Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage

Sources discussing the title of this Wikipedia article

On initial move from Bradley to Chelsea Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning's New Gender, Slate, August 22 How Wikipedia Edited Pvt. Manning’s Gender Without Spectacle, TruthDig, August 22 Wikipedia Changed Its Entry To Properly Reflect Chelsea Manning's Name, Buzzfeed, August 22 Chelsea Manning: on pressing the button, Geekfeminism, August 22 Wikipedia battle rages over Chelsea Manning's gender identity, The Daily Dot, August 23 Behind the Wikipedia wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea, New Statesman, August 23 On reversal from Chelsea to Bradley Wikipedia decides Chelsea Manning will remain 'Bradley' for now, The Daily Dot, August 31 Wikipedia refuse le changement de nom de Chelsea Manning, Slate, September 2 Something Rotten at the Sausage Factory: How Wikipedia Embraced Transphobia for Chelsea Manning, Philip Sandifer (blog), September 3 The struggle over gender on Wikipedia: the case of Chelsea Manning, HASTAC, September 3 Chelsea Manning and Wikipedia, Phoebe (blog), September 3 How Wikipedia got it wrong on Chelsea Manning, and why, Sue Gardner (blog), September 4 Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Wikipedia, New Statesman, September 4 (List courtesy of [1])

Template:connected contributor?

Do we need to stick one of those templates pointing out I'm a Wikipedia editor here, or is that too a) marginal, b) obvious? Morwen (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No comment on your question, but I would politely ask that you refrain from editing the article as you are a source in some of the articles that are used as sources. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't intending to. Morwen (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't edited the article and not the talk page (aside from this question) I wouldn't think a connected contributor template is appropriate - since you aren't a contributor to the article. Iselilja (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as Morwen acknowledges that Naillacquer (talk · contribs · logs) is her alternate account, which I assume to be the purpose of the template, I can't see what the problem is here. This is explicitly allowed per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. It's high time people lay off Morwen and find something constructive to do. Such as, dunno, maybe uh…help write an encyclopedia?170.170.59.139 (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Naillacquer is certainly not me. I'd be happy to be checkusered to demonstrate this: in the mean-time you hopefully draw that conclusion from the edit times. I might stay up inadvisably late arguing on the Internet, but not that late. Morwen (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Name change?

No, I'm not proposing that this be called the Bradley Manning media coverage controversy. Instead, I'm wondering about whether it needs to be more specific. Was there no controversial coverage of Private Manning previously? Clearly, the article is about the contoroversy following the name change Should we have Chelsea Manning naming controversy or something? Not that the renaming itself is controversial - it is the coverage. I'm not ready to do an RM yet - I'm still thinking. StAnselm (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree with you. Considering Chelsea Manning is already a controversial figure who has been in and out of the news for some time now, the title of this article is a bit to broad or general given the topic it covers. — Richard BB 13:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are name changes customarily acknowledged as fact simply on the wish of the named person, or does the name change have to be legally registered? If not, are they acknowledged only in cases of transgender identification or can anyone at all forego their given name just upon a declaration? Starranger00 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia?

With all the coverage, and coverage about the coverage - what makes Wikipedia notable? All we have is two opinion pieces... StAnselm (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a case of us (editors) viewing our little editing bubble as incredibly in-the-news. It's forgivable and I do the same; as such I would be unable to determine whether coverage of the Wikipedia article is notable enough for a section. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There was one more source. I removed it when I removed the sentence about it. (Didn't think we needed a sentence for every source). But I should have moved the source as a reference to the opening sentence of the secttion rather. I don't have a firm opinion on Wikipedia should be mentioned or not, but it should be rather short, lest we go into details we don't normally cover. Iselilja (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There are more sources that should be added. I think I've seen at least a dozen. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• This section should be removed per WP:SUBJECT — "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)." --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See my edit summary on the topic. That rule is about articles mentioning themselves; we are allowed to have other articles mentioning a subject. — Richard BB 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No! Section should definitely not exist per WP:SUBJECT. Is this article about media reaction to Wikipedia? No! It's about media reaction to Manning. Read my excerpt above again. It is essentially a breakaway section of the same article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's kept, what are the thoughts on Wikilinking the userpage of the editor who changed the pronouns? I think it's no different than linking any other subject, and seems proper in this context, where her action as an editor is the focal point of the paragraph. Not something I care enough to argue for, just wondering if it seems to makes sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

I did a search and found four or five articles that mention a wikipedia user name, and done of them had a wikilink. It seemed wrong to have it somehow, and I had a feeling there must be a policy about it somewhere, though I couldn't find anything. StAnselm (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is kept (which it shouldn't), then the sentence regarding the interview with the Wikipedian definitely isn't appropriate per WP:UNDUE and WP:SUBJECT, and on no account should we ever link to a Wikipedian's user page from the main article space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia's part in the renaming has been covered in reliable sources, no reason to not report what has already been covered. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia section now has an intro with some general information/detailed stuff about Wikipedia (how many readers etc.) This looks out of place; those who want to know more about Wikipedia can click the hyperlink, just like if you want to know more about New York Times or the other Also, it's kind of WP:Synth, as it is based on sources that is not related to the Manning coverage. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

First, it's hardly synth if it's supporting the facts presented as is, no one is saying how many people are reading the Manning article although that information is surely available. The Wikipedia information is not particularly well known, and supports why Wikipedia is mentioned at all. If some other website was the number one destination for biography information we should note that as well. This article needs to be developed not chipped away at. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 31 August

2013 (UTC)

"supports why Wikipedia is mentioned at all". Arguments for why Wikipedia should be included in the article belongs on the talk page, not in the article itself. If we are to describe Wikipedia at all in the article it should be very short, like the "user edited, widely-read encyclopedia" Wikipedia or similar. We shouldn't put in statistics and its "read by more thanhalf-billion people every month", fifth most visisted netsite etc. That's just too many off-topic specifics. Just like the article would look strange and unfocused if we gave the numbers of readers for every paper we mentioned in the article. Iselilja (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The talkpage is where we talk about the article and content. The article needs to spell out to readers why Wikipedia played a role in the initial reporting. It's the most widely read website of its kind. And if the most-read newspaper did something specifically relevant then it might be worth noting it was the most-read publication at the time. In this case i think the reader benefits from knowing not that we are simply referencing ourselves but that Wikipedia itself is highly read source of information and played a role in the media coverage of this event. Many - if not most - readers have no idea of the impact Wikipedia plays. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this edit; the section it removed (which was reinstated) is just Wikipedia tooting its own horn, which it's not supposed to do in its articles. As was pointed out, the section on the New York Times doesn't introduce it by saying how many people read it or that it is written by professionals. -sche (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've removed the section again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be missing the point. Not explaining why we have a Wikipedia section is what I see as tooting our own horn. Maybe it can go in a footnote? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This seriously does not belong here per WP:SUBJECT. This is about press reaction to Manning, not press reaction to Wikipedia. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs at Wikipedia in the media. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree per WP:SUBJECT - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And you are both mistaken. Reliable sources are talking about how Wikipedia handled/is handling the gender identity change. We report what the sources state. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:Subject since you are invoking it - "unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself". Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - and the topic of the article is media reaction to Manning. NOT media reaction to Wikipedia pages. It puts WP:UNDUE importance on Wikipedia by inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The media coverage includes Wikipedia's process and decisions. There are at least a dozen reports on that one aspect. And the subject of the article is how the media responded to Chelsea Manning's gender identity announcement - this includes how they reported on Wikipedia's coverage per WP:Subject. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The media coverage of Wikipedia is not the same topic. At best, maybe we could include a single sentence, but not an entire section. Especially seeing as we've changed the article title back now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:SUBJECT that warrants removing the information. This article is not Chelsea Manning, it is Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage, which seems to meet WP:SUBJECT's point that a Wikipedia article should not cover itself; this article does not because media is discussing the Chelsea Manning article, not this one. What part of WP:SUBJECT are you referring to? - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)." --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's the part you're referring to, then WP:SUBJECT does not support removing the information. This article is not the Chelsea Manning article, and as the information you're removing is not about this article, WP:SUBJECT does not apply. If this information were being included in the Chelsea Manning article it'd be one thing, since that article is about the person. This article is about media coverage of Manning's gender identity; as that media coverage included the Chelsea Manning Wikipedia article, it warrants inclusion in this article. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is essentially the same article - it's just a breakaway part of that article, and will seemingly be merged back if the below merge discussion stays on its current course. That aside, I still feel that WP:SUBJECT is completely relevant to this article even if it isn't merged. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a breakaway, just as Depictions of Muhammad is "just a breakaway part" of Muhammad. Yet WP:SUBJECT specifically uses Depictions of Muhammad as an example of where information would be appropriate; this is no different. This article is not the subject of the coverage, thus WP:SUBJECT does not apply. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 21:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That article is about depictions of Muhammad, of which a Wikipedia depiction is one. However, per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not "the media". --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Now you're talking about article scope, which is entirely different than WP:SUBJECT and has no bearing on its lack of application on this article. Nobody suggested that Wikipedia was "the media", so WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant to this content. The media did, however, discuss the Chelsea Manning Wikipedia article in its coverage of the individual, which warrants its inclusion in the article. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey on Wikipedia section

Since there is still considerable debate over whether to include the Wikipedia section or not / how much we should include, let's put it to a survey (not a vote). Please state your preference below (e.g. keep as is, remove, keep but shorten, keep but expand). CaseyPenk (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Expand using reliable sources, per WP:SUBJECT. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:SUBJECT. The topic of the article is media reaction to Manning, not reaction to how Wikipedia dealt with the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(at best it might deserve a passing sentence, but a whole secion is WP:UNDUE, which is what it was initially flagged as). --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:SUBJECT. Focus should be on Manning not Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Nothing in WP:SUBJECT warrants removing the content from this article. This article discussing another article's coverage in reliable sources is outside of what WP:SUBJECT advises against, which is articles reporting on itself. There might be something else in the MoS that advises against the content, but WP:SUBJECT isn't it. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 21:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Include. Wikipedia is a highly read website, and the way editors and later administrators responded to Manning's announcement did not escape attention. I don't know that it merits an entire section, but to not mention it seems peculiar. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Exclude - not a significant aspect of the subject. StAnselm (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A preponderance of reliable sources disagree with your assessment. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shorten at least and probably exclude. The presentation of Wikipedia in the first paragraph should definitely go. I don't have an opinion on whether WP:Subject applies here, but regardless I don't see media's coverage of Wikipedia's change as extensive enough to be notable. But then again, the notability of the article's topic at whole may be questionable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We have about two dozen sources talking about Wikipedia's coverage. That's plenty for almost any subject to be notable. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude. This should be about the media's coverage, not Wikipedia's action. If anything this section should be shortened and renamed to Slate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We have numerous sources discussing Wikipedia's actions. We don't censor just because we're uncomfortable about the attention. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, SF5000 seems to think its ok to add this text back after someone else (me) removed it using some procedural claptrap as a reason. I thought once new content is objected too, it remains out of the article until there is agreement to include it, not the other way around. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It was removed because of WP:SUBJECT, which has been shown to be a mist an read of that guide. Now there remains no valid reason to censor this information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you seem to be in the minority. Just where do you see agreement to include above? And kindly don't imply what my motives are. I take exception to your implication that I am in favor of censoring or am uncomfortable with the content.

Your right, I shouldn't imply anything and I apologize. WP:SUBJECT was applied until it was demonstrated that that doesn't apply to this case. There remains no policy decision to exclude this reliably sourced content. If the article is saved we can work on what material to include and how. We do have two dozen sources so there seems no rationale for having no content as that would violate NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur with SF5000. We're the story for this bit, like it or not - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Expand using reliable sources as we would whenever wikipedia hits the news♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So far, there's not much controversial here

At present, this is a rather straight-forward recitation of the name-change events. If this title and article focus remains, then perhaps we should see more quotations and analysis from reliable sources that did not view this move so favorably.

• Bradley, er, Chelsea Manning Should Take His Punishment Like a Man (American Spectator)
• Manning and Hasan — and the political correctness devastating the U.S. military (Washington Times)
• Bradley Manning isn't a man (Human Events)
• Introducing the Leaker Formerly Known As Bradley Manning (CNS News)

and so on. Otherwise this needs a re-title, or a reconsideratin on whether we need an article or not. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Chelsea Manning article

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

---

I don't think "controversy" is an appropriate description, a better title could be Chelsea Manning media coverage dilemma. However this event is not notable enough to warrant its own page, I think this article should be deleted, possibly merged into Chelsea Manning. Space simian (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never understood why these media article are spun out so fast. Neither this article nor the Chelsea Manning article are particularly long, and this unnecessary split is... well... unnecessary. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the article's authors were thinking about, but perhaps this is a response to the fact that the main Chelsea Manning article is protected. This page is one of the few outlets to actually write something about a topic that many people have strong feelings about; it's sort of an outlet for journalistic desires. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree this material should be shortened (esp. overemphasis on NY Times) and merged with the primary article. There is no sensible reason to have a dedicated Wikipedia article for Manning's "Gender Identity Media Coverage," which as a standalone newsworthy event will likely be very short-lived. JohnValeron (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For exactly the reason you give, "[this] will likely be very short-lived.", I would caution against merging anything at the moment. For starters it would require a strong and explicit consensus to do so while the main article is protected, and any merge discussion that did manage to get a word in edgeways would be subject to people arguing about WP:CRYSTAL and whether that means it should be separate or merged for the time being. Not merging it is obviously a lot less effort than merging and then splitting, so I'd recommend waiting until we know how long or short lived the issue is before deciding where we should cover it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it'd just require the same consensus that any other merge would require. The protection of the main article has nothing to do with a merge, nor does WP:CRYSTAL, nor do the many silent voices that choose not to make their opinion known when the decision is made, given that it is properly advertised. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference I made the above comment before this was a formal move request and before it had been advertised at the main article's talk. A suitably advertised RM (as this now is) does have the potential to form a strong consensus, but I'd still be very wary about performing the edits needed to merge this in to the main article while it was fully protected. See my formal !vote below for more on WP:CRYSTAL (neither this comment nor the one above should be regarded as a (!)vote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The Chelsea Manning article has been almost exclusively about Manning's classified documents leak, criminal charges, and trial until only very recently. The Chelsea Manning media coverage drama is arguably more notable for what it reveals about how transgender people are treated in contemporary American society – and about how Wikipedia works – than for anything it says about the particulars of the Manning case. Dezastru (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't need separate articles to cover this; both are about Chelsea Manning and neither is long enough to warrant this splitting into two articles. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The present article is only the tip of the iceberg on these issues, the Wikipedia section includes just two of the many possible sources. There is a bigger story here that centers on how the media can be bias against gender nonconformity and how they are scrambling to adapt to new media sources. Additionally transgender issues mirror but lag behind other LGBT issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be worthy of inclusion on an article concerning transgender issues in general. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As it pertains to this subject as noted in reliable sources it belongs here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note I've left a note at Talk:Chelsea Manning advising of this proposed merger and inviting comments here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't merge it just yet, given that the other article is still in a state of fierce debate at the moment, but I think it should be merged. The subject of Manning's gender identity doesn't seem likely to me to have much long-term notability, and I'm not sure what more there could be to say about it than this article says already. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Looks like WP:RECENTISM to me (and not a unique case), the media hype will most likely die out within several days or so. Brandmeister^talk 15:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Nothing warrants this content being split from the main Chelsea Manning article, including controversy, debate, discussion, or a locked article. Every topic the mass media covers doesn't need an article to discuss the coverage by the mass media; in fact most don't. WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM all apply. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Nobody will give a flying crow about this in a few days. Just some news fluff. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge to Chelsea Manning. There really isn't anything in this article that could be added to Manning's biography, because it's about the media coverage, not about Manning. Other options are to redirect the title to Chelsea Manning without a merge of content (i.e. delete it without an AfD), find another article to merge it into if something appropriate can be found, or leave it as it is. Of the three, I lean toward leaving it as a stand-alone article, because readers may find it interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I changed to merge because the article is turning into a fork and second battleground – with material being copied over word-for-word from the main article, rather than it developing into a distinctive stand-alone – and also because there has been no further notable coverage in reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to avoid this becoming a POV fork of main article content. There's not enough here to support a standalone article, and the shelf-life of the "controversy" is limited. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for now (for the avoidance of any doubt, this my formal recommendation, my comments above are not). The very significant coverage of Manning's gender idenity and the associated controversy is still ongoing. It is thus WP:CRYSTAL to say that it will have a short shelf life or be very short lived - at this point we cannot know that and we should avoid changing the status quo until we do. As for SlimVirgin's comments, as it stands now I can see a summary of this article having a suitable home in Manning's biography, but I can see how either could develop in a way that makes that inappropriate. Again, I don't think we are in a position at the moment where we can reliably make these sort of judgements about the topic so we should leave things as they are until we can. That could be within the period of this RM (in which case I'll revisit my recommendation) but it isn't necessarily the case. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• A stand-alone article might be more appropriate if it were to broaden out and examine the history of Manning's transition – from Bradley to a tentative Breanna to Chelsea; how it determined how much Wired published of the Manning–Lamo chats (they withheld some because of that private issue, leading to criticism from people who didn't know why they had withheld any and were suspicious of their motives, including Glenn Greenwald); how the gender dysphoria figured as part of her defence; how the US Army has handled similar cases; what they did in her case at the time; the announcement after sentencing; the media response; and the availability of hormone replacement therapy in US and US military prisons.

  The only question is whether it would be horribly intrusive for Manning to have all that published material about a sensitive issue gathered together into one article – much of it is in the biography, but not in detail – but given the announcement it's unlikely that she'd mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. There's a fair bit of puffery here, especially the wikipedia section. But this topic doesn't even constitute a subsection of Chelsea Manning - it's not like the material there got too unwieldy and a new article had to be created. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is brand new and partisan turf wars are better kept here rather than the main article. This can be a good article once more content and sourcing, which are readily available, are added. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. Over time, it will become impossible to differentiate between Manning and the controversies the Private has created. This is a clearcut case of recentism and the articles should be merged. Andrew³²⁷ 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE this seems like an entirely appropriate stand-alone article. Putting all of this stuff into the main article about Manning would unduly emphasize something very narrow, the media coverage of the transgender issue, in relation to the overall topic of Manning. It further seems to me that the arguments about WP:RECENTISM are arguments appropriate for an AfD, not a proposed merge. This discussion isn't about whether the overall topic is notable, it's about the location of the topic assuming it is notable (I think?). AgnosticAphid talk 22:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reasons explained above by Dezastru and SlimVirgin. The Chelsea Manning article has been almost exclusively about Manning's classified documents leak, criminal charges, and trial until only very recently. The Chelsea Manning media coverage drama is arguably more notable for what it reveals about how transgender people are treated in contemporary American society – and about how Wikipedia works – than for anything it says about the particulars of the Manning case. There really isn't anything in this article that could be added to Manning's biography, because it's about the media coverage, not about Manning. Other options are to redirect the title to Chelsea Manning without a merge of content (i.e. delete it without an AfD), find another article to merge it into if something appropriate can be found, or leave it as it is. Of the three, I lean toward leaving it as a stand-alone article, because readers may find it interesting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The page has expanded since my first comment. I agree with Anythingyouwant et al. It would be a lot of work of uncertain benefit to merge so better to wait. Since the contentious title has been changed I don't see much harm in leaving the page and see how it evolves. --Space simian (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. The primary Wikipedia article now provisionally titled "Chelsea Manning" already contains a 3-paragraph section devoted to "Gender reassignment." The present, bloated standalone article on "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" should be condensed and incorporated into that "Gender reassignment" section where it belongs. To argue, as SlimVirgin does above, that the material here is "about the media coverage, not about Manning," is absurd. After all, the main article's existing section "Reaction to disclosures" is entirely about media coverage. So why is it OK to devote 4 paragraphs (nearly 400 words) to media coverage of Manning's disclosures but wrong to trim and merge media coverage of gender identity into the same article? JohnValeron (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem including a very brief summary of this article in the article about Manning, but this article has enough material for a standalone article. In contrast, there's not enough material for a standalone article about media reaction to the disclosures (i.e. leaks).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Do you realize how much media reaction there has been in the three years since Manning's leaks? It's humongous. There only reason that section isn't larger is because sensible editors quickly realized there was far too much to incorporate therein, so they wisely kept it to 4 paragraphs. Yet you argue that media reaction in the mere 8 days since Manning's regendering announcement exceeds in both volume and significance the three YEARS worth of reaction to the disclosures? Rubbish. JohnValeron (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

They probably kept it to four paragraphs because they realized that any more would require a separate standalone article. Anyway, the big thrill of the moment is how the media is referring to Manning---he or she or both. I don't think there was comparable suspense about how the bigstream media reported Manning's espionage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd hate to be comprehensively informed by a Wikipedia that creates subarticles whenever an article has more than four paragraphs... - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks fine as is, notable topic, Chelsea is notable enough to require multiple articles without controversy, probably good to expand the coverage to include media reaction to Manning overall and not solely the gender identity coverage. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge with any article that contains BLP violations in its title. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge should be condensed so the topic does not have undue weight within the main article.Skyraider (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge It seems this information is for the most part really needed in the main Manning article anyways. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge and condensed per WP:Due. BO | Talk 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge and condense, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Plenty of material for a standalone article and the issue isn't going to go away tomorrow. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Gender coverage of Manning seems parallel to trial of Manning or childhood of Manning - they are aspects of the manning topic. I don't think that there is enough of a distinct nature here to warrant a second article. Specifically will "gender aspects of Manning" be substantial enough in its own right to warrant a summary style forked sub-article? Perhaps. But not right now. If it becomes so, and it's off balance in the main article on Manning, or it becomes clear it has been a significant non-transient topic of enduring note in trans* timeline or some other way (and not just the "case of the day" for this month), and it's clearly not just WP:RECENTISM, then we could easily review the matter a second time. Right now it's high profile, but we have no sign that the gender issues have the enduring significance needed for their own article. Merely being high profile isn't enough by itself. Multiple aspects of the same case are often handled in the same article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge The first two sections are covered in the Bradley Manning article. The remainder can be covered very briefly later in the article: I do not think we ought to dedicate four paragraphs to how the New York Times describes Manning, for example (see WP:RECENT). 86.137.46.247 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Request for clarification: How does this merge request relate to the move request below? They seem rather contradictory. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Renaming the article is a sub-request. If merged the below title-dispute will be automatically moot. Cavarrone 12:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Place a summary in the main article and link to this daughter article. There's too much content here to merge. Jehochman ^Talk 02:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge: long overdue. Basically per above 86.137.46.247 IP's sound analysis. Cavarrone 12:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge: And reduce the content. The notability exists but not to have a separate article or to have this much weight.Racingstripes (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge : Resultant artictle should be Chelsea Manning. Artw (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Note: if this is kept I'm willing to work on it but I'm reluctant to until some of the passions die down a bit. Additionally there is a concerted effort to document relevant media coverage of this very topic which will play into the move discussion starting at the end of this month. I feel there exists a preponderance of sources to add to this article and we've barely even gotten to the magazine coverage as the news cycle is so young. This conversation seems premature. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose To much content and I think the current article is already sufficient.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 14:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge This is navel-gazing in disguise. The reason this article exists is because this generated a major controversy on Wikipedia. Had it not generated a major controversy on Wikipedia, of course no one would be saying this is notable enough for a full article. Even three weeks after the fact, this kerfuffle is not something I'd imagine anyone, other than those preparing evidence for a Wikipedia move request, would actually search for. I have no idea why we need 300 words to effectively tell us "There was disagreement at The New York Times about how to address Manning, but they ultimately decided to use the name Chelsea and female pronouns." There, done. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:NOTNEWS The headlines have come and gone, no reason to keep this separate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is well documented as an independent news item in reliable sources, NOTNEWS does not seem to apply here. And we're so new into the media cycle that we can't say it's come and gone, it's just less prominent on some media cycles, not gone. Every aspect of her transitioning will be covered as she is such a high profile individual. One of the most famous trans women in the world.. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL there is no way of predicting that that will happen, right now the coverage is all but dead. A merge will if anything improve the overall coverage of the Manning article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I see a merge as omitting documented aspects that would quickly become WP:Undue in the main article. BUt I have every confidence that even if merge it will only be temporary. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If this had a lasting impact then I would reconsider as well, but I do not see anything that came out of it that was enacted or was brought about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it will become quite clear with a little time, perhaps a month or so, I think this discussion remains premature. We have plenty of sources to pull together a sufficient article distinct from the main one. The magazine stories and televised media are giving the issue more thought and we have a pending lawsuit if Chelsea is not given hormone replacement therapy. This is far from over. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and condense this puffery. Veriss (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge "media coverage" article and "Bradley Manning" article to the individual's preferred name (Chelsea Manning), out of respect for the individual's identity and per MoS:Identity (and as we've done before in cases of other transgender individuals). Startswithj (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per mutiple editors above Pass a Method talk 13:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Too long and a distinct subject. Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 15 September 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.

'Initial media coverage' section is inaccurate and poorly written

I think we can safely say that papers that have changed their pronoun use within a week are still within the "initial" media coverage. On that basis I'm removing the Daily Telegraph from this list (since by the end of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10259509/Bradley-Manning-wants-to-live-as-a-woman-called-Chelsea.html they are plainly using female pronouns). I opine that having a list of organisations that did not change pronoun use whilst omitting a list of organisations that did is poor writing style, giving either the impression that every media outlet did not change pronouns, or that every media outlet except those listed did change pronoun use. To improve on this style I'm adding a short list of organisations that have changed pronoun usage. 7daysahead (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Input welcome. I couldn't find the telegraph story which I wished to cite (though I found another easily enough) and I'm not certain I cited the AP stories correctly. 7daysahead (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We might need to wait a bit while the media sources themselves review and report on the flux. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is different

This article is specifically about the media controversy that resulted when Chelsea Manning announced her transition. She is now Chelsea Manning, and the media controversy unquestionably relates to her current name and status. Ergo, it makes absolutely no sense to title this page with her former name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2013

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.

---

Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage → Bradley Manning gender identity media coverage – As the main article has been moved back to Bradley Manning, it seemed uncontroversial to have this article match, but apparently that was not the case. In effect, these articles should be considered linked; as one goes, so goes the other, as they are about the same person. Imagine if Hillary Rodham Clinton was successfully renamed to "Hillary Clinton", but editors mustered enough opposes to retain Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State as-is? --Relisted. Red Slash 02:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Tarc (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. How can Wikipedia be considered valid source of reference when articles reflect the will of the subject rather than the facts or legal status? By so doing Wikipedia demonstrates support for the subject rather than providing objective information about the subject therefore damaging Wikipedia's reliability.
• Support per the main page's move decision. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article is specifically about the media coverage of Chelsea Manning's new gender identity and transition. She is no longer Bradley Manning. The name Bradley Manning exists only in historical contexts. There is no debate that Manning has self-identified as a trans-woman, and therefore the media coverage discusses her new gender identity. To have this article titled at her former name makes not a single iota of sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the main page move was done mostly on technical merits which is disappointing. It's disrespectful to refer to Chelsea by any other name unless you are sending her mail which will only get to her under her former name per the US military. We are able to show more respect for other human beings than that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  It would be helpful / more persuasive if you cited some actual policy... -sche (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • • Relevant policies have been repeatedly posted and explained. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Using her former name, that she has requested not be used, as the primary reference/title, violates WP:BLP, WP:IDENTITY, WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME (per [2]) Josh Gorand (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The proposed title would have the potential to cause harm to a living person, in violation of WP:BLP. It would contradict the convention that has been largely accepted by the media, thus violating COMMONNAME. As Josh's source shows: "The media has largely accepted Bradley Manning's request that she be identified as a woman named Chelsea". Weight of voting has already caused us to temporarily have at least one policy violating article, which brutalises a transgender woman by forcing a masculine name upon her. A plea for consistency is not a strong enough reason to have another. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  "potential to cause harm to a living person" .. not likely now he is securely locked up for 35 years. Being melodramatic isn't likely to persuade anyone to oppose the rename. TeddyTesseract (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  Harm can certainly come to people who are incarcerated, we already have confirmation of Manning's wishes. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support as articles should be consistent. Also, as the close of the Bradley Manning article show, it doesn't violate COMMONNAME, MoS, BLP, NPOV and the close itself wasn't due to the weight of the voting or on technical merits. Continuing to say so makes your vote worthless to the closing admin. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per main article and the requirement for neutrality in covering sensitive topics. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support for the obvious reason of being consistent with the Bradley Manning article. TeddyTesseract (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per both WP:BLP and WP:MOS. Why is this even being proposed? The policies and guidelines on this are pretty clear, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support to match the main article title. But, if that article is moved to Chelsea Manning in the future, move this one, too. —  AjaxSmack  00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject of this article is media coverage of Chelsea Manning's request to be named as such. By definition it relates entirely to the period of time after she made the announcement so there is no reason to use her former name in the article title. Even if referring to a trans* person by the name and gender they presented as for events before they came out is believed to be correct (personally I disagree with this, but it's surprisingly controversial) there is no reason to use an incorrect name here - indeed doing so would likely be a breach of BLP and definitely a breach of MOS:IDENTITY. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per all the BLP issues surrounding the main article already. Haipa Doragon (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You may already be aware, but the closing administrators at the main page move request stated the following with regards to WP:BLP concerns:

WP:BLP is applicable to article titles and the desire to avoid harming the subject presents a reasonable basis for supporting "Chelsea Manning" as the title; however, BLP does not require having "Chelsea Manning" as the title. It is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at "Bradley Manning" so long as the prior use of this name by the subject is public knowledge and can be found in reliable sources. Furthermore, the application of BLP to avoid harming the subject is mitigated by the subject's own acknowledgment that "Bradley Manning" will continue to be used in various fora, and by the fact that the name, "Bradley Manning", will inevitably appear prominently in the article lede. Therefore, BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".

CaseyPenk (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The closing admins were expressing their opinions which are not valid as guidelines or policies and do not reperesent a definitive interpretation of BLP. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support sounds obvious to be consistent with the Manning parent article. Cavarrone 10:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main article was restored to the original title due to a lack of consensus for the move to the new title (in my estimate largely due to objection to the procedure, not the name). There are no procedural reasons for moving an article originally created at this name, and I don't see need or consensus to move it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:BLP and WP:MOS (& related arguments above). AnonNep (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support due to the reasons stated by ip 21.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per BLP, NPOV and cos I can see no reason other than spite towards Chelsea why such a move would be a good thing. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Part of the serious rationale given for using "Bradley" on the main article was that that was her name at the time she achieved greatest notability; that clearly does not apply to this period of her life. The nominator brings up Hillary Clinton but looking at Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton we find articles like Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy from early in her days as First Lady of Arkansas before she started using her married name and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural closure – There is the merger proposal going on right now. If anybody would please focus on the merger first and close this... --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:BLP etc, and because the media coverage was in relation to Manning's 'Chelsea' identity, rather than the previous 'Bradley' one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason for following one bad call with another. Artw (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of consistency. — Richard BB 13:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Timrollpickering and the second part of AndyTheGrump's comment. I will not at this time take a position on the applicability or inapplicability of BLP. -sche (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per consistency with the parent article Bradley Manning. Iff that article is moved back to Chelsea Manning, I would oppose this move, though I continue to believe the best solution is simply to merge this article into the parent article. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per above. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BLP. WP:COMMONNAME says that we should use the most common name found in English reliable sources. WP:BLP says we should edit conservatively and with respect to a person's privacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, you mean you support the Bradley title? Most people who cite BLP support Chelsea; the common name in reliable sources also now appears to be Chelsea. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I support the Bradley title. Those editors who cite BLP to support the "Chelsea" name are misunderstanding the policy. BLP does not mean that we should follow the person's wishes. AFAIK, the only instance where a BLP's personal preference has any validity is when there's an article of borderline notability. In such cases, admins are allowed to defer to the person's own wishes. See WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Since nobody is suggesting that these articles be deleted, this exception does not apply. What BLP does require us to do is to be very firm on correctly following WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:RS. Unfortunately, there's no genuinely good way to objectively determine which name is most common, but a search of reliable sources yields "Bradford Manning" a rough 2-to-1 advantage over "Chelsea Manning". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Do be aware though that at least some who invoke BLP to support the name Chelsea arent claiming that BLP is violated solely due to Chelsea's wishes and to claim that those who disagree with you dont understand BLP policy isnt exactly a coherent argument♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is about Chelsea Manning and the coverage of her coming out as transgender. We actually need to change the Bradley article to Chelsea, and almost certainly will do so in early October. The Commonname is now Chelsea and to move this article to Bradley would be a further BLP and NPOV violation as this article has nothing to do with the now non-existent man called Bradley♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. First, the only reason this person's gender identity is notable is because of the notability she attained as Bradley Manning. This contrived descriptive title should reflect usage in reliable sources, which means being consistent with the title of the main article Bradley Manning. --B2C 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This person is much better known as "Bradley Manning", and the article topic (which should not have an article at all, but never mind) cannot be covered neutrally if it has a title presupposing one viewpoint. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming as "Bradley Manning gender identity media coverage." The individual identifies as Chelsea Manning. Self-identity should be respected per MoS:Identity, per pre-existing articles for other transgender persons, and per human decency. Startswithj (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We should honor the name the subject identifies with. Strong Keep Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the principle in the last vote no longer applies since plenty of sources use chelsea Pass a Method talk 14:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bradley is Chelsea now. Rothorpe (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support for the sake of consistency, although I strongly believe that the title of Bradley Manning and all related articles using her name should be revisited in a few months. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: As with the Bradley Manning > Private Manning move discussion, I will stay formally neutral on this one. I've debated the topic nearly to wit's end and I'm rather burnt out on it. I will share a few thoughts. From what I have seen, a fair amount of the media controversy relates to whether to use Bradley or Chelsea, with the preferences split roughly evenly (without a clear majority either way). Thus I do not have strong opinions as to which name this article should use.

On the one hand, the Bradley title would match the main article, and would avoid confusion. On the other hand, Chelsea may be more appropriate for an article focused on recent events. It is true that the gender identity discussion was almost exclusively conducted after she announced her preference for Chelsea and for female pronouns. In that sense, the sources we look at would generally be from the past week or so, so we should look at those for guidance.

If the requested move at Talk:Bradley Manning from Bradley Manning to Private Manning goes through, I would think it entirely reasonable to move this page to the Private Manning title as well. But for the time being, to do so would be getting a bit ahead of the discussion at Talk:Bradley Manning. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to point out the following passage at the Bradley Manning RM closure; {quote|A comparatively small number of editors premised their opinions solely on Manning's legal or biological state. These arguments are not based on anything in Wikipedia's policies, and are contrary to numerous precedents. Such arguments were expressly discounted in this determination.}} Emotional arguments really need to be set aside in favor of rational and project-policy-based arguments. This article didn't start out named after Bradley, so it isn't quite in the same boat as the main article, but you really can't have one titled one way and one titled the other, it just looks awkward. Bring this back to the person's original name, and if the main article eventually gets re-titled following a proper RM discussion, then thew result of that would be mirrored here. Tarc (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • We should not disrespect a living person at all, that we are doing so - mostly as a technicality - on the main page is a tragedy but one that will be corrected in about 37 days. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The main article has already been moved back though, as a consensus of editors found that it did not violate WP:BLP to do so. Ergo, moving this one to my proposed title cannot be a BLP violation either. Tarc (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually a three-admin panel decided the process used violated how the process should have gone, BLP be damned. It will be corrected hopefully sooner than later. Please stop the constant disrespect of a trans woman. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, they simply mentioned that the process wasn't done correctly (they didn't factor that argument in) and that because of this a no consensus result reverts back to Bradley. They also said that there wasn't/isn't a BLP violation with the article being Bradley. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have to re-check those assumptions, i don't agree with that interpretation and it's a controversial close. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's right there in the closing statement. It certainly is a controversial close, though the right one since there was no consensus. It would be best if everybody simply used the name Bradley for article titles, stop continuing the discussion and started a move request on Manning's talk page in 30 days. I wouldn't be surprised if the result is a move to Chelsea. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A requested move for one article does not establish any sort of precedent for other articles. This article has *never* been at a title other than Chelsea Manning except briefly when it was moved without any attempt at gaining consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The Hillary Clinton example would be perfect if Clinton had announced vie the world's media outlets that she was in process of changing gender, had a new name that reflected that change in gender, had also said that she had always felt she was a different gender than the one she was assigned at birth, and added that she wishes everyone to refer to her using the pronouns of her new gender identity. Clearly that example has nothing to do with this case. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question - Why have a first name in the title at all? Being in the military, quite a few sources refer to the individual simply as Manning (or Private Manning), so why not Manning gender identity media coverage? That title is concise and unambiguous, and if there's ever another individual named Manning who gets sufficient media coverage for their gender identity, then this article could be disambiguated, but that doesn't really seem necessary right now. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 15:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because there is no precedent for simply ignoring someone's first name just because they're in the military at some point in their lives. We don't have an article on "General Eisenhower." Moreover, this article is specifically about the gender identity issue and to pretend that her first name isn't Chelsea is not only offensive, it's misleading to the point of this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• This article is not about the person, so that's irrelevant; there's a separate article the individual. It is about the media reaction to a gender identity announcement, something that encompasses both the pre-announcement and post-announcement. Manning's lawyer went to far as to explicitly say that Manning's pre-announcement life should use the name Bradley. Therefore, this article does not encompass a single personal name, but two. To pretend that the individual was never known as Bradley is misleading to the point of this article, quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. This has nothing to do with "pretending that her first name isn't Chelsea", such a statement is an unnecessary red herring, since that was never suggested nor would using this title imply such a thing. That is what the article content is for. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Manning's lawyer went to far as to explicitly say that Manning's pre-announcement life should use the name Bradley." OK, and this article is entirely about her post-announcement life because it consists entirely of reactions and discussion of what happened after she announced her transition. Ergo, you should be agreeing with me that this article should be titled what it's currently titled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do not agree with the rationale you've put forth, I merely suggested a compromise, nothing more. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 16:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would note that the page title allows us to write about her gender identity throughout her life, including when she was known as Bradley. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It would allow that at either name; this suggestion was simply an attempt at a compromise that would circumvent the first name entirely and avoid the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that's been seen regarding this subject. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment' I have no idea what arguement there is for opposing this, on the main article it was deemed by three experienced admin that WP:BLP does not come into play when it comes to article titles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the close on the main article did not disqualify use of WP:BLP considerations in all cases. It stated, in part:

WP:BLP is applicable to article titles and the desire to avoid harming the subject presents a reasonable basis for supporting "Chelsea Manning" as the title; however, BLP does not require having "Chelsea Manning" as the title.

CaseyPenk (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Please don't copy material word for word from Chelsea Manning. For one thing, it's plagiarism (regardless of the copyright situation). For another, much of it is inappropriate, e.g. implying there's a link between fetal alcohol syndrome and gender identity disorder, when none of the sources (that I know of) have discussed it in those terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I see a consensus to Merge the article above this section on the talk page (For those of you following this from elsewhere) maybe close this and merge the article instead? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, this naming discussion and the merge discussion both seem to be petering out. Someone should probably request closure of both (but of the merge discussion first, because if the articles are merged, the naming discussion can be closed as overtaken by events). -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 September 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.

Standard Discretionary Sanction allowed for this article for duration of the arbitration case

Be advised that the Arbitration Committee has passed an injunction, authorizing discretionary sanctions to be applied for this article (as well as Bradley Manning and United States v. Manning) for the duration of the case. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2013

Please wait until the first move request has been closed before starting a second move request.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage → Media coverage of Chelsea Manning's gender identity – A quick search for all articles with "media coverage" in the title reveals that the most common title format is "Media coverage of X", not "X media coverage". Also, "Media coverage of Chelsea Manning's gender identity" just sounds less clunky (at least to me). Thoughts? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Survey Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Discussion Any additional comments:

Lede

Chelsea Manning announced her transition, and is now known by that name. The title of the biographical article does not dictate the lede of this article. Do we really have to refight this battle again? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the announcement of Manning's transition shouldn't be mentioned; in fact, this article is about her transition. But at the time of her court-martial and the time she made her announcement, Manning was known as Bradley Manning, and that remains the common name Wikipedia uses. I don't have an ideological dog in this fight; I just want Wikipedia's coverage to look clean and somewhat uniform, rather than pages like this resembling a rear-guard action against the admins' decision on the main Bradley Manning article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"that remains the common name Wikipedia uses" - for titles, perhaps, but the lede of the Bradley Manning article prefers "Chelsea Manning" and there exists a consensus that that is appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Tell me is "Bradley Manning announced that she identified as female, wished to be known as Chelsea Manning" true or false? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer Chelsea Manning too; it's the name she wishes to go by, after all. But at the time Manning made the announcement, she was known as Bradley; this article is about how media reacted to the announcement that she sought to be considered a woman and go by a different name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal name change

I just want to say that yes Bradley can change his name to Chelsea and be known as a female however legal name change means that Manning will not be known as Chelsea from a legal point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, no, that's just not true. You need to read our handy article on Name changes and specifically this high-quality source. 46 of 50 U.S. states allow a person to change their name at common-law by simply assuming and adopting the name, with no legal process required. Manning is not now and has not been a resident of the four which do not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I say, I am saying that Manning can choose any name but when it comes to documents the name will still be Bradley. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually that's not true except in the military. She has done a common law legal name change by simple declaration. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not she needs a court document to get her driver's license or Social Security card changed is of no consequence. It may be true, as the source points out, that as regards legal documents, "changing one’s name with any real effect today requires the assistance of the state," but we are not concerned here with legal documents. Under the common law, Chelsea has adopted a new legal name, and the name on her driver's license or Social Security card does not reject that fact. Wikipedia has never treated such documents as undisputedly dispositive of a person's name. Many, many Wikipedia biographies reflect names that may not be on that person's driver's license or Social Security card. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)