEWHERE. If Manning is legally recognized as female in Canada that would likely satisfy most people currently objecting. I believe you are confusing is and ought with respect to Manning's confinement. Whatever ought to be the case, if it IS the case that there not only is not but cannot be any legal recognition this is relevant to whether the dispute between the subject and his society as to how he or she should be perceived should be resolved in the favour of the subject.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact of imprisonment in that institution doesn't really prove anything. You can picture that women could be put there at any time due to overcrowding or through some bureaucratic snafu. And what is transsexuality more than the world's most confusing bureaucratic snafu? Wnt (talk) 22:22, 26 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)

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

This is a basic difference in philosophy. There are some people who think that they shouldn't examine hypothetical cases until they're proven to exist, but when I raised this idea my thought was that whether or not it happens, our reaction to it is a useful test of our opinions, because someone could choose to do it at any time. I can picture a whole NRM with symbology of Ra's voyage through the underworld and the Yin-Yang of the cosmos. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 26 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)

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)

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

More 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)

BTW, "Chelsea Manning" has had 36,000 views yesterday while "Bradley Manning" had 16,000. So "Chelsea Manning" is twice as popular as "Bradley Manning". So if we go by popularity on wikipedia, Chelsea would be the obvious choice. Pass a Method talk 14:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Because Bradley Manning redirects to Chelsea Manning, only 20,000 of those 36,000 views came directly to Chelsea Manning without going through Bradley Manning. It's impossible to say what the source of that difference is. Perhaps it's because people looking for information about this subject are more likely to search for or type in "Chelsea Manning".

However, it's also possible the difference is influenced by the fact that several articles in the media (as listed at the top of this page) link to Chelsea Manning. It could be because there are a number of people involved on this talk page and various discussions about the naming issue repeatedly looking at the article Chelsea Manning (myself included), which would not require me to go via Bradley Manning (remember, these are individual, not unique, views we're talking about). Perhaps it's because the Main Page links directly to Chelsea Manning. Or perhaps it's because people have heard the name "Chelsea Manning" in the news and have decided to search for that, even though when looking for information on this person they would otherwise search for "Bradley Manning". We just don't know, and I don't think we can read too much into these figures with all the publicity at the moment.

From the Stats FAQ, "I wouldn't base any important decisions on these stats." -- tariqabjotu 15:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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 Conservatism
• 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"

Using Chelsea

• The Huffington Post (dated August 24): "Americans have reached no consensus on the fairness of the prison sentence given to Chelsea Manning"
• AP (dated August 26): "The Associated Press will henceforth use Pvt. Chelsea E. Manning and female pronouns for the soldier formerly known as Bradley Manning, in accordance with her wishes to live as a woman."

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

WP:BLP Issue

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

Legality and notability

I found another case of a person not having a legal name change but their article reflecting the name tthey chose in the media.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Jindal

His "real", and legal name is Piyush Jindal, yet because of notability of his nickname in the media, it's been changed. There isn't even a rule utilized on this page either, and it's been like this for more than a year. Countered (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, lets focus on this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

because of notability of his nickname in the media Yes. Exactly. The article is entitled Bobby Jindal not because he just decided to call himself that, but because reliable sources actually call him that. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "no consensus" in this case?

If the result of this discussion is "no consensus", does that mean the title should be Bradley Manning or Chelsea Manning?

Obviously, the title is currently controversial (a contender for most controversial title ever). However, it only became controversial on August 22, 2013. Prior to that the title was stable at Bradley Manning. It just happens that the edit wheel war over the title happened to end up at Chelsea Manning, so the formal RM was created as moving Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning. However, the real discussion is about whether the title should be one or the other, not whether Chelsea Manning should be renamed to Bradley Manning (the distinction is subtle but matters if the result of the discussion is "no consensus").

If there is no consensus, it seems to me it should be reverted to the title that was stable before it became controversial. That means Bradley Manning. Yes, I also believe that should be the title, at least for now while that's how the subject is referred most commonly in reliable sources, but that should not undermine my point/argument at all: when there is no consensus in an RM discussion, the closer should restore the most recent stable name, which in this case is Bradley Manning. --B2C 03:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think it would be Bradley Manning because there was no consensus to move to Chelsea in the first place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is evidence that BD2412 (talk · contribs), one of the closers, already understands this. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to second guess here, or start proposing what should be done if X, or Y, or Z. We're just going to have to trust the closing team. I also hope this doesn't go to move review...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Slate blog post about pronouns here

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

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)

I wouldn't be keen on that because it adds unnecessary footnotes to the lead. (The article is a GA and I was hoping to get it to FA, which is why I'm concerned about style issues.) I didn't quite follow Mjb's point about the need for an additional source, but if there is a need, the sources are bundled, so an extra source can be added to the bundle. The first footnote (ref name=Leigh2011p194) can be removed because it repeats the second. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the request. The placement of references is flexible, of course, but I don't see how adding a reference is unnecessary. The problem is that there currently seem to be no references which actually support the claim that Manning leaked the war logs; the ones given only deal with other leaked material. If there's a better all-encompassing source to use, let's use it, but in a BLP we shouldn't say she leaked the war logs, and provide nothing to back it up. —mjb (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead is adequately sourced. The rest of the sources for that point are in the body of the article; not every detail in the lead has to be sourced. See WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added an additional source here to the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 26 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)

It doesn't. "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." George Ho, two things:

1. I took a phone message while you were busy with that discussion: The trans-people of the world just called... they said that although they appreciate you looking out for them and all, they've decided to go with a different spokesperson – one who understood the difference between transgender, transsexual and transvestite.
2. It is impossible to have any meaningful point/counterpoint discussion on this "point", because it is a totally invalid argument, founded on non sequitur.

 —Grollτech (talk) 06:52, 26 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)

Well-said, Obi-Wan Kenobi. "Nevertheless, I expect a reverse of category change if the title becomes Bradley again." George, again with the non sequitur? Wikipedia's choice of page title has no bearing whatsoever on whether to categorize Manning as transgender. There are many different aspects to the discussions higher up on this page surrounding the appropriate title, but none of the ones I've read so far (besides yours) have gone to such lengths to challenge the very definition of the term transgender (I keep wikilinking the term, hoping that you will actually click on it and learn). As far as I can tell, George, you are the only person arguing this particular POV, which, absent valid reliable sources to back it up, is nothing more than WP:OR.  —Grollτech (talk) 06:52, 26 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)

MEDRS is often interpreted in an overbearing way, and this is one such instance. It is about medical claims (claims of science) not facts about specific persons. They want a scientific review article to say that the flu makes you sneeze, not that Bush had the flu one day. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 26 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)

WP shouldn't be ignoring the legal aspect of this story because of an editor's misguided notion that an Army lawyer needs medical expertise to opine about the legal ramifications of Manning's request to be recognized as a transgender in a military prison.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:18, 25 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)

I think it's absurd to expect any massive media denunciation - they've followed every possible policy option themselves. They'd be hard pressed to have a feeding frenzy on us without eating each other right down to the last dorsal fin. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 26 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)

Just a comment: I don't think we should call this transphobia. Transphobia should be when people beat up transsexuals and discriminate against them, as some sort of evidence of actual animosity. I think there should be some other category of "trans-skepticism" where a person can decide he doesn't believe the surgery and lifestyle changes really change what sex someone is, or doesn't want to stop using an old name or pronoun in certain circumstances, when there is no animosity. Much as someone can be firmly unbelieving of Islam but not Islamophobic. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 26 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)

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

It has already been pointed out many times on this page that WP:BLP Does not apply as for the "campaign" accusing others of starting a war here is not productive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been claimed. With no apparent basis other than assertion - I really don't see how WP:BLP doesn't apply to a living bio. And it has repeatedly been found to apply to talk pages, of a living bio or not - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What Knowledge, I'm sure, meant by WP:BLP does not apply was that neither name would violate the BLP policy. Whether that has truly been pointed out (proven) or just claimed is a matter of opinion, of course, but you certainly have done nothing to refute the suggestion. -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been topic-banned yet? -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No of course not, and I notice that you make yet another personal attack on an editor, thereby making it clear that it is you, if anyone, who needs to be topic banned. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu I find it interesing that you did not learn from harassment you previously received when others were outing your real life identity, since you above appear to be negating someone simply because of a content dispute. Dissapointing. Pass a Method talk 11:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit requests, minor

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

 Done by someone. Space simian (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Styling issue: quote marks in blockquote

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

 Done by someone. Space simian (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Content

I am somewhat confused as to the reason behind referring to Bradley/Chelsea Manning as she. Manning is still a male as is defined by existing sources, including Wikipedia's own articles, such as Male and Man. Physically, Manning is still producing sperm and has male genitalia. The pronoun he is known to refer to males and referring to Manning as [[She|she] discredits the encyclopedia nature of Wikipedia in an effort to be politically correct. WP:IAR instructs us to ignore all rules in an effort to improve Wikipedia; if that is taken into account, MOS:IDENTITY does not necessarily apply. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. It should be based on fact primarily, before political correctness. In my mind, the discussion on this page has gone into the weeds. Scientifically, Manning is male. When Manning does undergo a physical change, it would then be prudent to change the pronoun usage; until then, it seems that we are pandering to the will of a criminal and public opinion instead of writing fact-based articles. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 17:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an entire Talk Page worth of comments (above) arguing the opposite point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is nice to know I am not alone in saying that Wikipedia should not be taking a WP:POV stance here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Especially since WP:NPOV is one of the three core policies, which gives it more weight than the Manual of Style. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

So basically you want to ignore all rules to promote your opinion that Manning is male. How does that help the encyclopedia? Sounds a recipe for seriously damaging wikipedia to me. Calling Manning him or naming the article Bradley is what is a POV violation, putting the views of certain wikipedia editors first, even to the extreme of ignoring all rules to do so. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talkcontribs 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the comment above, it had a somewhat rude tone to it, but I'm sure I misread it. I'm not talking about my opinion here... I'm simply stating that the scientific definition of male is that it is the gender of a species that produces sperm. I am just confused as to why we would ignore definitions of terms to facilitate someone's self identification, when it comes at the price of fact-based information. As far as his name, we can call him whatever he would like to be called, but for now, no matter how you spin it, he still has male parts and is by definition a man. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 04:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steven. It is common practice to refer to a transgendered woman (which Manning is now revealed to be) using their pronouns of choice, in this case, "she". This is irregardless of any physical attributes, hormones, surgery, etc, as the pronouns refer to the gender identity of the person, not their biological sex. Sue Gardner posted a very nice summary of this yesterday to this page, you can check the logs and read it above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Steven, as someone else said, our society has come to the conclusion that gender has varying levels of identification. We can say that someone is physically male while also saying that they emotionally and mentally identify as a woman. It does not harm Wikipedia to use the subject's preferred identification in our reference of them. Especially in an article like there where her change is well documented because it will be written into the article. Resisting her is the real POV pushing only because there is little harm to the subject by using her identified gender and more harm emotionally by not using it. The real question is what proper name to use for the time being. Various arguments have ranged from similar to yours, to use her legal name, and use the name used by sources currently the most. That's what the above RFC seeks to solve.--v/r - TP 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is statement is incorrect and extremely weak, for two reasons. One, "our society" invokes an ambiguous concept; exactly which society is being referred to is undefined. Moreover, it is my understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to respresent a global perspective, not the perspective of any one society. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of people around the world (of whom Western people only make up 1/8 at best) have not "come to the conclusion that gender ..." Two, American society itself has not accepted on a widespread basis, by any measure. The mere fact that debate exists shows that this statement is incorrect. If you can refute this, do so, although the possibility of being successful is highly unlikely. GrimmC (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Arab world outsizes and outnumbers the western world, and they definitely do not share this view on transgenderism. Whose "society" is Wikipedia supposed to represent? --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely wrong. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. It is the West who are traditionally more censorious of people's gender than Asia or the Middle East. You might be confusing gender identity with sexual identity. 7daysahead (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Iran is not part of the Arab world... StAnselm (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The view that Manning is a criminal who deserves his punishment rather than a hero who committed illegal acts for the greater good is POV. Wikipedia is and ought to be neutral with regard to that contentious issue. MOS:IDENTITY is the policy regarding gender identities of transgender people in Wikipedia articles and was arrived at after much deliberation and debate. You offer no compelling reason to reject it, other than arguing in favor of using biological gender instead of gender identity, which is the exact opposite of Wikipedia's current policy. If you wish to change MOS:IDENTITY, you can petition to change that policy. WP:IAR may tell you to ignore all rules when trying to "improve" Wikipedia, but one person's idea of "improving" things is another person's idea of "ruining" things. WP:IAR only applies to things that are non-controversial, and this is DEFINITELY controversial. --Yetisyny (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he committed a crime. By that alone, he is a criminal. I just believe we as editors on what I feel is a very worthwhile endeavor should remember to be encyclopedic in nature. By that, I believe we should hold true to what terms mean. I understand your point; I respectfully dissent, but I offer my thanks. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 04:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How many times do people have to say it, MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, not policy The first sentence of it says to refer to policies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines are part of the Wikipedia rulebook, and do still have to be followed and respected unless there's a compelling reason to make an exception. Can you come up with a reason nobody's heard before as to why this situation might be different from other MOS:IDENTITY matters that have come up in the past? (I'm willing to bet you can't, just for the record.) Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Referring to her by male pronouns instead of female ones is itself a POV stance. So the only strictly NPOV way to handle it is to respect the individual's right to define themselves, and to accept the fact that whether you understand it or not, gender dysphoria is a real, recognized medical phenomenon with real, recognized symptoms and a real, recognized etiology, whose only known cure is for the person to adopt the new gender identity. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You're exaggerating a bit here Bearcat. I believe in some cases, gender dysphoria can be managed through altered presentation, not a complete switch to a new gender identity, There is a spectrum of dysphoria and of workable solutions to it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There's less difference between "adopt the new gender identity" and "altered presentation" than you seem to think there is. Altering one's gender presentation is a form of adopting the new gender identity; I didn't imply that full surgery was the only option. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dates

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.

---

Why are the dates still being listed in British format as opposed to American format? Is there some valid reason for doing so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally up-to-speed, but maybe Manning has identified as British.

This is a joke, by the way. Formerip (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, the dates are currently in DMY format (which is international, not only British); someone changed some of them to MDY recently, but left most of them, so I changed them back to make the article consistent. Once the move request is closed and the talk page is quieter, I will post an RfC asking which date format people prefer. Discussion here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a story that generates from, and concerns, the United States. Therefore, I thought that the MOS dictates that the American format be used. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:29, 26 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.

Edit Request: MOS:IDENTITY note on Talk page be removed

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

---

The MOS:IDENTITY note near the top of this talk page expresses a clear bias as its application to this article is obviously a matter of opinion. I request that it be removed until discussion regarding the page move/pronoun usage has ended. IFreedom1212 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is policy, and its application to this page is indisputable. An element of the move discussion is the question of whether this policy favors (or requires) a change to the title of the article. I see no evidence that the existence of this tag has had any influence on the opinions expressed in this discussion, and therefore see no reason to change the status quo. bd2412 T 01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The applicability of MOS:IDENTITY is the entire reason there is a dispute though. Or am I missing something... IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Freedom, right now it is being discussed if or if not MOS:IDENTITY applies, throwing a notice at the top and saying it does is not going to be helpful. I have no objections to it being restored though once the move discussion is closed pending the move outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-application would also be a biased matter of opinion. So where does that leave us? With the indisputable fact that gender dysphoria really is a real thing for objectively real whether you like it or not, that's where. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not suggesting that we put a note that says it does not apply. So just removing the note would be the neutral solution. GD is obviously disputable. I'm disputing your alleged 'fact' that Bradley Manning is suffering from anything other than being a traitor. IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your POV with regards to gender dysphoria is a fringe theory that has been widely rejected by medical science. So no, GD is not "obviously disputable." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Let it be, everyone has their own opinions, lets focus on on other things rather than worry about this right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone has their own opinions" - and yet only relevant, well-supported opinions are included in Wikipedia articles. The claim that gender dysphoria is not real is not a relevant, well-supported opinion. It is a fringe theory rejected by reliable medical sources. Good day, sir. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Everybody has their own opinions, true; however, not everybody is entitled to equal respect for their opinions. Thinking that you know better than documented medical science, for example, does not make your opinions on those issues worthy of any serious consideration. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that gender dysphoria is disputable. But until medical science agrees with you, you're not entitled to expect Wikipedia to favour your POV over the documented facts. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. This template is at the top of dozens of talk pages. We have oodles of reliable sources which refer to Manning as a transgender woman now, that is really not under dispute, and past consensus has determined which pronouns should be used in that case (note that it's entirely possible to be both a transgender woman, and "biologically" male.) In addition, normally "local" consensus cannot override broader community consensus, unless there is a good reason to IAR. If you have issues with the pronouns, my suggestion would be to join the discussion at MOS:IDENTITY. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the template. The fact that Manning is a self-identified transgender woman is not a matter of opinion. Whether MOS:IDENTITY should be controlling as to the title of the article is a matter of debate, but that does not implicate the template as "biased." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

leave it off I've changed my mind. This template is causing too much consternation. Let's leave it off pending the move request. It's been on and off, so I'd rather not debate this further. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This notice has been out of place almost the entire move discussion thus far, why now are people making a huge deal about it and where is the consensus for it's inclusion, doesn't this come first if something wants to be added? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed it, as the entire crux of this debate is the conflict of a Manual of SAtyle guideline vs. a policy on Article Names. To have one "side", as it were, appear at the top as some warning that it "must" be adhered to is unfair and damaging to the open debate we're having here. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: Well, I thought I had, but it seems others did and edit conflicts and all that. NorthBySouthBaranof in particular, you really need to get ahold of your reverting, as when you try to restore the tag (wrongly, IMO), you are also blowing away comments in another topic. MediaWIki isn't really all that robust when it comes to handling edit conflict,s so take extra care on high-traffic pages that what you're editing is what you mean to. Tarc (talk) 02:33, 26 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.

NOT a Good 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.

---

•  Not done Question answered, the consensus is to wait until a later date for a reassessment. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove the "Good Article" tag at the top? There are clearly a large number of people that have multiple issues with the article. There is clearly a large amount of debate over what should(n't) be included, what should(n't) be removed, and what is(n't) factually (in)correct. It's clearly not a good article yet. --Lacarids (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• For reference, a recent discussion: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 26 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.

Question

What do we do in other cases where a biographic topic announces a Name change? E.g. Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, Prince/Symbol/formerly known as, Sean Combs/Puff Daddy/P. Diddy. Is a transgender name change different from other types of name change? If so why?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Some here have argued, more or less, exactly that - as soon as a TG person announces a new name, we should rename the article (I disagree). In other cases, like Cat Stevens, etc, I believe it is usually commonname and other WP:AT considerations that apply. You can read the Cat Stevens talk page, to see the arguments made there - there are regular move requests, but they don't succeed. There was a discussion to change the article titling policy with a special exception for TG people, but I've just temporarily closed that discussion by request until this move request happens. This will be precedent-setting I believe, so whether an exception will be made for trans-people in the future to our regular article titling policies (based on BLP/MOS:IDENTITY concerns) is really the matter of debate above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to let the above discussion set a precedence since it wasn't handled correctly by the involved admins and consequently a lot of the discussion and !votes has focused on that, not on policy with regard to transgender persons. Space simian (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that some comments are obviously motivated by strong feelings about Manning, so basing a general policy on how to treat transgender blp titles on this discussion isn't a good idea. Space simian (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the main difference is that the use of a previous name associated with the wrong gender can be perceived as offensive in the latter case. Space simian (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentally, each case does have to be evaluated on its own merits. Cassius Clay → Muhammad Ali, for instance, took place long before Wikipedia ever existed, so by the time we had an opportunity to write an article about him at all he was already far better known as Muhammad Ali and that was therefore the title of choice. Prince also changed to the symbol before we existed, and then changed back to Prince before we ever actually had to worry about how to handle that can of worms either. Diddy, on the other hand, has his article at Sean Combs, since he's known well enough by that name that we can safely avoid the problem of his ever-shifting stage names entirely. Metta World Peace was moved to his current name soon after his name change. At Cat Stevens, however, the issue that ultimately carried the day is that he has almost no public profile whatsoever under his current name. We've also had notable women whose articles got moved right away following the name change that accompanied their marriage or divorce, and other notable women whose articles didn't. But the thing is that each case is different, raising its own issues and its own considerations, and therefore there isn't and can't be a single blanket rule that applies consistently to all possible name changes.

Normally when it comes to a transgender person, however, we have always moved the article as soon as possible. See Chaz Bono and Laura Jane Grace for two other examples where this has come up in the past. (We did admittedly wait for some added sources on Grace, but the decidiing issue in that instance ended up being that there was initially some ambiguity about whether "Grace" was her last name or a second middle name which was still followed by "Gabel". The article still did get moved as soon as we could clarify that properly, and there was never any consensus to accept the position that having been previously better known as "Tom Gabel" meant we should keep her article there any longer than we absolutely had to. Bono, on the other hand, got moved right away — it sparked the same crapstorm we're seeing here, admittedly, but that didn't result in any consensus to overturn.) The core issue is that when it comes to a transgender person, it is fundamentally disrespectful and offensive and transphobic to use anything other than their chosen name — and WP:NPOV forbids us from being any of those things. So in the case of a transgender person, our practice and precedent has always been to move the article right away (or as soon as feasibly possible if there was a quality-of-sourcing reason to hold off), but in different situations there can be different practices. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with what Bearcat says. The issues that I see with this article that is dividing everyone:

• 1. The subject satisfies notability condition prior to the publicizing of the subject's wish;
  2. The subject's wish, if carried out, may cause confusion among the readers;
  3. Additionally, the location of confinement does not lend itself to support the subject's preferred gender;
  4. The subject's wish indicated that all correspondence to the location of confinement should use the original (and the current legal) name.

• Because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, we cannot tell what will happen to Private Manning. We cannot tell whether Private Manning will remain newsworthy after the appeals, etc, are exhausted. Private Manning is definitely more notable prior to the gender/name change announcement. Of course, it's possible for an article to be written completely without gender-based pronouns (it is hard!), but I have mentioned above: There may be confusions among readers. (I'd imagine there's already confusion amongst the readers!). Whether the fact that the Military will not acknowledge Private Manning's preferred name (even after being discharged) matters remains to be seen. I will try not to rehash the discussions in sections above, but following Bearcat's examples, I'd imagine that it wouldn't be a reach to say, "Private Manning fulfilled WP:N prior to the announcement" → "Article should remain at legal name, but with contents written to satisfy MOS and other guidelines". I think this would be a compromise, but unfortunately, I personally don't think many people would take my position. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have come here from the AT talk page. The issue of name changes both for individuals, groups and organisations has been discussed in detail many times on the AT talk page as will be seen if a search is done on Muhammad Ali on those archives. This position is simple. Wikipedia should give more weight to third party reliable sources after the subject of the article announces a name change. This is covered by a sentence in the WP:AT policy in the section "Use commonly recognizable names" (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". This wording also covers the instance were and individual or organisation changes name but it is ignored or an alternative is used in third party reliable sources. Eg The artist formerly known as Prince" was far more common than the symbol that he used. Using this formula of recently published reliable sources, fits in neatly with rest of COMMONNAME which does not follow official names but it does allow for flexibility needed to follow the principles of COMMNNAME when a name change takes place. -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: remove the interpreted self-diagnosis of gender-whatever

The article currently reads: "Manning was raised as a boy, but stated that she had suffered from gender identity disorder since childhood.[3]" Where citation 3 is Manning's recent statement claiming to be 'Chelsea.' While gender disorders may have some medical literature to validate them, there is nothing that objectively validates a diagnosis that Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood. This is for two reasons:

• One, Manning cannot diagnose himself. He is not a doctor or a healthcare professional. His statement was subjective and not objective. Wikipedia should not present his alleged gender identity disorder as an objective fact.
• Two, Manning did not specify any one particular disorder. He said he has felt this way since childhood. Therefore it is only through editorial assumption that Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood.
• Three, his statement was vague. "Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible." 'The way I feel' is not the explicit declaration of "I have had gender identity disorder since I was a little girl/boy."

Unless a reliable source can be presented that objectively verifies this claim (such as a diagnosis from his childhood by a psychiatrist,) this statement should be removed. IFreedom1212 (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. It is verifiable that Manning has made the statement, which has been published in reliable sources. It is, therefore, perfectly acceptable and normal for Wikipedia to republish that assertion. You have no evidence to suggest that Manning's statement was not based upon diagnoses by medical professionals. For you to impute that it isn't is nothing more than unsourced speculation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but to be more accurate, perhaps the sentence should be "Manning was raised as a boy, but stated that she felt and exhibited symptoms of gender identity disorder since childhood.[3]" (change in italics). Otherwise, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a good way of putting it, and I have made that change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But to say that Manning 'felt like he had gender identity disorder' would be a speculation beyond the words in his statement. He was not that explicit in his statement therefore Wikipedia should not be so explicit as to finger out a particular disorder either. IFreedom1212 (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an acceptable editorial paraphrase of the meaning of her statements. There are also reliable sources reporting that Manning has been diagnosed with gender identity disorder. See, for example, [LiveScience, NYTimes, etc. Her self-identification of understanding past symptoms is not subject to debate unless you have access to medical records which disprove them.

These had not been cited before. The wording is more appropriate now that there are verifiable citations to support the statement. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If a child is diagnosed with ADHD at the age of 12, that doesn't mean that child didn't exhibit symptoms of ADHD at the age of 8, or didn't have ADHD at the age of 8. It just means that disorder went undiagnosed. It is Manning's contention that she has suffered from the symptoms of GID since childhood. You literally have no way of disproving that contention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That she was suffering from gender identity disorder is not a new thing; it had been discussed many times before, including by Manning with a counsellor several years ago, the army, and Adrian Lamo. See her chat with Lamo: "im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for 'adjustment disorder' in lieu of 'gender identity disorder'. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, please read MOS:IDENTITY and use the appropriate pronouns. This is not the first time you have been asked to do this. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No. There is plenty of discussion on why male pronouns should be used. Also, PVT Manning and I are both still members of the service and are bound by military regulations regarding how to address soldiers. AR600-20 AR600-8-104 AR600-8-14 etc. I also just disagree on a fundamental level. IFreedom1212 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

She was discharged. Does military code require you still address dishonorably discharged people in that manner? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the military, IFreedom1212. This is an article on Wikipedia, where you are expected to conform yourself in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, customs, and norms. Plenty of editors here are long-serving military, including myself. How about you check your indignation at the door and follow the rules? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I used that ARs as a reference to show that clearly there are different stances on how he should be addressed. The misconstrued application of wikipedia guidelines is not enough to convince me that Bradley Manning is a "she." And I'm not going to call him a 'her' just to make a convicted felon feel good about himself. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Then use "Pvt. Manning". Feel free to point me to the discussion on why we should call Manning "he", but the Wikipedia standard (as well as the standard in most professional and journalistic organizations) is to use the pronoun the person requests. To not use it is insulting at a minimum. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea_Manning#MOS:IDENTITY Not to mention, calling him Bradley goes hand in hand with using male pronouns. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why the page does not call her "Bradley". MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear about this: "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." You do not need a legal name change or surgical procedures to be called by your desired pronoun and name. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a large disagreement about this. I'm not going to start calling him a "she" just because you want me to. When a consensus on the matter is reached and a decision is made then there will be a clearer answer here. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're free to do so if you wish — but you do not get to claim freedom from the possible consequences of that decision, such as the potential of being temporarily or permanently editblocked if you cross the line into uncivil, attacking or disruptive behaviour. Just be aware that there is thin ice on the lake that you're skating on — you're not right on it yet, but you're not as far away from it as you might like to think you are either. So I'd advise caution. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the disagreement here is about the article title. Even if the article is moved back to the title of "Bradley Manning," Wikipedia will still refer to her as female. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well hell, then how do I go about formally suggesting that the page be reverted to the correct male pronouns? If the page is reverted to Bradley then that would only make sense. I thought that discussion was already ongoing but if it's not then I'd be obliged if we could begin that conversation. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

IFreedom1212, go to the "talk page" of our manual of style and propose a change to the section titled Identity. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

50 feet closer to that thin ice. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this seriously going to be discussed again? You've edit warred and been blocked over this matter already and it's time to stop beating the pronoun horse. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of second-guessing or factchecking people's statements about themselves, and has no way of being able to access Manning's private medical records anyway. So her own statements about herself are the only possible source that even exists for us to use — and as SlimVirgin pointed out, this is not even new information about her; it's been fairly well known for a few years already that she has been in treatment for this, and therefore she almost certainly does have a proper medical diagnosis to back her up. Accordingly, her statements have to be taken at face value until such time as a reliable source actually publishes information to the contrary (which is unlikely to ever happen, frankly.) EvergreenFir's wording change was a wise one, but the information itself is simply not up for debate unless and until you can somehow prove that it's false, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As I support using "he" in historical description of her military service, I support saying "Private Manning" in those descriptions as well. If "former Private Manning" is appropriate by military standards now, that would be acceptable for the overall description of her now. Wnt (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Work!

I just want to say you're all doing great work. (I've done very little here, but am proud to be among you.) Keep up the great work!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we will all be looking pretty stupid when this closes if the page is moved back to Bradley, since by now it is becoming clear RS is moving towards using Chelsea. So WP first prematurely switches to CM then after 7 days switches back to BM locking the page with that title for a period when it finaly has become clear it should be moved to CM. *sighs* Space simian (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see some evidence of the RS shift. What makes you say this? StAnselm (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is my impression after looking around for a while. Besides NBC, Huff Post, the Daily Mail, MSNBC and Slate mentioned earlier it looks like the New York Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian (among others) are beginning to use Chelsea. The Christian Science Monitor has a writeup on the subject: "For now, at least, and until instructed otherwise by my editors, I’ll do what that source of all undergraduate wisdom – Wikipedia – has done: Refer to Manning as female." (and if it is any indication, in my local (Scandinavian) duckpond all major news organizations have declared they will use Chelsea). Since it is the decent thing to do it is easy to predict more will follow, no? Space simian (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See, this is the problem. People are making the switch "because Wikipedia does so". Wikipedia should never be the first to spearhead a movement. This whole thing originally began as an admin powertripping problem, and the move was done without proper consensus-gathering, however the masses don't know that. All they know is that the All Mighty Wikipedia has made the switch, and therefore it's the correct thing to do. That very quote that you have posted confirms my suspicions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the same standards as the AP and APA. Other professional groups such as the AMA and AAP affirm their position to support transpeople and affirm their identity, which can be done by using appropriate pronouns. Wikipedia is in no way spearheading this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I smell a feedback loop. If we change back, then maybe some of the news sources will as well. I think we can strike CSM for this reason. And once again, this is the problem with the initial move - Wikipedia is not meant to be the trendsetter. But in any case, I don't think we can include the NYT either: the article says "Pfc. Bradley E. Manning (who now wants to be known as Chelsea)", while the caption has "Pfc. Bradley Manning, who now uses the name Chelsea". Moreover, as far as I can tell, it doesn't use any pronouns at all to refer to Manning. In other words, it hasn't made the shift. StAnselm (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Anselm makes a good point. For the most part, the sources that refer to Manning primarily use Bradley. Just because they mention the name Chelsea in the article does not mean they have shifted to that name. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That only applies to the NYT article, and the reason I mentioned that is because they are taking a step towards calling Manning Chelsea which was the original point: reliable sources are starting to favor Chelsea. The CSM article also mentions how NYT are reasoning which is why it was interesting aside from the mention of WP as inspiration. Space simian (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Benlisquare. Can you tell me why you think that WP:RS trumps the fact that Manning has changed her name, and that it would be disrespectful and incorrect for us to continue calling her Bradley? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "and that it would be disrespectful and incorrect for us to continue calling her Bradley" - you see, this is the thing I don't understand, the "disrespectful" part. As an encyclopedia, what's more important, being respectful or laying down facts? Why don't we refer to the 14th Dalai Lama as "His Holiness" instead? Using his personal name in the lede is disrespectful, wouldn't you think? Why do we call North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un? If we were to have any respect for him, we would call him "The Brilliant Leader, General Kim Jong-un", since he requests to be called by such a name. The Korean Central News Agency uses that form officially, after all, as does the majority of North Korean print and broadcast media. What's with the double standard? We name Kim Jong-un based on his common English-language name, as used by the majority of English-language reliable sources. It is well established that people call the North Korean leader "Kim Jong-un" in English print media; it is not as established (I'm not saying "not established", I'm saying "not as established") yet that "Chelsea Manning" is the name that the English-language media mostly uses. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source said that someone issued a statement that they're Jewish and have been so since childhood, would we report the fact that they're Jewish in the article? Or would we say, "you're not Jewish unless you can prove you attend synagogue at least once a month"? Would it matter how many reliable sources reported on the Judaism statement? Stating that manning is still named bradley is simply incorrect. AgnosticAphid talk 14:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. You seem to be describing servility or deference, submitting uncritically to the opinions or wishes of others. I'm referring to respect, recognition, the thing we all deserve. It's not being deferential to a person to call them by their chosen name, it's the least I would expect of a civilised person.

To rephrase my question: since it is clear that Manning has changed her name, that this is a fact, what is the good; what would the benefit be in us continuing to call her by her former name? Would it not be both disrespectful and incorrect? I'd like to know whether you think it is true that she has changed her name, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is, we shouldn't care that much about what Manning would like to be named w.r.t. the article title, (except on the pronouns), unless it's a close call in RS. If Manning announces a name change, and 99% of news sources stay with Bradley, even 6 months out, moving the article title would be ridiculous. What annoys me is the categorical approach some editors have, that suggests as soon as X announces Y, we MUST change the title IMMEDIATELY, irregardless of what sources do, or we are guilty of massive transphobia. I think it's more nuanced than that, and we need to look at what sources do, preferencing sources which appear after the announced name change. Now, most COMMONNAME arguments come down strongly on one side or another (i.e. at least an order of magnitude of difference), but there are some which are closer calls - when it is a closer call like that, then of course we should consider the subject's preference. The move from Cote d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast hinged in this question - do we follow the subject's preference, when COMMONNAME is fairly close, or do we go for the MOST common? Ultimately, it was decided to go with most common (a decision I disagreed with) -but if you're so concerned with respect, aren't you concerned with calling a country of several million people the official name of the country, when they have written letter after letter to governments and media to ask them to refer to them as Cote d'Ivoire?

Finally, you use the phrase "call her by her former name" - but we mostly avoid this issue, as we don't *call* her Bradley anywhere in the article as far as I know (nor is there a plan to) - we call her Manning or "she". Luckily, she didn't change her last name, as that would have rendered things even more confusing. The article title IS NOT the NAME of the person, and by titling an article X we ARE NOT claiming this person is "named" X. This is long-standing practice, and we shouldn't change it just for this case. Finally, I think we should all recognize WHY this is being so heavily debated - the reason is quite simple: "COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES" - there are many people in the wiki who have had a net total of 5 articles written about them, ever. But Manning is different - Manning has been the subject of multiple, ongoing, front-page media coverage for SEVERAL YEARS, and is one of the more recognizeable news personalities of the past few years. As such, the preponderance of sources that refer to her as Bradley (and that, still, seem to continue to do so) weighs heavily in favor of making the title something a user will quickly and easily recognize, while accepting that this may slightly hurt the feelings of Manning herself. C'est la vie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Respect is not a goal here, Anthony; an encyclopedia is not a AA meeting or a therapy session. While we should not ever intentionally offend, sometimes offense is a byproduct of reporting the facts honestly, as you found out in the Muhammad image debate. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a cue from actual journalists. From CNN;

CNN's policy is to reference Manning with masculine pronouns since he has not yet taken any steps toward gender transition through surgery or hormone replacement therapy.

Tarc (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Muhammad images debate I was, as you have been told, more than willing to create "necessary" offense. In fact, my preferred version of Muhammad would have without any doubt caused more offense than the present version. Because I actually believe in what you said here: sometimes offense is a byproduct of reporting the facts honestly. You've never understood my position, evidenced by the fact that you think you need to remind me of that principle.

I don't know why you're bringing up masculine pronouns. I'm talking to User:Benlisquare about what we call Manning, the proper noun. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement about the Muhammad case is not even remotely true, and we can look back on the reams and reams of text within those discussions where you argued to remove most of the images from the present article if you like. Not sure what you're trying to get away with here. As for pronouns, it is all part of the same topic; "he" and "Bradley" are the correct choices, until he legally and medically changes his current situation. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Here I describe my preferred image arrangement. The two images in the Western reception section were both more offensive than all the images in the current article combined. Take this somewhere else if you want to continue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question: Whatever the majority of English-language reliable sources use. At the moment, things are unstable due to sudden events, but once things start to settle down, we will eventually find out whether the masses have accepted "Chelsea" as the name, or if "Bradley" is still used by the majority. This is for the future, however, and at this stage, it would be a better idea in my opinion to maintain the status quo (the name previously used, Bradley) until a firm, obvious result between Chelsea/Bradley is found ("don't rock the boat"). Though some might disagree, Wikipedia has the power to sway public opinion, and this is partially why this discussion has become so contentious. Article titles based on WP:COMMONNAME are more easily calculated, and we have a definite mathematical/quantitative figure to justify the title by; it is much more difficult to "calculate" qualitative or abstract things such as "what the subject's wishes are", which is much less definitive and there is no standard to compare by, so that a fair judgment can be made. Not that long ago, the subject's wishes happened to be "Breanna", and who's to say that it won't change again? Such abstract concepts such as the "subject's will" are unpredictable, and this is why I prefer justifying things based on more solid, numbered concepts, that can be backed up with logic, not feelings. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Helpful input from Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales has commented on the case being discussed on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Transphobia_on_Wikipedia (permanent), stating that "I support the move and change" (to Chelsea Manning), that "We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. I consider that a BLP issue of some seriousness" and that "The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia." Josh Gorand (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

...and? Are you saying that we should follow his holiness' wishes? --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner have both recommended the current title, and cited good reasons for that. It seems clear there isn't a snowball's chance for this article being moved back. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Jimbo Wales guy? Do I need to know him? Is he a relevant person? Why is his opinion more important than others'? I bet he doesn't even bench press.
Who is this Sue Gardner lady? Do I need to know her? Is she a relevant person? Why is her opinion more important than others'? I bet she doesn't even bench press.
Why do I need to be concerned about these two people so much? Why are you repeatedly telling me that these people are so important? --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh Gorand has been told at least a half-dozen times now that appeal to authority (and WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem in particular) are not valid arguments to deploy in a debate, esp a contentious one. Mr Wales' and Ms. Gardner's opinions carry no more and no less weight than any of our own. Continuing to bring up a false assertion that their opinions must be weighted more when we clearly do not do such a thing could at some point be considered tendentious editing. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have partially quoted Jimbo with this addition to an essay "The overwhelming majority of sources in 2006 described Pluto as a planet. The majority of sources called Victoria Beckham by her maiden name Victoria Adams at the time of her marriage. The majority of sources described East Timor as part of Indonesia in 2002. The point is that Wikipedia content should be updated.Pass a Method talk 12:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is his opinion; within this discussion, we should accept his opinion. I am not saying that we should ignore what Jimbo has to say. We should take his points into account, but with equal weight to everyone else's opinion. My point is that comments such as "It seems clear there isn't a snowball's chance for this article being moved back" are counterproductive. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

His opinion should account no more or less than anyone else's. He is just one editor, with access to the same policies and guidelines we have (most drafted completely independent of him). And, frankly, I read his comment as more of a "it's going to happen eventually, so what's done and is done" type of remark. I'm curious how he would have felt had the move request occurred with the article being at Bradley Manning. -- tariqabjotu 12:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is in principle worth just as much as anyone else's, but in practice it's worth more because the quality of his arguments is usually a lot higher compared to that of a random editor. That's why a notification here that Jimbo has made a comment on this issue is worthwhile. It's quite similar to many physicists wanting to read any new article by Hawking, just because the author is Hawking, while they would not have done so if the author had been John Doe and the article title had been the same. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We all have four legs around here, I'm afraid. Either Jimbo is the hands-on chief from ~2005 or he's the benevolent symbolic leader of 2013. You can't pick and choose which Jimbo Era to visit like you're Doctor Who in his TARDIS. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is on the level of Newyorkbrad's. Someone we generally respect as a long standing community member who is often insightful and has more than once moved the project in a direction. However, we don't treat Jimbo as the final say in all things for two reasons: 1) Because this is a community project owned by no-one except the collective editors who donated their material under a certain license, and 2) Because Jimbo himself chose and instructed the community not to treat him as such.--v/r - TP 13:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote above that Wales and Gardner, who are knowledgable editors at this project, both have recommended that we use the current title, Jimbo citing BLP, Gardner arguing very convincingly citing MOS:IDENTITY. The point was to make readers of this talk page aware of a relevant discussion of the issue at hand where Jimbo and others offered valuable comments. Then we immediately get comments like "Who is this Jimbo Wales guy?" and "Are you saying that we should follow his holiness' wishes?" and even that their opinions on the issue "are not valid arguments" (sic!) and "I bet he doesn't even bench press", which look to me like a string of personal attacks on Jimbo (and Gardner). They are entitled to weigh in like everyone else, especially as they cite good rationales for their opinions. The snowball comment didn't refer to either of them, but rather to the fact that so many users agree BLP is the central issue at hand, and that most users who cite policy-based arguments oppose moving this article anywhere and support the current name. --Josh Gorand (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that, while many users quite understandably see this as a separate issue to a name change upon marriage, or renaming the Millennium Stadium or whatever else covered by WP:COMMONNAME, the situation is that policy does not. You can say "I see this as a BLP issue", but there's nothing in BLP that suggests not updating an article name in such cases is a violation. You can say MOS:IDENTITY suggests that the article title should reflect the subject's wishes, but it doesn't say it outright. This case sheds light on that omission, and it's a positive thing that it has done so. So instead of saying the article should be at Chelsea Manning because of implications and interpretations and what many people would consider to be "right", get the policy clarified so it reflects the views of these senior members and directly and clearly explains what is "right" in such cases. U-Mos (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to be aware that this is not the first time you have made similar comments, and given that in the past you have repeatedly made appeal to authority arguments, other people are well within their rights to suspect that you're trying to make another similar point. If your behaviour wasn't like it was in the past, perhaps you wouldn't have gotten such replies. We are often told to assume good faith, but I have seen the same authority-pandering rhetoric repeated at least fifteen times from you; would you really think that I'd still be able to treat you in a completely different manner? It's kind of like The boy who cried wolf. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor is perfectly entitled to put the views of others before us here, in debate. It is not some fraudulent rhetorical practice - it is perfectly legitimate and an essential part of most good debate. You may be confusing the editor's behaviour with the logical fallacy, appeal to authority. I don't see Josh appealing to authority there, at all.

Do not attack editors for engaging in on-topic free speech on an article talk page. If I see you tell people to shut up on an article talk page, ever again, I'll be asking for you to be indefinitely topic banned from article talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are getting way out of line, mate. You have no reason to accuse me of "telling people to shut up", or threaten me with punitive action when I have done nothing wrong. You're essentially popping down into a discussion half-way through its progress (this discussion has been going on for many days now), ignoring everything that has occurred prior, and are making assumptions based on what you think is going on. This user has had a long history within this discussion of making inappropriate comments; yes, users are expected to assume good faith, but this has gone on over and over, and I honestly have little remaining patience. This particular instance might not have been the case, but it has happened in the past, which contributes to my earlier misjudgment. This user has made comments on this talk page, at ANI, at WT:MOS, on the German Wikipedia, and many other places of the provocative nature, linking Sue Gardner's position within the WMF to some kind of victory. Comments along the lines of "Sue Gardner agrees with me, why are we still discussing this? This debate is over!" are provocative in nature, and have appeared multiple times.

Regarding Josh's statement "The snowball comment didn't refer to either of them", his original snowball comment wasn't specific or clear to begin with. He has gone "oh, but that wasn't what I meant! I honestly meant ____ instead!", which happens all the time and is somewhat understandable, but that doesn't mean that I was wrong to have interpreted that sentence in a different way. His clarification came after his original statement. To me, it sounded like he was making another similar comment like the ones he made before. In hindsight, he should have made his words more clear. Surely you're not going to say that this is a crime?

Not to mention, my patience for this user has already been eroded by the various personal attacks this person has made earlier as well (everybody who does not agree with his opinion is "transphobic"). This user is unable to accept that people may have different viewpoints, and since that I have a different upbringing to this user, I cannot share his exact viewpoint, based on how I've grown up, what my local societal environment is like, and so forth. That's not to say that I cannot accept his point of view - I accept that he feels strongly for transgender issues. Everybody here has different points of view, and this is why we are discussing right now. I have not made any comments specifically shaming the points that pro-transgender people make. What I cannot accept is that he is adamantly unwilling to accept that there are people out there who do not match his walled garden view of the world.

Ignoring the "transphobe" personal attacks for now, since this isn't central to what we are supposed to be discussing (and has already been discussed to death; see ANI and this talk page's archives), you cannot deny that this user has made numerous appeal to authority arguments in the past; if you bother to look down the rabbit hole, you will find them. Nowhere have I ever told anyone to "shut up", or driven people away to stop them from sharing their ideas. The most that I have done is express my dissatisfaction for the comments of some of the people here, that I find unnecessary. You should not be threatening me when you aren't making heads and tails of what has been going on for the past few days, and understanding how other editors actually feel. Please cease your confrontational attitude. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:benlisquare has a long history of making personal attacks and causing disruption on this page. His recent personal attacks against Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner are completely unacceptable. The warning was completely justified. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh Gorand, I do not recommend responding to accusations of personal attacks by making further accusations of personal attacks. That just bogs us down in battlegrounding. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't discuss other editors' motives on this talk page. As far as I've seen, Josh has stopped. Could you please do the same? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)

I'm fine with anything. It's just that your threat kind of ticked me off a little. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it was inappropriate, and I apologise. Also, I haven't read all of the above, but will do so before I resume barking orders. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo is just another editor for this discussion; however, his opinion is highly relevant because his volunteer job with Wikipedia involves a whole lot of dealing specifically with BLP issues, i.e. the famous people he meets. So he actually knows a lot more about, and has a lot more experience in, these issues than a random editor would. The same applies to Sue Gardner. Everyone here has four legs, but some have run a lot more marathons on them - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Four legs good, two legs better.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

His opinion means nothing alone, we go by something called a consensus here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but has he legally changed his name? Has he undergone reassignment surgery? Could he (or anyone) identify as Sparkle Night, the magical Unicorn from Grey Gully and their wikipedia article change according? WeldNeck (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

First of all, the article is excellent and I want to commend everyone who has worked on it so far. I wanted to make a point here, in appeal to those center- or right-leaning users who find the article's gender renaming a bit "revisionist", "euphemistic" or "politically correct". The moment some men in a hierarchy decided that Jorge Mario Bergoglio would become leader of their Church and change his name and identity, our Wikipedia article for Jorge Mario Bergoglio was changed to Pope Francis. No debates, no controversy, no mention that non-Catholics still think he's just Jorge, because the title of Pope and the name of Francis is what he and his "circle" had decided he would be. It should be no different for Manning, and I say this as someone who usually frowns on excessive PC language or behavior. As for pronouns, they simply distinguish gender, and if the article's namesake explicitly wishes to identify as the other gender, that should certainly become part of our accommodation just as with anything else. – Crumpled Fire (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know why these poor comparisons keep coming up. Is there a misunderstanding of the COMMONNAME argument? Pope Francis was almost exclusively known as such in reliable sources, immediately upon election. There was no mention that non-Catholics still think he's just Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but non-Catholics don't call him that; to pretty much everyone in the world (except for, perhaps, his close circle of friends and acquaintances), he was known as Pope Francis. This is not the case here, as, days later, Manning is still being referred to as "Bradley Manning". -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is another example of using the name appropriate for a given point in history. The body of the article starts off using "Bergoglio", then "Archbishop Bergoglio", then "Cardinal Bergoglio", then "Pope Francis", which is also what the lead paragraph uses (except for an initial bare "Francis" which is probably shrapnel from a long-festering edit war about whether to use titles of nobility in article naming...) Wnt (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that just means that the journalists don't know their own standards. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice how that NY times article carefully balances: "Pfc. Bradley E. Manning (who now wants to be known as Chelsea)" - This both recognizes the desired new name, while simultaneously using the more recognizeable name for the reader's sake. There's a huge difference between a wikipedia article title and usage in running text, and an even bigger difference between running text of a NY times article vs. what you would call Chelsea to her face. Everyone is equating these three things as if they're all exactly equal, but they're not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles about popes are governed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), which would override WP:COMMONNAME even if it were true that the Pope is best known to non-Catholics as Mr Bergoglio. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS: Informing the reader

Despite the MOS guideline, or in this case because of the guideline, the he/she usage is certainly going to confuse a fair number of readers coming to this article. Perhaps that might change over time, certainly if Chelsea becomes the vernacular instead of Bradley. I removed the gender pronouns from the top,of the article until the part where It states Manning's "coming out". Would it be appropriate to add a reference to the MOS to let the reader know why "she" is being used instead of "he" instead of just leaving some of them scratching their heads?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an explanation would be very helpful. It would explain the topic so as to further public understanding. We discussed this previously (you might want to dig around in the archive), but some editors expressed concern that it would draw undue attention to the subject's gender identity as if to make her seem non-normal. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re personal pronouns

I personally find it very confusing that all personal pronouns have been swapped from male to female, especially those detailing Pvt. Manning's childhood as a little boy. Can we make a consensus to label Pvt Manning as a boy up until the announcement to be female? I think a gender switch halfway through makes a little more sense than whitewashing everything as "she". thoriyan _{tlk - ctrbs} 17:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore to this suggestion, Pvt Manning herself "requested, from this day forward to be referred to by the feminine pronouns" (per the original press release). It wouldn't be a violation of her wishes to refer to her by the male pronoun before Aug 23/13. thoriyan _{tlk - ctrbs} 18:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Another statement from Manning's lawyer

On August 26, 2013, Manning's attorney David Edward Coombs and the Private Manning Support Network (formerly the Bradley Manning Support Network) jointly posted what they call "Additional clarification on PVT Manning's request." http://www.bradleymanning.org/featured/announcing-the-private-manning-support-network It reads in part:

"While PVT Manning wants supporters to acknowledge and respect her gender identity as she proceeds into the post-trial state of her life, she also expects that the name Bradley Manning and the male pronoun will continue to be used in certain instances. These instances include any reference to the trial, in legal documents, in communication with the government, in the current petition to the White House calling for clemency, and on the envelope of letters written to her by supporters. She also expects that many old photos and graphics will remain in use for the time being." (Boldface in original.)

It's unclear whether PVT Manning's expectation about continuing use of male name and pronouns represents her preference or merely an acknowledgement that old usages will persist. JohnValeron (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's rather clear. Manning expects male pronouns to be used because that is the reality of how the topic has been discussed in these contexts. I don't see any basis that Manning has changed her preferences based on the above statement. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

GASP! Where is the army of editors jumping on the chance to go in and change all the pronouns in the articles? It looks like NONE of these changes have been made! Could it be that the users who were so quick to make the changes to the article when Manning "announced" he was a woman (as if that just makes it so) gave less than one flying fuck what Manning wants or expects, and were just looking for an opportunity to push their ridiculous advocacy position on a neutral encyclopedia? TUM TUM TUMMMMM! The plot thickens! Clinton (talk)

Cjarbo2, please be aware that some users have cited what they believe to be policy arguments for the move to Chelsea, and that not all users may be "advocates" for social change. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely though (notwithstanding my statement below), Manning's own statement puts this entire debate to bed? If he says that he expects male pronouns to be used, then we can take it as implicit acceptance that his Wikipedia article will still refer to him as "he" and "Bradley". --The Historian (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

She asked for respect and acknowledgement of of her gender identity but said that she expected that the name Bradley and male pronoun would be used in various legal contexts. That is not inconsistent with her original statement asking people to use the female pronoun and new name except in official mail to the prison. I fail to see how this is earth-shattering or in any way determinative.AgnosticAphid talk 19:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. It does take the wind out of the sails of the "must use female names/terms now!" side of the debate a tad, but in terms of having a practical effect on the Wikipedia it probably amounts to little, since we shouldn't be relying on the subject's personal preferences anyways. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that some people already are going by what he subject's personal preferences are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that, as Tarc puts it, "we shouldn't be relying on the subject's personal preferences anyways," is downright bizarre. Why did Manning's Wikipedia article require an emergency sex-change operation in the first place? It wasn't because Manning underwent hormone therapy or surgery to alter his gender. It was solely because Manning, through his lawyer's appearance on the Today show, expressed a preference, and Wikipedia's doctors of political correctness sprang into action. JohnValeron (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A person's gender identity is not conditional on completing the process of hormone therapy and surgery. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly, not everyone subscribes to that notion, and it is quite wrong of you and a handful of others to push your ideology onto people who hold a different opinion on the matter. There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning" here. What we have is a man named "Bradley Manning" who wants to be called by this other name (and awhile ago it was reportedly "Breanna") and referred to as "she". That is all. That is the reality that the article should reflect, the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. Bradley Manning was a solider in the United States military. Bradley Manning was caught passing classified intel to unauthorized parties, convicted, and sentenced. After that, Bradley Manning decided to be called "Chelsea". That is how the flow of the article should be, these are all things that a man named Bradley Manning did, you can't just flick a switch and rewrite history to say "Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act..." and so on. That just isn't historically accurate or truthful. When and if he legally changes his name, that is when the transition process of the article should begin. That all was simply way too soon. Tarc (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I've pointed out before, the problem with insisting on completion of the medical or legal processes as the standard for recognition of a transgender person's new identity is that those things are covered by privacy laws. Nobody but her and her lawyers has a right to access her legal records; nobody but her and her doctors has a right to access her medical records — which means that you're insisting on a standard which no reliable source will ever be able to properly verify whether or when she's successfully met them. It's an unattainable standard which a transgender person can never actually meet unless her privacy is consensually or non-consensually violated in a way that would still be an inadmissible source (e.g. a tabloid stealing her name change documents; somebody actually publishing an unauthorized photograph of her in the communal shower.) That's why it's not conditional on completing the process: there's no way that her completion of the process can ever be properly verified. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc &John Valeron, you both appear to be pushing a fringe view which rejects the medical consensus. The position which Bearcat describes ert to gender identity is the consensus position of the medical profession: WPATH's SOC notes that:

"gender dysphoria—broadly defined as discomfort or distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth."[9]

You are of course quite entitled to disagree, and there are many fringe views on these matters. However, if you want to misuse these discussions to push your own theories about transgenderism and the process of gender reassignment, please have the courtesy not to denounce those with mainstream views as pushers of ideology or "political correctness".

If you insist on approaching the biographies of trans people with your own set of definitions, and insist on applying a standard which (as Bearcat illustrates) is unattainable, you are effectively demanding that Wikipedia should permanently reject the identities of trans people. That is a blatantly ideological position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

She has asked in very clear terms that "starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun." The new comment just recognises that sources using her former name will still exist. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"...expects that the name Bradley Manning and the male pronoun will continue to be used in certain instances...These instances include any reference to the trial" This is clear cut. Pronouns and name usage must be reverted now regarding Bradley Manning in his pre-female-announcement life. I request that the page be edited so that the male pronouns are used before Bradley's announcement. I also request that the page use the name Bradley before his announcement. IFreedom1212 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I somehow read the statement like three times and missed the apparent meaning of the "reference to the trial" part of it. It's true that maybe as Tarc said it "takes the wind out of the sails" of the one side to some degree. But really, before wasn't your position that what the person themselves wanted wasn't relevant? Do you suddenly think that we should defer to the subject's wishes? How does this statement change things, really? It doesn't really address the larger question of whether it is in fact accurate to use female pronouns in this situation, a question about which there can be a reasonable difference of opinion. AgnosticAphid talk 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Information from Manning's lawyer about pronouns and the photograph

I've obtained clarification of Manning's statement today from her lawyer, David Coombs, which I'm sharing with his permission. Regarding the pronoun, he wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material. I also asked about the current main photograph, and he said that Chelsea is proud of the photograph and would want it to be used until a better one becomes available.

I don't think we should rush to change the pronouns just yet. We should decide on the title first, for one thing. But I'm posting this so that we know what the lawyer's and Manning's preferences are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this carries weight to those who reply here saying "Well this is what manning wants so...." but thanks Slim for the clarification. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• My personal interpretation of the statement would lead me to the conclusion that "change all pronouns/names in events prior to August 22, 2013 to male/Bradley && differentiate between Chelsea/Bradley on events post August 22, in addition to restoring the title to Bradley" would be the neutral, proper way of interpreting it. (And I think it could be valid. But that's just me...) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought

If reliable sources report on Manning in a way that is seemingly or actually transphobic, should we do the same? CaseyPenk (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise about banging on about this, but Wikipedia:COMMONNAME does say this: "[Wikipedia] prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. 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." Since the majority of reliable sources stick with "Bradley" (for instance the BBC does so), then we are obliged to do so too. I note with, as far as I can see, Wikipedia:MOS doesn't seem to say anything on the matter. It should also be noted that Wikipedia:COMMONNAME derives from Wikipedia:TITLE. which describes itself as a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:MOS is described as a "guideline", so therefore, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME trumps Wikipedia:MOS twice - Wikipedia:MOS doesn't discuss article titles at all, whilst Wikipedia:COMMONNAME does, and secondly, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is an official policy, whilst Wikipedia:MOS is not, so Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is therefore more important, more authoritative than, and deserves more weight than, Wikipedia:MOS --The Historian (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is at the crux of the debate. Some have said (notably Jimbo), that there is a systemic bias issue at play here. What's not clear to me is, should Wikipedia document and represent such systemic bias, or take a normative stance against it? This isn't easy, and requires editorial judgement (again, Jimbo made this claim) - tackling systemic bias is very hard, especially for an encyclopedia presumably written only on the basis of sources. Nonetheless, we aren't here to right great wrongs. If wikipedia was written in the 1910s, we would probably have had categories for "Negro writers" and so on - even if those creating the 1910s wikipedia felt that those words were archaic (see http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=negro+writer&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=). There's a continuum between "done in a way that addresses systemic bias", "progressive", and "activist". Where should we be, and what goes too far? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

And my point is that since WP:COMMONNAME trumps the MOS, and since WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we use the more recognisable name (Bradley, in this case), this article MUST be moved to Bradley Manning. --The Historian (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is also more notable for having the name Bradley. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, "notable for" means "has an encyclopedia article because". Manning is notable for being a convicted criminal who leaked classified military documents while serving in the US military; Manning is notable while, not "for", having the name Bradley, and "while" has no bearing on anything one way or the other. Dead people were notable "while" they were alive, but that doesn't mean we don't update their articles to reflect the fact that they're not alive anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

COMMONNAME has an allowance for legitimate exceptions written write into it. COMMONNAME also directly contains guidance on what to do in a name change situation; that guidance says that you base the move decision on sources written after the name change was announced, and many sources are shifting over. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently transphobic can be used as stigmatization label even for people who just disagree with postmodernist perceptions of gender, indeed, those who lean more for biological determinism of the sexes. Transphobia seems pretty vague, varying from pure hatred towards transgender people from just preferring to use Bradley in this article. What you suggest, some form of moral policing I suppose, is utterly wrong. Who would determine what reliable sources are reporting in a way seemingly transphobic? Also, I believe there is a previous administrative action case of Wikipedians describing fellow editors asIslamophobic, because it's very close to a personal attack (especially as some people felt it concerns commenting another editor's mental state, an accusation of a medical phobia). In any case, it's not very good for the community that people are calling other editors -phobic or the other way "politically correct liberals". I'm sure disagreements can be solved without resorting to such self-righteous means. -Pudeo' 21:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria is a real, recognized thing with real documented symptoms (an internal gender identity that doesn't match the physical sex of the body), real documented causes (a brain whose physical structures really do match those of the internal gender identity and not those of the body), and a real documented course of treatment (gender transition). It's not a "postmodernist perception"; it's a real, honest-to-gawd medical condition that actually exists, and is very well documented in medical literature. I don't even agree with every word I've ever seen written about gender either, but the basic existence of gender dysphoria is not a matter for debate. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The basic existence of gender dysphoria is a matter for debate just like evolution and gravity are matters for debate. To imply certanty and certan agreement, especially in sociological issues, is intellectually dishonest.CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you're free to disagree with its existence if you want; you can even write an article on alternative theories of gender dysphoria if you want. But as long as the condition is recognized as legitimate by established medical science and verifiable in published medical literature, a biography of an individual person is not the place to wage a battle on whether medical science is right or wrong about the existence of the condition. Sure, there's a place to debate it — an article about a specific person who has been diagnosed with it is not that place. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Name

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.

---

• Please put your opinion in the move discussion at the top of the page thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is very well possible that Bradley is considering a name (and sex) change. But should we follow suit? Article names normally follow the name that is most known per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. For instance Cat Stevens is not 'Yusuf Islam'. The name change isn't even official yet. So I suggest we move the tittle back to Bradley Manning.--Wester (talk) 20:05, 26 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.

Come on now people

Really has nothing to do with article improvement. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What a bunch of nonsense. So, a man simply walks up, announces that, from now on, he wants to be addressed as a woman, and his name is now such and such. Seriously, is that how someone changes their gender? What about their citizenship? Marital status? Has everyone here been so cowed by BS terms like "transphobia" that we lost our marbles? WeldNeck (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC) See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What should have be done

Lock the article as it was, place a tag saying that the content might be out of date, and wait until everything's cleared up. It's not like there was really anything going on.

Hell, you can still revert and do it. Fix what was broken. --Niemti (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But that's also for future instances of things like that.--Niemti (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC related to unprofessional conduct

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

• Guidelines:

1. WP:GOODFAITH
2. WP:ETIQ
3. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

• Policies:

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND

I am someone who normally supports the open and free discussion of articles. Usually, editors are able to keep themselves composed, make the discussions relevant to the subject of the article, and are able to improve it. That notwithstanding, very little of the discussion here is on Manning. Most of the talk page discussion are 40+ users attacking each other on if they're transphobic or trolls. I'm a supporter of transsexual rights; but it's very counter intuitive for people to go as far as to accuse someone of hating transsexual people just because they have different opinions, even if they are against transexuals or vice versa. Besides that, a lot of people on both sides of the issues have used baiting and personal attacks which is especially problematic. This incivility needs to stop. Jimbo Wales has done nothing to discourage personal attacks and has still let both sides argue against each other. The only threads that have not been affected by this ridiculous unprofessionalism are the main survey and edit requests. Even a thread I made to try to combat this went into that type of territory and another one was ignored. Therefore, we need to discuss having the other sections not related to edit requests and the main survey archived so everyone can stop attacking each other. Discussion is a privilege; not a right and it can be removed when the community has been showed to not be deserving of it. --Thebirdlover (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• This should be speedily closed, there have already been unprofessional conduct discussions here which are now closed and on the admin board which are ongoing no need to start another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment I don't think this is an accepted use of the RfC process. RfCs (unless they are RfCs on individual users' conduct) are supposed to be about article content, which this is not about. I have no comment on the better avenue for addressing the issue you want addressed, but I will say any unmoderated discussion similar to this (with or without the RfC template) will just result in more of the problem -- mudslinging -- that you feel has consumed this talk page. -- tariqabjotu 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Closure of proposed move

There are 277 hits for "support" and 142 for "oppose" on this talk page. It will take a long time to close this. Is it really that important, and when will this be decided? Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 01:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It'll be closed on Thursday. Patience, young grasshopper. (Also, the survey is actually about 150-115 support:oppose at the moment.) -- tariqabjotu 01:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)