Talk:Chelsea Manning

This article has been mentioned or used by the following media organizations:

Why don't you use the most widely known name?

It's kind of strange for an encyclopedia to use the name of someone that isn't the one that most people would recognize. Prince the artist was at one time known as a symbol "the artist formerly known as prince" but his page correctly refers to him as "Prince" which is of course what most people would associate him as. The same applies for Bradley Manning. It isn't a gender issue. It's just a referencing issue.

Gender expression

Just make it say "legally" at the beginning because it's misleading the way it is now. It may imply to some people that she has changed her name legally, or that legally changing your name isn't required when choosing what you would like to be called. Other articles make this distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.155.20 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors here might consider whether some mention should be made in the article about Manning's gender expression while growing up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it significantly more important here than in other biographies? 2. Is there enough reliable information? Given that some children switch back and forth between more 'feminine' and more 'masculine' interests, outward expressions, etc., and that these may not reflect one's underlying identity, I worry that a flawed selection of events might present a misleading picture. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We can only discuss it to the extent that it is referred to in reliable sources - and then we have to consider issues of due weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if they did move the article, most of the important bits of Manning's life happened before she announce she was a woman and we should remember that in terms of due weight. KonveyorBelt 22:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, she still made choices to present as a woman before she did any of the things that made her famous. The announcement wasn't something decided that day. It looks like her gender identity issues predate almost everything of note in the biography. So if the biography reads as if she suddenly changed her mind about her life on August 22, then it is not as neutral or accurate as it could be. When we write about events that somehow surprised the world (revolutions, coups, plots, crimes) we write about what really happened, not only what the world thought happened. She was a woman before she made the announcement, and it seems clear the trial delayed the announcement, and the article is better the more it reflects that reality. And how do we know this? We read it in reliable sources __Elaqueate (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for information, please note that gender identity and gender expression are different concepts. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. __Elaqueate (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Manning "feel female"?

I don't know. But I do know that she didn't say so in her coming out statement. She said that "I am a female." To a lot of people this may seem like a trivial distinction, but I think it's important. Someone can "feel" something without it being factual. For instance, I FEEL ugly. . .but logically I know that I'm NOT ugly. I simply feel ugly because that's the message I've gotten from the outside world, just as most women do. But logically, I know that I actually conform relatively well to most mainstream standards of appearance, and besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. So in other words, I'm not ACTUALLY ugly, and I recognize that despite my feelings to the contrary.

Manning clearly stated that "I am a female." This is a fact (at least, in her opinion). As we are all aware, the factualness of her femaleness is something that is heavily disputed by many other people, but Manning is quite clear that according to her it is a fact. It is reality. She stands behind it unequivocally. It is not simply a feeling, which she may give credence to or she may not. According to Manning, she IS a female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picture of a Sunny Day (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here's more of the statement that Picture of a Sunny Day quoted.[1]

"I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible."

Here's Picture of a Sunny Day's proposed version,[2]

1) "...Manning said she had been female since childhood..."

and here's the original version from the Wikipedia article,

2) "...Manning said she had felt female since childhood..."

It's a choice between "been female" or "felt female". The only mention of the past childhood is when the source says, "have felt since childhood". So it looks like the source supports "felt" over "been". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the latter option, see MOS:QUOTE - we don't normally put wikilinks into quotations. The wikilinked implication that 'Gender identity disorder' can be summarised as 'feeling female' is questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point and we might remove the wikilink while keeping "felt". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to change the wikilink to the gender identity article: felt female. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Does Manning "feel" female? I don't know, do you "feel" like a human? KonveyorBelt 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why not just directly quote the relevant piece of the statement, thus avoiding any potentially dodgy synthesis? Strike the end of the sentence and replace with:

"...Manning said "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible."

Chris Smowton (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's probably the simplest solution. -sche (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That quoted part of the Aug 22 statement leaves out the important info that Chelsea is a new name, which is contained in another part, "I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Readers aren't idiots, but we could easily explain any part instead of using a direct quote for that part. I think we do need a direct wikilink to gender dysphoria however. Most people have no clue what the condition is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Re wikilink, please see User:AndyTheGrump's above comment of 00:17, 19 October 2013 and my two brief responses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reporting on her gender dysphoria so there is no reason why we cannot. Again, our readers are not idiots, it's a simple matter of finding the best way to write about what has already been widely reported. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning awaits diagnosis in prison before possible hormone therapy, Though Manning was diagnosed with gender dysphoria twice, the army requires re-evaluation upon changing facilities is a fairly typical example of media coverage so it's a NPOV violation to now omit this information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem reasonable that gender dysphoria should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Using the wikilink that you suggested for the subject sentence may not be the way. Editors have expressed opposition to the wikilink of "felt female" to Gender dysphoria that you're suggesting. We might consider instead a wikilink to Gender identity for "felt female", which seems more appropriate and hasn't incurred any opposition so far. This doesn't mean that gender dysphoria can't be included in a different way in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading to drop a little bombshell like that in the first paragraph with little to no explanation. The very least would be a wikilink to gender dysphoria. Presently we have Manning said she felt female since childhood. Perhaps we could expand that slightly to read "Diagnosed twice with gender dysphoria, Manning said she felt female since childhood." We have reliable sources that cover this and we would avoid making some conclusion on our own. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No matter what I don't think we should link to "gender dysphoria" directly from Manning's statements - you could have that as a separate sentence if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm proposing, a separate phrase that can link to gender dysphoria that is not a part of her direct quote. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Startswithj (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the new sentence would look something like...

In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning, who has been diagnosed twice with gender dysphoria, said she felt female since childhood, her new name was Chelsea, and she wanted hormone replacement therapy. Does this work, or do we need to change anything? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there's an important distinction between Manning saying "I am female. Given the way I feel..." and "I feel female." The one can refer to dysphoria, and doesn't imply that there's one way to "feel female," the other does. So without very strong very specific sourcing that she "feels female," I'd prefer to avoid the phrase. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that should be directly quoted then? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this come closer? In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning, who has been diagnosed twice with gender dysphoria, stated "I am a female ... and have felt since childhood," her new name was Chelsea, and she wanted hormone replacement therapy as soon as possible. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps: "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, gave her new name as Chelsea (not Bradley), and expressed her desire to seek hormone replacement therapy." I would avoid quoting in the lead (implies too much weight). Startswithj (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a guideline that talks about using quotes? I think it puts the writing into her own words but it is a bit clumsy. But if we should avoid quotes altogether than we need to find a different way. I am opposed to repeating her former name as we already have it in the very first phrase. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the emphasis of "instead of Bradley" would be an unnecessary repeat. Regarding my suggestion not to quote, my feeling is that you'd have to include the full quote to give it proper meaning/context, and that would give it too much weight. Startswithj (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean by using the whole quote. I'll think on it more, I hadn't considered also adding a link to transgender but that too makes sense. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking to transgender might be more neutral than linking to gender dysphoria (the latter might be seen as an endorsement of the position that transgender identity is an illness, a position with which some would disagree). Startswithj (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I could also see it as at least partially addressing the concern of what's going on with the gender issue. I still think we should at least report on the gender dysphoria diagnosis but maybe that could be in a footnote rather than in the prose itself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever quest you seem to be on, this isn't the place to do it. Why not use the full quote "I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun.", which is far more accurate than the version you keep pushing? Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No one's pushing anything but an accurate narrative. It does little good to add to the confusion of readers. With more eyes on this I'm sure a good version will come about. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Then I ask that you revert yourself with respect to the edit that is in disagreement, as that was the version there was no disagreement until you made a change.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually that would be counterproductive taking us back to several edits that are in dispute and rough consensus is that the corrections needed to be made. Lets see what other editors have to say and see if the entire sentence can be rewritten to address many of the contentious points. Simply blocking all changes isn't helping anything so let's see what other editors add to the discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

proposed new sentence

Currently we have - In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she felt female since childhood, she wanted to be known as Chelsea, and she wanted hormone replacement therapy.

incorporating the comments above what about:

• In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, said she wanted to be known as Chelsea, and start hormone replacement therapy as soon as possible.

Thoughts? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your new content is an improvement. I'm not sure "as soon as possible" is necessary. Also, to keep subject–verb phrasing parallel, I suggest: "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, asked to be known as Chelsea, and indicated a desire to start hormone replacement therapy." (All verbs being past tense and paired with the subject "Manning"). Startswithj (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The "desire" word trips me up a bit, maybe we can omit it? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, asked to be known as Chelsea, and start hormone replacement therapy.

"Desire" could be replaced with "intention," "wish," etc. But grammatically, that wording effectively says "Manning start hormone therapy." The three verbs that begin each phrase in the series (set apart by commas: "Manning came," "Manning asked," "Manning _____") need a parallel tense.

Another option:

• "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, asked to be known as Chelsea, and requested hormone replacement therapy.

Startswithj (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That works! Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not an improvement over the current wording, and less accurate to what the sources state.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It reduces the matter down to the pertinent facts, without projecting vague interpretations or suggested endorsements. Could you elaborate on how you feel it represents a loss of accuracy? Startswithj (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

we need to mention Bradley here. The reader knows she was born as Bradley, but they don't know from the text that up until aug 22, she was known as Bradley by all and sundry. There is no reason to hide this fact, and we should make it crystal clear. I also think if we're covering her statement, she did not 'come out as transgender' and never used that word. What she said is, I'm female and have felt female since childhood.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree but perhaps we are getting at some of the disconnect in the entire opening. I do wonder if this little sentence bombshell isn't both premature and too little. What if we moved this to the end of the entire section and made it into a few sentences. After all she did become one of the most visible trans women in the world. And there was an incredible amount of media attention given to just this announcement. Perhaps this whole sentence should be dropped to the end of the lead and turned into a fifth paragraph making clear some of the salient points that are being too easily glossed over? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, not an improvement.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you consider an improvement? I think removing the ambiguous references to having felt female is an improvement. Are there any ways you think this would be worse than the current text? Are thee any ways you think it could be better? Ananiujitha (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph essentially begins with "Chelsea Manning (born Bradley)…" The sentence in question is the last sentence in that same paragraph, and the suggested rewording includes "the day after sentencing…[she] asked to be known as Chelsea." That makes it pretty clear that she was known as Bradley until the day after her sentencing. Repeating her former name in the same paragraph is overkill.

"She didn't come out as transgender"? If a male-bodied person publicly states "I am a female. …[U]se the feminine pronoun," that is, by definition, coming out as transgender. Startswithj (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Both male bodied and transgender are controversial terms. There are different interpretations of what sex and gender mean and how they relate, and how they relate to trans experience. A lot of this language is contested or is in flux, I'm not sure how to resolve that. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We resolve it by parroting what the sources stated. Wait, that's what we are doing already. Frankly I don't understand the desire to do otherwise. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, shoot. How about leaving the wording as it stands now, and wiki-linking "felt female" to gender identity (as Bob K31416 suggested three days ago, two pages up from here)? Startswithj (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Somoene handed me a wine cooler over the weekend, and that being the only alcohol left I drank it. I felt female. Isn't there a link to GI in the article already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, what? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

"While in the army, Manning was known as Bradley and diagnosed with gender dysphoria. In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she felt female since childhood, wanted to be known as Chelsea, and requested hormone replacement therapy."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I like it. Gets the GD link in, and mentions that up until Chelsea, she was known as Bradley (which isn't obvious and needs to be stated).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That will work. IMO Bradley is needed here (as well as all the other spots that were cleansed by Sunny Day). Not that we should be rubbbing her pre-trans name in people's faces, but this article is first and foremost about the person who leaked the largest tome of classified data to the public, and that person at the time and until quite recently was known 'Bradley Manning', and undoubtedly is still the most recognizable form of the name at the moment and for the foreseeable future. Anyone claiming to possess intellectual honesty knows this to be true. The COMMONMAME argument used for the recent topic change, was based upon the recent switch by new sources. I've no interest in rehashing that subject again. While we need to be cognizant of the sensitive nature of gender identiy, that does not give editors who appear to be on a pro-trans mission to to scour this and other articles of relevant information.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying I'm on a "pro-trans mission" seems like an ad hominem attack to me. My motivations are irrelevant; what is relevant is whether particular changes I propose will improve the article or whether they won't. The only problem I have with Bob's proposed sentence is the phrase "felt female" being used in that context, but I understand most of the other editors don't agree with me on that so whatever. On the other hand, I'm actually OK with the usage of "Bradley" in the sentence. I'm generally in favor of as full a treatment of Manning's gender in the lead as possible. I think it's good to clarify for people when exactly she came out and how. And it's pertinent information that her entire time in the army--the most notable time of her life--was under the name Bradley.

On the other hand, it does not seem to add anything to the article to say in the Early Life section that she was born "Bradley." This is redundant; this exact same information occurs in the first sentence of the article. The fact that she was known as "Bradley" for most of her time in the public eye is important; the fact that she was born "Bradley" is fairly insignificant, and I believe is really a subtle way to mark her as being different for being trans, applying a standard to her that would not be applied to a non-trans person with a similar life history who had made a non-gender-related name change.

I mean, seriously. How is including the former name in BOTH the Info Box AND the Early Life section not "rubbing her pre-trans name in people's faces?" What extra information does this add or clarity does this provide? How many people skip the first sentence of an article where such information is clearly stated? I honestly don't understand how anyone could support inclusion of her former name in either the Info Box OR the Early Life section. . .but we should at the very least remove the former name from ONE of the two. I would say removing from the Early Life section is the most important since the use of her full former name here is verbose and clearly goes against Wikipedia's traditional Wikipedia:surname guideline. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel fine with the proposed rewording and linking above (proposed by Bob and supported by Pork and Kenobi). I still think it would be overdoing it to repeat her name in that sentence, as it's already given in the paragraph's first sentence (and in bold print), as well as in the infobox to the right. Startswithj (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sunny, I knew nothing about you before making that statement, so there is no ad homniem. In fact, I was not even thinking of you when I wrote that. From what I gather, infobox entries should be able to stand-alone from the rest of the article, so there is a need for Bradley being used there. Early life is the first use of the name other than the lead. After that, it's all Chelsea, except for the issue of the name change when the usage of Bradley is unavoidable. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But Wikipedia guidelines state that after the first mention of a subject's full name in the article, only their surname should be used from there on out. This guideline makes sense as it cuts out unnecessary words, enhances readability, and provides for a uniform style throughout all articles. And it seems especially advisable to follow this guideline here given how contentious the issue of Manning's first name has proven on Wikipedia. What is wrong with saying "Manning was born. . ." in the Early life section? It is clear to the reader who is being referred to, it follows Wikipedia style guidelines, and it avoids inflaming the name controversy. I do see now your point about the infobox, how it needs to stand alone, and how it is therefore important to include an alternate name, "Bradley," that she has been very famous under. But I really believe that including Manning's full birth name in the Early life section is breaking Wikipedia guidelines and singling her out for different treatment because she's trans. Do you disagree with my reasoning and if so, where? Rebecca Weaver (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

John Wayne, Snoop Dog, Muhammad Ali. I daresay those are the only articles where the birth names are repeated in an "early life" section. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed not to find most articles following such convention. I agree some are singling her because she is trans, as advocates.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with TKOP here. The early life section should be able to stand on its own. Take a look at Bill Clinton or Calvin_Coolidge or Jimmy Carter - and many many other examples. The lede is supposed to be a summary, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to state the full birthname at the time we talk about his birth. I don't think Manning's first name has proven to be controversial at all, and I don't recall - except for a recent set of edits by yourself - anyone making a big deal out of excising "Bradley" from the article. The debate was over the title and pronouns, not over when and how much the word "Bradley" could appear in the running text. I think once is not enough, and 20 times is too much, so we just need to find the middle ground.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

per WP:NOTAFORUM; those who want to continue this discussion are welcome to bring it to my talk page, this is not the right place for it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does "his" in "..talk about his birth" refer to Chelsea Manning?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Yeah. . .I don't want to police your language, Obi-Wan, and I don't think MOS:IDENTITY is necessarily intended to apply to Talk pages. All the same, I'd like to ask you if you could avoid misgendering trans women on this talk page, and simply omit using any pronouns for Manning if you don't want to use female pronouns for her in a particular situation. I do believe I have valuable input to contribute here, and I want to keep contributing here, but it will be difficult for me as a trans woman to emotionally handle participating if the idea that trans women are (or were in the past) actually guys is something that gets repeatedly expressed here. So even if this is what you think, I would prefer you don't express it because it will detract from my ability to participate. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC) there is an active debate at MOS about removing the requirement to use the new pronouns throughout life. I generally avoid pronouns but they do slip in from time to time and I suggest you just ignore them if they bother you in a particular tp comment. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I'm not going to ignore people misgendering trans women. It is profoundly disrespectful and bigoted behavior. Also, I wasn't appealing to the MOS. . .in fact, I specifically said that it may not apply here. But regardless of what the MOS currently says or may say in the future, what you did, Obi-Wan, is quite wrong. And the fact that you defended yourself, rather than apologized, is sickening to me. Since you have made it clear that you don't respect trans women as autonomous human beings with dignity, I will just have to entirely refrain from interacting with you from now on. That is too bad because it will make working on this page more difficult. Anyway, consider this my final interaction with you. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC) wait, just to be clear, this is about a single 'his' above, when talking about Manning's birth? I don't know what good an apology would do, as I don't plan to self-censor myself from using different pronouns as seems appropriate to me in a given context. Nonetheless, I am sorry you were hurt by that word but I think you're overreacting, and I don't think me being sorry for hurting your feelings is the apology you were looking for in any case. The fact that you equate a single use of 'his' with not respecting the dignity of trans* people is evidence that you are taking things too personally that have nothing to do with you. Multiple sources that were cited copiously, including an lgbt journalist association, propose use of old pronouns for pre-transition descriptions. Even trans* people themselves, use a variety of pronouns for pre/post transition - your imposition of 'my way or the highway' here is not fair either.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I'm not certain, but I think Sunny read Georgia Guy's comment as yours. Either way, sunny should take a deep breath.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC) No, I did not read Georgia Guy's comment as Obi-Wan's comment. I WAS responding to Obi-Wan's comment. And I am perfectly calm. I simply refuse to interact with people who view me as having ever been male. Being forced to live as a guy against my will, based off of some bogus belief held by others that this is who I "actually was" was the most traumatizing experience of my life. Excuse me if I take a zero tolerance policy to those who continue to hold these toxic, inaccurate beliefs about trans women. In any event, I don't plan to continue making a big deal out of Obi-Wan's behavior. As I said, from now on I will simply not read or respond to anything Obi-Wan writes. This is how I always respond to any person who misgenders me or another trans woman and then refuses to correct themselves after their mistake has been pointed out to them. You may disagree with this, but I certainly am not going to make an unprecidented, one-of-a-kind exception in Obi-Wan's case. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) "refuse to interact with people who view me as having ever been male" - I never said anything about you being male - though I'm not sure why I need to point this out... You have no idea, nor do any of us, about what pronoun Chelsea would prefer when discussing their birth and early life, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, other people, including other trans* people and LGBT journalist organizations, feel differently about this than you. Part of editing wikipedia is encountering people with views different than yours. I am tolerant of your views, you should accord the same to me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I found the use to be needlessly offensive as well. Especially in the context of all the previous discussions on this article and elsewhere that misgendering someone causes real harm and makes for a toxic environment for trans* and sympathetic people. I hope your intentions were above board but the lack of empathy after it's been pointed out speaks to an entrenched attitude that doesn't respect a trans person's transition to being their true selves. That is a core concept of some culture wars that see trans people as one of the last bastions for rather unpleasant public treatments. I hope you never have to experience the hurt that is caused by being treated as less than human by strangers and even friends who just refuse to grasp how a core identity issue gender is, and how potent words are when dealing with other people. I'm glad we are making some forward movement but it's unfortunate that those of us who are sensitive to these issues still have to weather comments that sure feel unwelcoming, hostile, and yes transphobic at times. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) well I think there's a sort of godwin's law for trans* discussions - given enough time, someone will bring out the transphobia stick. Anyway, I'm sorry for those whose feelings were hurt but I do not plan on watching over my pronouns like a hawk esp when speaking of pre-transition Manning and especially their birth as a boy; if such restrictions were in place it would be impossible to discuss MOS changes for example. None of this should be taken To imply that I support discrimination or bias towards trans* people nor as a commentary on their 'true' gender, but self identity is not the same as social identity, and as the many debates over cotton ceiling or wymyn-born wymyn indicate for example, there are still differences which are important - our society needs more time to sort out the boundaries of trans* identities, but beating ppl with a transphobia stick for a minor issue like 'his' in a sentence about Manning's birth is not helping the case.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Sure, there's a discussion about how to talk about a trans* person in an encyclopaedia, but if you're making casual reference in personal speech, why not just pick the polite option and avoid the appearance of bad faith, an appearance which you are surely very much aware of by now? You don't need to watch your pronouns "like a hawk" to adopt a blanket policy of she/her for this subject, and if you slip up it's easy to say "oops, sorry, fixed" and thus avoid threads like this one. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Now, how did my comment get a hat for not being related to improving the article?? It's related to the discussion. Here's the comment again: Does "his" in "..talk about his birth" refer to Chelsea Manning?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) It's related to the above discussion, so it is relevant. Georgia guy (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I agree for several reasons. The person's comments who started all this off should probably let someone uninvolved censor any discussion. That being said this entire thread probably can be closed by someone neutral as the original concern has been stated and resolved. Based on the Arbcom involvement based on these very same issues of abrasive comments and the reaction/non-action steps that followed it would follow that everyone would take extra steps to avoid offense. And if I offended anyone I will state unequivocally that that is never my goal. I'm here to improve the article and I hope everyone is as well. Addressing talk page comments is a part of ensuring that trans* people don't feel hesitancy to even comment here. We can disagree but be polite about it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright. . .given the examples that have been provided, I'm willing to acknowledge how the reference to Manning's full birth name in the early life section is within the precedent of what's been common practice on Wikipedia for other people who changed their name. So I'm no longer to going to push for entirely removing Manning's birth name from the info box or from the early life section. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I support this version as well. It makes clear that Chelsea was known as Bradley and hadn't transitioned earlier, and addresses the chronological problem as her gender dysphoria diagnosis seems to predate most of not all of the leaking materials. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there's consensus for this change, so I implemented it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Objection to main involved editor hatting discussion

After being reversed a hat of the above discussion [3] was redone, even moving other comments out of order. I mainly object to shutting down this discussion as it parallels past discussions in that speech some editors felt was disparaging to trans* people was dismissed as trivial, even though this has been the core point of the past several months on this article. I suggest the hat be reversed so the discussion is more accurate to what happened and that if no one else needs to say anything then close the entire discussion, not just the part where one editor's actions are being called for accountability. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

the rest of the discussion above is about article contents, so I don't see any need to close that, and I moved the comments to organize like parts of the discussion together. Can you please let this go? That discussion has nothing to do with the article. Nothing. Whatsoever. The whole thing is about a single word "his" - used on this talk page. If you have a real concern with user behavior, come to my talk page or drag the whole thing to ANI. If you'd prefer to archive it vs hatting that would be fine as well, so it's visible for all to see.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I certainly disagree, what happens on the talk page directly impacts the article. By distressing other editors, after this issues have been explained over several months is making the talk page hostile, for no good reason. I'll let others weigh in, I think I've stated my case. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Close?

I've certainly said my peace, if anyone else feels they haven't can certainly do so - I do support closing this entire thread but I'm not neutral here so will leave it as a suggestion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just come upon this, and I do agree that the "felt female" verbiage is a little bad, since Manning never really said that. How about "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she identifies as female, wants to be known as Chelsea[...]". This would dodge the ambiguity in the statement about when such a gender identity may have developed, leaving the matter to where it can be better addressed in the dedicated section which quotes the statement. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Currently we have; In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she felt female". The direct quote is "I am a female," followed by a statement giving how I feel and have felt since childhood, etc. Perhaps we could amend to; In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she was female". I would support that. Anyone else? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's better than what is there now. Gigs (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Call me Chelsea

Ignoring pointless asides like legal name, how the army refers to Manning, she asked to be referred to as Chelsea. That is what the sources reported, even the sources that continue to call her Bradley.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"In a statement on August 22, 2013, the day after sentencing, "

In a statement on August 22, 2013, the day after sentencing, is unneeded, especially for the opening paragraph. It puts some huge significance on the date itself which is misleading.

I think The day after sentencing does the job just fine or at the very most In August 2013, the day after her sentencing ... . Any thoughts? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The same idea that you want might work a little better with the wording, "The day after sentencing in August 2013, ...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

How about after "Manning was sentenced…" we add "…in August 2013…" (paralleling the earlier "…who was convicted in July 2013…")? And then begin the paragraph's final sentence simply as "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said…"? Startswithj (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Trans paragraph in lead

Sorry I kinda ducked out of the conversation for a while. Anyway, I like SportsFan's idea about removing the sentence about Manning coming out from the first paragraph and then adding a final paragraph to the lead that talks about it more in depth. I think the new paragraph could cite several sources about Manning's gender and the public reaction to it, including perhaps a brief direct quote from her coming out statement. Although Manning is still chiefly notable for her role in Wikileaks, it does seem like her role as a prominent transgender person is also worth more than a single sentence in the lead. This would allow for a more full treatment of her gender situation to clarify things to readers, citing multiple sources, and without having to resort to any potentially inaccurate paraphrases of Manning's statement. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back, but in your abscene the article has stabilized, all of your recent changes are going to be contentious, so I've reverted them. There is no consensus to whitewash "Bradley" from the article. While the use should be minimized, most feel it is needed in a few places.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need more than a sentence. The only reason the announcement garnered any press at all was the particular circumstances of when it was made (immediately after the sentencing in the middle of a news cycle) and the fact that she was headed to prison.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands though is a bit illogical as it flips out of chronological order. That can be fixed in two ways as far as I can see. Either we mention her first diagnosis of gender dysphoria which predates the leaks or we bundle all the gender situation into a final paragraph. She came into wide prominence for the leaking of materials but her gender identity announcement was heavy reported and commented on regardless of the circumstances. Far more than most trans* celebrities. I think the first option would be better and would meld with the concurrent proposal above. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible but we may consider restructuring the article to have a 'personal' section first that deals with birth, early life, sexuality, GID, and announcement, and then dive into the leaks etc. I'm not sure having them blended as they are now is necessarily the best way to tell the story, even if they are intertwined. But that would require major surgery. But yes we should make it clear somewhere that manning was diagnosed with GID before the leaks, although I don't think there's any evidence that this issue precipitated the leaks themselves - in other words, I don't think anyone is claiming Manning wouldn't have leaked if they were not trans*.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well this is at the core of some of the disputes. I think her outsiderness definitely led to ostracism, even if some was self-imposed, and led her to thinking the leaks were a noble gesture toward a wider truth (or something). Were she not a sexual/gender minority a case could be made that she would have integrated into the military more successfully and would have found other avenues for her passionate stances. We may never know until the book(s) come out. Until then it's important to note that all this surrounds the same person so treating something so dramatically and personally impacting to her existence as trivial in any way, like a personal life section, seems like a mistake. Instead we likely should just let the sources lead the way that discuss what if any impact her gayness/trans* ness may have had on her decisions to leak materials. I've seen many trans people take risks and dare themselves onto new paths that they attributed to being an outsider of mainstream culture so they felt the risk was well worth it. Hopefully some well-crafted interviews will pull that information to the forefront. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence, anywhere, on any article, that a 'personal life' section is considered trivial, so I have no idea where that came from. People get married, have kids, etc and none of that is trivial to them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea's gender transition is a profound importance to her and is outside community norms so cannot be reasonably compared to commonplace activities like getting married or having children. This change is fundamentally her stepping off a cliff to do something about her core identity that is disparaged by society and puts her well into the common path of violence targeted at trans* people, trans women in particular. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, having children was of profound importance to me, as was getting married. Person X coming out as gay was profoundly important to them. Or quitting one's job, or marrying someone of a different faith/ethnicity, or converting to a different religion, or moving to a new country... and so on. Let's not get into equivalencies here, ok? My point is, you said putting something in the "personal life" section trivialized it, and I objected that personal life sections were trivial.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm setting aside all the other statements for now, as I was responding mainly to "consider restructuring the article to have a 'personal' section first that deals with birth, early life, sexuality, GID, and announcement." I'm generally opposed to that approach but until actions are undertaken toward that this issue can lay low for now. I think it's in the best interest to stick to chronological as much as possible. I think there is way to much detail on almost every aspect of the leaks but that will take time for others to accept that some of those details are better off in articles that aren't biographies. Regardless she is best known for leaking classified documents and I think that is best told chronologically. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

embittered?

embittered traitor seems very POV, should "embittered" be removed or can we cite a quote for that? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to go to the source cited and see what it says, as that line is paraphrasing a source.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything that tells me exactly where that came from or the original text. Any ideas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a citation from a book as far as I can tell - you need to find the book.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't like that characterization either, but it's meant to stand in contrast to the heroism of the Tank Man. Perhaps we could adjust to read: "…Manning was viewed in the extreme as both…" (italics for clarity on this Talk Page only).

Here's the quote: "To some, Manning was a whistle-blowing hero, a brave soul who took a stand alone against an imperial military collosus, a Tiananmen Square Tank Man for the 21st century. To others, he was the worst kind of traitor, an embittered snake who had betrayed his country and the army he'd grown to hate." http://books.google.com/books?id=GE_yDipSkYQC&q=traitor#v=snippet&q=embittered%20traitor&f=false Startswithj (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding in the extreme as both or something similar. Possibly adding quotes around embittered would also make more clear this is not a Wikipedia judgement but reporting on a noted criticism. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not include the entire quote? (Meaning the two sentences quoted above.) It really gets the point across much better than a paraphrase, would make it clear that this is not Wikipedia saying any of this, would not take up much more space than the paraphrase, and would avoid any need to use the word "extreme", which we really should not be using except when absolutely necessary, which it is not here. Anyone reading this quote will know that the writer is attempting to present two extremes, and doing a good job of it, too. If there is a concern that the intro is already too long (which I think it is), there is some other stuff that can be trimmed here and there. The sentence about the different facilities in which Manning was housed while awaiting trial can probably go into the body of the article, if it is not there already. Now that she has been tried, the intro does not need to detail where she was detained pre-trial. (I am not sure it was "intro material" before the trial either, but it surely isn't now.) Neutron (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the part about the different facilities was retained because of the solitary confinement and the domestic/international attention in connection with that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the whole quote except that when you do we're not really suppose to use Wikilinks which are needed IMHO. Also in another discussion someone pointed out that using a lengthy quote may give too much emphasis when it's not needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on what? (Admittedly I have not read all of the discussions about this article. As someone who has not been very involved with this article, I am trying to see whether I can help resolve some of the disputes.) Neutron (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:WikiLeaks

Please weigh in at Template talk:WikiLeaks about violation of WP:BLP by insisting on linking under Manning's former gender and name. Yworo (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing to Wikipedia talk pages not allowed

We aren't even allowed to source to other articles. Policy certainly prohibits sourcing to Wikipedia talk pages. So either The Register source stays (or another more accurate one is found), or both the sentence and citation should be removed. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to find a reliable source saying that this article was moved back to "Chelsea". So maybe Wikipedia is not as important as significant as we like to think. In any case, the issue is tangential to the actual person, so I propose that we remove the paragraph on wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, see WP:SELFREF. I'd say if the refs are not easily found (because it didn't get a lot of coverage), then we should go with "The first rule of Wikipedia" which is "Don't talk about Wikipedia." :-) Yworo (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There likely is a source around, you may look at the box at the top of this page - "This article has been mentioned or used by the following media organizations:" and see if one of them mentions it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Source found and added. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You guys are so busy wikilawyering that you don't even bother to read the f*cking source - which claims that the page move was due to an ARBCOM decision. Given that this is patently false, the Guardian source cannot stand. WP:SELFREF discourages links to wikipedia talk pages, but there is an explicit template {{Selfref}} which is used on hundreds of articles for exactly these kind of links. Using a link to a wikipedia talk page as a primary source about what happened on that wikipedia talk page is so obvious it kills me to have to explain it - of course it's a primary source, there isn't on heaven or earth a more primary source about what page move wikipedia performed than the page that discussed the page move. Until we find a better secondary source, the wikipedia link should stay, with the selfref template. Please stop the reverting - selfref is just a guideline and this is a great example to IAR.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:WPNOTRS, even Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. Talk pages are covered under WP:RSOPINION and WP:OR (original research from primary sources). If you still believe you are in the right, then come back with a favorable opinion from WP:RSN, okay? Yworo (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Spewing acronyms like a water fountain doesn't advance your argument. KonveyorBelt 00:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would never use a wikipedia article as a source, and we're not using the talk page to cite an opinion, we're using a talk page as a source for what happened on that talk page. Why do you want to waste our time dragging this over to some other notice board - try just reading what I wrote. The best primary source about what happened in a wikipedia administrative process is the page where that process took place, and at the top of the link given there is a very clear description of the fact that the page moved, and even why. This is eminently useful for the reader, so they can see what happens behind the scenes, and the interpretation of this primary source is impeccable, so there's no WP:OR. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We are never allowed to interpret primary sources, even when it is "impeccable", even when it's not a Wikipedia talk page. All interpretation of primary sources falls under the prohibition of original research, no matter how "good" the interpretation is. Yworo (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, you've been here a long time, so I'm rather stunned that you continue to cite things without reading them. Do me a favor - go read about our policy on primary sources, then come back with an interpretation that supports that my reading of the move request is flawed based on that policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read them and am deeply familiar with them. You are wrong. Again, if you are in the right, you will easily come back from the reliable sources noticeboard with approval. Again, if you are certain you are right, why wouldn't you seek this confirmation? Yworo (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

to make it easy, read this Wikipedia:PRIMARY. Then, read this Wikipedia:CIRCULAR#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it - allow me to quote: "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case, and may be used following the policy for primary sources." - this is a POLICY, e.g. WP:V. Can we end the wikilawyering now? I mean, you couldn't ask for a more explicit statement, in policy, of exactly what I've been saying. Yworo, you are obviously not deeply familiar with WP:PRIMARY, because you ignore this line: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Are you trying to claim that someone reading that page could not deduce that the page was moved? Seriously? Please go back to the law books. WP:V just whooped you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because this is a WP:BLP and sourcing requirements are much tighter. You'd better get approval from both WP:RSN and WP:BLPN, come to think of it. Yworo (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yrowo, the claim in question has nothing to do with Manning, so, no, the sourcing requirements are NOT much tighter. Again, try to make a policy-based argument - quote the necessary sections, and tell me why the WP:V and WP:PRIMARY sections I already cited above do not suffice. If you want to drag this to another noticeboard, go ahead, but WHY????? Everyone agrees with the claim! No-one is disputing the claim! You are only warring about whether to add an inaccurate guardian article which got its facts WRONG, or link to the primary source that has the facts RIGHT. The rest is just a cloud of wiki-bullshit and an enormous waste of time. Cite policy, cite policy, cite policy, or go away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are certainly free to go away voluntarily. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Cite policy Yworo. Please. I can wikilawyer with the best of them if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Well, the main (non) policy you are violating is "Don't be a dick" (since you specifically asked for it). Yworo (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is pure crap as Obi points out. If we can't use Wikipedia, we should just remove it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DICK isn't policy, not even on Meta. KonveyorBelt 02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:V on use of wikipedia to describe wikipedia; I think people confuse the idea of citing a wikipedia article (which should frankly never be done, at least not for a fact) - vs citing a background wikipedia process (for example, an article on Wikipedia's sourcing policy could cite Wikipedia's sourcing policy! - and in this case, a claim about a RM can cite the RM as a primary source. It's a common misconception this is not permitted, but as WP:V (a pillar policy) notes, there is an exception, and this is it. Konveyor, while I appreciate your asides, I'd also appreciate your views on this matter - cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This Page Listed His Name Wrong

This page has his name listed wrong. It calls Bradley Manning "Chelsea Manning." Indeed, Manning did take on the nickname Chelsea, and one article said he was looking into legally changing his name, but he has not yet changed his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.250.50 (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please just take a cursory glance over this talk page before commenting in future; pay particular note to the FAQ at the top. Her legal name is irrelevant. — Richard BB 08:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Strained relationship

I recently partially reverted an edit of User:Elaqueate because it removed a useful quote from the father and implied that the father's quote was questionable about Manning growing up happy because they had a strained relationship and was often absent.[4] It seemed like WP:SYNTH to imply that the father's assessment wasn't reliable, which was the intent as mentioned in the edit summary, "Father shouldn't be used as untempered source of whether childhood was 'happy' ". There is an implication that the father wasn't there enough to assess whether Manning was happy growing up, which isn't supported by a reliable source. I moved the strained relationship info to the paragraph that discusses the father's absences. I thought the father's quote was also useful because it showed that in 2011 the father referred to Manning as a male. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that say Manning's father was mostly absent from the majority of her childhood. I know that you are trying to put more and more references to Manning being described as a boy, but you are giving undue weight to someone described as abusive by other sources. You can't put the father as a somehow neutral source alone. You seem to want to include "Manning is a man" references for their own sake, when we seem to have plenty. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the time period described as "happy" by her father: "The absences strained Bradley’s relationship with his father, family members said. And when Brian was home, he was, one relative said, “far too strict” — in contrast to a mother who was “far too soft.” Bradley was “afraid of his dad,” Davis said. He recalled how Bradley once told him that “he had to hide out in a tree” or that “his dad was going at him with a belt.” Once, when Bradley was in the second grade or so, his father gave him a spanking so severe that the next day at school, he told his teacher he could not sit down, his mother and sister said. His father was also “abusive with words,” Susan Manning said." __Elaqueate (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll pass on your invitation to turn this into a forum discussion about whether or not Manning was happy growing up, although I could give the other side if I wanted to. As I mentioned, your edit was synth, I explained why, and you haven't addressed that. Regarding the father mentioning in a 2011 interview that Manning was a young man, I think that is useful there because we use feminine pronouns there for the father's narrative, which gives the false impression that the father referred to Manning as a female in the inteview and in their relationship. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"...gives the false impression that the father referred to Manning as a female..." Nonsense. If the article said "Manning's father said that Manning has always liked carrots" it would not give the false impression that the father referred to his own child as "Manning". So if the article said "Manning's father said that she has always liked carrots" it similarly would not give the impression that the father referred to his child as female. Only a reader who does not understand how the English language works would get a false impression. 99.192.66.17 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

1. Multiple sources describe Manning's father as mostly absent and not an unbiased source about the quality of Manning's childhood.. The quote alone does not address that. I added a note to the source to back up the addition. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

2. It is represented multiple times in this article that Manning presented as a boy in early childhood. I understand that you want to give it much more weight, but I think you are going overboard. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re 1, perhaps you should give the excerpts and sources for your statement, especially the part about multiple reliable sources saying that the father was not an unbiased source about the quality of Manning's childhood. Also, the father's absences were addressed in another paragraph, where I also added your contribution re strained relationship and absences, without the synth.

Re 2, we have no other info in the article about how the father referred to Manning and as I said it is useful for avoiding the false impression that the father referred to Manning as a female in the interview and in their relationship. Also, I think the father's comment is needed for NPOV because of the impression elsewhere in the article that Manning had an unhappy childhood.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a widely held view that Manning's childhood was happy. It is normally described as difficult at best. I have quoted from sources already, and the other sources referenced certainly do not claim a happy childhood, so I don't know what more I can point to here. And otherwise, I think it has been made clear multiple times that Manning presented as a boy, including to her father. You are pushing your point here. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess that now's the time to hear from other editors. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What it comes down to is this edit.[5] Restore the quote or not? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My earlier edit balanced her father's assertion that she had a happy childhood with the widely asserted belief (in all of our other references) that she did not. You can't just have the father's word as gospel about her childhood when other people describe him as being abusive at that time. And it is especially bad to do it just to emphasize that people saw her as a boy, again for the fifth or sixth time. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

comment We shouldn't be assigning any value to the statements made by Manning Sr. as being factually true or false. We should rely on the sources to make that judgment. If the sources throw out his opinion and leave it for the reader to decide, well then that is what we should do.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's true that Brian Manning said that our subject had a happy childhood, and that all other sources we reference seem to disagree. It's not a synth to indicate the father doesn't represent the majority view, I'd hope. I'm sure the father thinks the childhood was just fine but it doesn't seem encyclopedic to showcase his opinion in a standalone quote when our sources disagree. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be wrong to use his father's statement to sayManning DID have a happy childhood. But it is not a violation to quote the father and attribute his statements as his opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My original edit retained the father's opinion. Bob K31416 objected to adding other sourced opinion and wanted the father's opinion to stand alone, when it is arguably fringe. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the way it went and you might check that by reading this discussion from the beginning. If you do, note that I raised the issue of SYNTH in your original edit and you didn't address that.

So far I haven't seen any reliable source or quote in a reliable source that said Manning did not have a happy childhood. There has been mention in the article about some incidences and aspects of Manning's childhood that one would expect were difficult for her, but that doesn't mean that overall Manning's childhood was not happy and it would be questionable OR to advance that position. The father's statement is meant to somewhat balance the negative impression from those other parts of the article for NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The father is repeatedly reported as not a great source for what you want us to rely on him for. If you want to include that quote, it has to reflect what sources say. "For Bradley, who was born in 1987, eleven years after his sister, his father sometimes seemed like a stranger. “One time, I came home after six weeks away and Bradley [then 3 or 4] didn’t recognize me,” Brian said. Bradley excelled at school, an A student and a math and science whiz who won the school’s science fair three years running. He did make a few friends among the smarter crowd, though in his father’s mind, Bradley was a loner who refused to make an effort, which perplexed his sociable father. “He’d get off the school bus, and he’d either go upstairs … or be downstairs on the computer,” he explained. “Basically, to put it in a nutshell, Bradley never showed any interest in anything outside [the house].” By the late nineties, Brian had essentially moved overseas for his job. “I’d call home every day and talk for a few minutes with my wife, but I don’t think I ever talked to Bradley, because usually he was busy on the computer doing something.” "Sourced __Elaqueate (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And again, it has been reported in the sources we cite throughout the article that Manning's upbringing was "troubled" and was being raised by "neglectful" and "alcoholic" parents. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-lonely-soldier-childhood One source of many]. The father's claim should be balanced against what other sources say, most of whom call him an absent and neglectful parent. We shouldn't give him undue balance just because he said something you want to use to emphasize Manning's gender presentation, as you have stated. __Elaqueate (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you responded very well to my last message, so I'll just accept that we have different views and leave it at that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I will add some more from the actual journalist cited, to reflect their assessment that Manning was "an isolated young man with a troubled family life". At the time of the interview, they also made the interesting and explicit disclaimer that Brian Manning's assertions were "not necessarily consistent with other accounts." I don't think it's a synth to repeat what they specifically reported about those other accounts at the time. __Elaqueate (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns changing

Use of female pronouns in the entire article is frankly ridicolous, for two reasons

• he "was" male on the whole event
• sex change is only limited to simple declarations

I suggest the complete restoring of male pronouns at least in the part prior the last declarations, and change the title back on Bradley as he was known as Bradley, an user usually search Bradley and not Chelsea Elizabeth. Respect for his decision, but these kind of changes create a lot of confusion in the Wikipedia users. Wikipedia purpose is to informate, not an absurd search for politically correct. Thanks, from a foreign user. Lenore (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, this argument has been done to death. You can go over the pages and pages and pages of arguments about this subject if you'd like, in the form of the two move discussions, but in the last one, there was a clear consensus that the page should be titled "Chelsea Manning". If you'd like to argue against that consensus, you're welcome to do so, but you're not going to get anywhere. Cam94509 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So should I conclude that Wikipedia is policed by monothematic users and LGBT sockpuppets? Great. Lenore (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That would not follow. First, one needn't be lgb or t to think Wikipedia should usually defer to people's preferred names, and in this case, preferred pronouns. Second, we're supposed to be trying for a neutral point of view, and only allowing cissexual points of view on trans-related articles would not achieve that. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If a multiple murderer asks to be called a samaritan what will you do? Will you change the profession from "criminal" to "samaritan" only because he asks it? Manning is biologically a male, you can't change pronouns that for millenary conventions are referred to biological sex only because he "feels" a woman. When he will change sex, you can use the right female pronouns to expose facts from the sex change to the next sex change. During the Wikileaks issues (and now), Manning was (is) a male, so it should be used the male pronouns. As I red, few LGBT users have closed the legitimate objections from a lot of users who have rightly exposed this absurd editorial politic. Please be serious, this is an encyclopedia. Lenore (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been through two contentious, heavily-debated Requested Move processes and an ArbCom case. Consensus has been established that the female pronouns and name are appropriate. Consensus can change, but you're going to have to discuss, not revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, put the stick down. Your comments here are fairly insensitive. This is an encyclopedia, and it reports the world as it is - which means that the widely-recognised existence of trans people should not be contentious! AlexTiefling (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Too much has been made of the name, which is honestly not an issue. Per the MOS the last name is used in the article text after the first use of the full name so it only pops up right at the start. Not to mention that it is just a name and neither name is inherently masculine or feminine, but only seen that way by society. I do think the use of pronouns here can be most confusing for readers wishing to adequately understand the nature of Manning's life, which should be our first priority. A faithful relaying of history should not take a back seat to political correctness or even the personal feelings of a living subject. This is simple enough, Manning should be described as a boy when Manning was commonly considered a boy, but described as a girl when that consideration changed. Seems the discussion over MOS:IDENTITY has been heavily leaning towards endorsing that approach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The first priority on wikipedia is to inform. Objective and almost immutable qualities such as biological sex should have priority on subjective, highly-variable aspects. If Manning tomorrow will change her mind, you have to change all pronouns and page title, and so on. Biological sex, instead, can't be changed easily and in a short period, so it has a more informative connotation and should have priority on the rest. The only reason of this irrational, illogical and absurd change of gender and name based only on free declarations that are susceptible of variation in few days, hours or minutes and don't reflect widely known aspects of this event is politically correctness, but it's a damage for Wikipedia accessibility and credibility. On Google Bradley gets 29.200.000 results, Chelsea gets 11.700.000: wikipedia guidelines impose the most-widely known title, not the politically correct one. Many users are very concerned about this issues. Actually, many reasonable opinions of users were censored by very aggressive edits from LGBT sysops, giving the idea their reasons are minoritary. Almost all the threads I have opened on this issue were closed by some LGBT users and sysop: they are minoritary, but their aggressive methodology gives the wrong idea that their "ideas" reflect consensus. But illogical ideas don't reflect consensus, objections gived here in fact are very generic and actually aren't true objections, only boycotting of legitimate replies. Lenore (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you're saying here hasn't been already addressed many times, and your wording is bordering on baiting for users in the LGBT camp. Please. Happeningfish (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• You appear not to have participated in the discussions surrounding this article before, so you may not be aware that the points you make have been made and rejected many times before. You can see the previous rejections in the recent archives of this page; for discussion of which name is most common, you can see also the last RM. I apologise if my response, or the responses of other editors, seem(s) curt; perusing the aforelinked archives may, however, give you an idea of why there is so little interest in beating this dead horse any more.
  You may also find it helpful to consider what WP:HEAR says (italics mine): "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." -sche (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that the majority of people are rational. If the issue was addressed many times, it means simply that a rational opinion supported by a lot of people was suppressed by few irrational users only because these users have sysop powers. So, there isn't a community who "hear", but a restricted oligarchy who dictate editorial politics. I call this dictatorship. Lenore (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Manning is going to be in jail for at least the next 8 years, the hype of the whole my name is Chelsea thing I feel has died off. I would just let it go and wait for history to decide what the final outcome is going to be and what name manning is going to be most notable under. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Claiming it is LGBT ppl and even LGBT admins who are enforcing this in some kind of dictatorship is so far from the actual truth that it is hard to take yuou seriously, Lenore♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)