Talk:Chelsea Manning

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request is the initial move of the article to "Chelsea Manning" is reverted, returning the article to the original title, "Bradley Manning.

The panel of administrators convened to review and close this discussion has unanimously reached the following determinations regarding this requested move:

1. The title of the page prior to the events in dispute was "Bradley Manning"; this was a long-term, stable title, and the brief and limited discussion prior to the initial page move to "Chelsea Manning" does not constitute the formation of community consensus to move the page. Therefore, the default title of the page absent a consensus to move the page is "Bradley Manning".
2. The discussion following the move request provided a clear absence of consensus for the page to be moved from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning".
3. 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".
4. MOS:IDENTITY is not expressly applicable to article titles, and is therefore not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".. The panel acknowledges that MOS:IDENTITY is applicable to pronouns as used in the article, and that the reversion of this title in no way implies that the subject should be addressed in the article by masculine pronouns. Although some may perceive this as leading to incongruity between the subject's name and the pronouns used throughout the article, such incongruity appears in numerous articles about subjects whose common name appears to differ from their gender.
5. WP:COMMONNAME remains the basic principle by which article titles are chosen. This policy provides several factors which are weighed in the determination of a proper article title. In the requested move discussion, a number of editors noted that "Bradley Manning" was the name under which the subject became notable and performed the actions which led to her notability; and that readers interested in these actions would be likely to search for this subject under the name, "Bradley Manning". Competing examples were provided of some reliable sources changing their usage, while some retained their previous usage. The change that did occur was not sufficient to persuade the majority of editors, including some who indicated that their minds could be changed by sufficient evidence of changed usage. Although WP:COMMONAME provides that "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change", it does not provide that no weight should be given to reliable sources published before the name change. The total mass of sources is weighted towards "Bradley Manning", and it is too soon to determine whether usage following the subject's announced name change represent an enduring trend, or a blip occasioned by reports in the news surrounding the name change itself.
6. 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.
7. A number of editors who supported reverting the title back to "Bradley Manning" also expressed the opinion that the common name of the subject is likely to change over a relatively short time span, this close is without prejudice to a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days^* from the date of this determination, at which point those advocating the move of this page will be able to present all evidence that may arise during that time demonstrating a change in the common name of this subject as used by reliable sources. In the interim, editors may propose moving the page to a compromise title such as "Private Manning" or "Bradley (Chelsea) Manning".

^* The sole point as to which the closing administrators were not unanimous was the length of time that should be required to pass before a new move request to "Chelsea Manning" is proposed; one member of the panel would have required ninety days.

This was by no means an easy process, and the closing administrators recognize that any conclusion to this discussion would engender further controversy; however, we are in agreement that this result is the only proper interpretation of the discussion conducted with respect to this dispute. bd2412 T 03:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Note: After carefully considering the proposal made on my talk page, I have moved this discussion to: Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request.

This move serves two purposes. First, it reduces the massive size of this talk page (the move discussion is well over 500,000 bytes). Second, it makes it very clear that the discussion has concluded, and further comments are to be made elsewhere. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note the panel is (BD2412 (talk · contribs), BOZ (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs)) NE Ent 13:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a future date so this doesn't get auto-archived. 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportfan5000 (talk • contribs)

In the future you can use {{DNAU}} for that. NE Ent 13:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns

Further information: MOS:IDENTITY

Manning addressed as a "she"?

INTENTIONALLY misidentifying and misgendering a transgedered person is transphobia. By wiki's own standards, her identity should be reflected. The wiki editors who have made this decision are transphobic and politically active to the detriment of the article. (WALT)

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

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

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

Yes, in the case of the article's contents, MOS:IDENTITY is a rock solid reason to use she. Vexorian (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I second this. The fact that this is a debate at all is laughable... I can't believe how uneducated the masses are on transgendered people and their issues. People who are blatantly transphobic and obviously know nothing of trans-people should not even have a say in this issue. This article should be moved to Chelsea Manning and have all pronouns changed to female, MOS:IDENTITY is very clear on this. To not do so based on a few bigoted people's biased stances would compromise Wikipedia's already fragile integrity... — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Will Bradley Manning be serving out his sentence in a male prison or a female one? Will he be using male lavatories or female ones? No amount of cosmetic surgery can turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. All it can do is superficially simulate the appearance of such. Male and female, because the sexes only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction, are defined by the biology of sexual reproduction, not the pathology of a broken mind that believes itself to be something other than it is. They are biological distinctions that exist in relation to reproduction without which they would not have any function/meaning. FurryAminal (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Actually, yes, I can put the trans-phobic label on everyone with that opinion.

"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a man and he should not be allowed to marry another man" is unambiguously homophobic.

"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a black man and he should not be allowed to marry a white woman" is unambiguously racist.

Please explain how your argument is not unambiguously transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not share MightySaiyan's view on this, but the analogous transphobic comment to your examples would be "I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but Bradley Manning is a man and should not be able to live as a woman." That's not at all what was said, MightySaiyan was talking about Manning's legal name and his views on what that should mean for the wording on an encyclopedic article. Such inflammatory responses to that are helping no one. U-Mos (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been had UMPTEEN times on this page already. Please drop the stick, both of you. Focus on content. The article currently uses "she", and will likely continue to do so unless MOS:IDENTITY has changed. Thus, there's not much more to say here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to change MOS:IDENTITY, Manning is verifiably a man as evidenced by his admission into the US Army as a man and his incarceration in a male prison. His name is verifiably "Bradley" Manning as evidenced by the fact that the military and the courts still refer to him as "Bradley", not "Chelsea". And in regards to the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, the non-neutral bias is coming from those who insist on calling him a "she" and using his non-legal name as the title of the article. He is neither a "she" nor is his name "Chelsea". When his name is legally changed and he starts hormone replacement therapy, at that point the article should be updated to reflect those changes. But at the current time it is obvious that the fervor to change his name and call him a "she" is driven by editors with a non-neutral agenda. Martylunsford (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the discussed section of MOS:IDENTITY is explicitly intended to be used for the pages of trans people. I'm not sure how this: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." could be read any other way, especially given the lines that follow it about "phase of that person's life" and similar things that imply transition. Given that, I'd say you'd have to blind yourself to the rules pretty willfully to miss that MOS:IDENTITY pretty clearly does assert that female pronouns should be used on this page. Cam94509 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have evidence she was born as a he? Any medical assessment of genitalia and chromosomes at the moment of birth (from reputable sources, of course) ? Vexorian (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment: I don't think we should call this transphobia. Transphobia should be when people beat up transsexuals and discriminate against them, as some sort of evidence of actual animosity. I think there should be some other category of "trans-skepticism" where a person can decide he doesn't believe the surgery and lifestyle changes really change what sex someone is, or doesn't want to stop using an old name or pronoun in certain circumstances, when there is no animosity. Much as someone can be firmly unbelieving of Islam but not Islamophobic. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if you would rename it "trans-skepticism", a trans person being miss-gendered will perceive it as discrimination. Vexorian (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply from a position of journalistic and encyclopedic accuracy, we need to refer to Private Manning as a man named Bradley Manning. Just because he stated to the mass media that he "wants" to be a woman (yes, "wants" is the operative word here) does not mean he is one, any more than I am not a Ph.D. just because I want to eventually be one. Stating that one is something when that isn't really achieved, is a fraud. All U.S. military records refer to him as Bradley Manning, and so are all historical documents and media reports up to very recently. "Bradley Manning" is a recognized name around the world, but not "Chelsea Manning." Furthermore, he will be committed to the U.S. Disciplinary Barrack as an inmate named Bradley Manning, and U.S. case laws generally bar inmates from changing legal names while serving their sentences. The Associated Press Stylebook, for what's worth, directs the media outlets to refer to Brad as a he until the time he transitioned. Once again, lacking any objective evidence other than his public statement of his desire, it would be inappropriate to refer to him as a she or a woman. Amythewillowprincess (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You're all kinds of off base here (In fact, I'm almost completely certain you're wrong on the AP Style guide, too, given that, last time I checked, that's not what the AP style guide says in the slightest.). You're also offbase on wikipedia policy on pronouns (that would be determined by MOS:IDENTITY, and you're reasonably off base on the current scientific understanding of gender. Also, wikipedia is not concerned with "legal names", nor is essentially anyone else on earth. The governing policy on Wikipedia is WP:TITLE, and the major point of dispute here is whether MOS:IDENTITY says anything about titles, and what the guidelines from WP:COMMONNAME, a section of WP:TITLE, actually tell us to do. While it's possible to assert that one should Ignore all the rules, one has to have a pretty good reason to do so. (Forgot to sign. OOPS!)Cam94509 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it... If Tom Gabel was changed to Laura Jane Grace and currently remains at Laura Jane Grace, why don't we use the same reasoning for that article on this one and make it Chelsea Manning? I'm not trying to make an argument, I'm asking a legitimate question, and I want to know the difference between the gender debate on this person and Laura Jane Grace. Thanks — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Keep in mind that MOS:IDENTITY was created in its current form with relatively little discussion; far less than has occurred a a result of this particular event. There is substantial evidence that this guideline, in its current form, does not reflect the views of the majority (or is very close to the tipping point either way). This individual represents a strange series of events that is very unlikely to happen again in such a public forum. There are so many ins and outs here that it is unfair to label either side as being transphobic when the topic of discussion here isn't Chelsea now and forward, but rather the way of representing that in an article where the claim to notability took place before the transition. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The views of the majority are clearly subject to extreme WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in this case. This is the reason why consensus is not supposed to be a vote. Wikipedia erred massively to ignore that part of the policy in this precise case. The admins work was not just to count votes. Vexorian (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re personal pronouns

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

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

I find a problem in making a change of gender retrospective. It's all very well for a person to request, as Manning did, to be referred to by the feminine pronouns "from this day forward". It's the retrospective part that is problematical. Another famous transsexual, Christine Jorgensen described herself as a child as "frail, blond, introverted little boy who ran from fistfights and rough-and-tumble games". The author Jan Morris transitioned to a female identity in her mid forties but before that date, had married a woman and had five children by her. Peter Wherrett lived about 70 years as a man, marrying and divorcing three times and having children and grandchildren. For the last three years of life, Wherrett lived as a woman called Pip, before dying of prostate cancer at the age of 72. Prospective identification as a woman is not a problem; it's the retrospective part that is problematic. Michael Glass (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times specified that it would now use "her" but would keep using "him" when referring to past events. I think this would be the best solution. IMHO, the retroactive use of "her" and "she" in the narrative, when referring to events which took place when Manning was still widely known as a "he", is very unfortunate : I don't think it does a great service to transgendered people. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Using the male pronoun to refer to events when Manning was regarded as male seems sensible.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this, PLEASE!!! I'm fine if Manning wants to be female from now on, but she was born a boy, and did many of the same things boys and young men did. To attribute those actions to a female is *very* confusing, and honestly seems a little wrong. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So, MOS:IDENTITY says that "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." when discussing pronouns. Moreover, there's reason the policy is written this way: The idea is that one does not *become* trans by announcing one is trans, one is trans (and thus best described by your preferred gender pronoun) in the past, too. While it's understandable that retrospective pronoun shifts are hard to swallow, they're technically much less "wrong" than the alternative. While it might be perfectly reasonable to use male pronouns retrospectively given the persons expressed acceptance of such treatment, such isn't *really* in line with reality, and it's not really in line with policy either. (The first half is more important than the second; if this were merely a problem of policy, this would be an ideal case to use WP:IAR)Cam94509 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's consistent with the Associated Press Manual of Style. Amythewillowprincess (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"She was born a boy"? Fascinating. I thought the whole issue of GID was "being born in the wrong body". Are you saying that the "disorder" has been re-defined (if so, please provide a source) or that Manning only "acquired" GID at some point in time (and again, please provide a source). Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC) And yes, this sort of stuff is precisely what some define as transphobic. Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ease up. See this; GLAAD, which has been put forth as the final word on this subject by some, uses the term "born a boy", or "born as a male" as do many transgender people themselves. GID is itself complex, and we don't have any specific evidence of when GID started for Manning, or when any arbitrary child may recognize it - for obvious reasons this would be confusing to a child in any case, who is always treated as a boy but feels different, it may take a while for them to crystallize their feelings. Even with Manning, it took until she was 25 until she finally declared that she was a woman, but I don't think all people with GID ultimately end up switching genders, they may just express themselves differently. Born in the wrong body seems like an oversimplification of the spectrum of GID and Gender dysphoria.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ease up on what? Some transwomen say "born a boy". Some say "born in the wrong body". Some characterise their experience differently. But the editor is making a definite statement (Manning was born male) which, IMO, needs to be supported by sources if it is to inform the content of the article; s/he also said that was Manning male up until this point in time ("wants to be female from now on") which amounts to a denial of GID as a real, lived experience. Which seems to fit the definition of 'transphobic language'. Of course, much of what's on this page is much, much worse. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is also a treatable medical condition with hormones and gender reassignment surgery. As far as I have found from the sources, he has not been diagnosed as someone who would be eligible for this treatment. Until there is a some reliable source that this is the disorder he was born with, there should not be a change to his gender. He is not qualified to make the diagnoses himself. Doctors don't change someones gender simply because they say they feel a certain way especially during an extremely stressful event occurring in their lives. At points, Manning also expressed desires to kill himself yet no doctors leapt forward with assisted suicide nor did anyone make the case that he should be allowed to kill himself. They were episodic feelings under stress and passed. It is a huge leap to take someone's word and transform their entire history on that one expression. Quite simply, Manning has also felt gay as he was attracted to men. Transgender and gay are not the same thing as one is treated and the other is not. Without a proper evaluation by a psychiatrist that specializes in transgender issues and can make a diagnoses, this is simply a statement from a person that is under extreme stress that is quite possibly simply trying to escape his past. I doubt any doctor would treat him until/unless they can separate his identity from the stress of escaping his past actions as well as discerning whether he is simply gay and attracted to men, or actually female. This cannot be done in a press release. -DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: manning has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder, this was mentioned during the trial, by several different psychologists. To Guettarda, there is plenty of evidence that Manning was "born a boy" - the most important of which was, she was raised as a boy. This is not a statement about genitals, however, of which we don't know anything (and I frankly don't care nor think it matters).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DHeyward, where in our policies/guidelines, in IDENTITY, does it say we can only change someone's gender after a medical diagnosis has been made? I havent read that policy or guideline so please point it out to me. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the obvious that needs no policy. He also expressed suicidal tendencies yet we he have no Doctor that would be willing to assist. There is no reputable doctor that would start hormone therapy or gender reassignment due to the current stress he is under. In fact, the underlying characteristic is his attraction to men. Whether that is gay (i.e. not a condition that is abnormal or treatable) or he is transgender (which is treatable) is not conclusive. If he is able to change his name or gender, everything he has done should refer to his proper name and gender. He will file a legal brief as Bradley Manning in the future because there is no record of a name or gender change. He might be the most feminine inmate at the all-male prison. But he is still male. He did not wear a wig or skirt at trial. He can claim he is female, the Easter Bunny or Ronald McDonald. His self-identification is secondary to the courts that refer to him as human,man, army enlisted personnel. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PikkoroDaimao. He was a man before he said he wanted to be a woman. Anything he did as a man is something HE did. I do not agree with MOS:IDENTITY. Chaz Bono seems to have come up with a diplomatic solution.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Another statement from Manning's lawyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"gender dysphoria—broadly defined as discomfort or distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth."[1]

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

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

It is not a fringe opinion, it is a very real one that is tied to the rejection of political correctness. I give no credence to Bearcat's "medical records are private therefore we just have to go by what the subject says", it's just too absurd to even address. Like it or not, America is fairly evenly divided between liberal and conservative ideologies, and this one of mine happens to fall on the conservative side of things. Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so. You can deride that as "fringe" if that's what makes you comfortable with yourself, I really don't plan to spend much time haranguing you on why that's incorrect. But from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, we're still at the simple place and time where Manning is still regarded as a male, and generally addresses him as such. WP:COMMONNAME and all that. This whole gender affair should be consigned to a few paragraphs of his bio, maybe even a spinout article if there's enough material. Keep in mind that the primary notability here is a soldier convicted of violating the Espionage Act and about to serve a 35-year term in Ft. Leavenworth. Note that I never plan to edit-war or act tendentiously or attack other editors, I'm just working on moving the discussion here in the way I feel it should go. If the Move Request and other issues do not go the way I wish them to, I will be of course disappointed but will alo consider the matter settled. Unlike some around here, I actually respect consensus. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I feared, Tarc. You reject the medical consensus as "political correctness" and proclaim your conservative ideology. And yet you denounce others for pushing what you call an ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're arguing from unequal positions; the article should never have been moved without having this discussion first. So we started this race with your "side", as it were, already a lap ahead. So me arguing...or "denouncing" to borrow your term...is just trying to get back on equal footing. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to start asking homeopaths if an article on alternative medicine labelled medicine should be moved. There are no sides here, because you haven't qualified for the race; you are rejecting medical consensus in the name of some perceived right to have your opinions supersede fact. There isn't really much room for debate here. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I agree, this just clarifies to those who want to correspond with her that they may have to use "Bradley" to get mail to her and legally the case against her is also in that name. Additionally many supporters have pictures and posters displaying the Bradley name. This doesn't change what the article is one bit from its present appearance although I'm sure the same posters will continue to argue until forced to accept consensus affirming Chelsea as the title and she/her as the commonsense and respectful pronouns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I somehow read the statement like three times and missed the apparent meaning of the "reference to the trial" part of it. It's true that maybe as Tarc said it "takes the wind out of the sails" of the one side to some degree. But really, before wasn't your position that what the person themselves wanted wasn't relevant? Do you suddenly think that we should defer to the subject's wishes? How does this statement change things, really? It doesn't really address the larger question of whether it is in fact accurate to use female pronouns in this situation, a question about which there can be a reasonable difference of opinion. AgnosticAphid talk 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Follow-up: It's also ambiguous whether "expects to be referred to as Bradley" means "wants to be referred to as Bradley" or "realizes people will refer to her as Bradley," especially in light of her apparent further comment that she is a "realist" and "understands," discussed in the "when bradley becomes chelsea" section below. AgnosticAphid talk 16:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Information from Manning's lawyer about pronouns and the photograph

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

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

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

For future reference, the "current main photograph" is File:Bradley Manning US Army.jpg ("MANNING, BRADLEY PFC HEAD AND SHOULDERS 4-26-2012.jpg"). This is the US Army photo of PFC Manning in uniform in front of a US flag, made available by his lawyer, David Coombs. -- ToE 17:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

WP should be taking a consistent approach, not treating individual subjects according to their requests (or what are interpreted as their requests).

This is useful evidence that the guidance at WP:MOSIDENTITY may be wrong-headed, but that's a discussion to be had there. Formerip (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly could use a good discussion and re-write for better language. I always thought that if the subject was notable enough for a full and lengthy article before changing gender identity, that it simply referred to them in the gender they were at the time of the events and situations being summarized. But not all living persons who are subjects of BLP articles on Wikipedia want that. There is no standard way to deal with individuals. Sorry, but there isn't. The WMF encourages us, when at all possible, to respect the wishes of the subject. Knowledgekid87, the wishes of the person, regardless of who they are, are indeed important to this article. This isn't like anyone is asking for the past to be scrubbed and clearly the subject accepts that and desires the article to reflect that. The fact that they are proud of the current image and feel it is appropriate may have little weight in what image is used, but it still has some importance and value to the discussion since we then, at least, know the subject is not rejecting the past history of Bradley Manning or asking the article to do so Thanks SlimVirgin.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agnosticaphid asked me on my talk page to clarify what the lawyer said. I asked three questions: which title would Manning prefer; should the female pronoun be used throughout for all life stages; and is the April 2012 photograph in uniform still appropriate as the lead image? I also asked permission to share his views on the talk page, and he agreed.

In response he linked to his most recent blog post, then he addressed the WP article.

His reply about the title was a little ambiguous. He wrote: "I would go with Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning) or do two separate entries by maintaining Bradley Manning and creating a link to Chelsea Manning." I wasn't sure whether that meant Chelsea Manning or Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning). At first I thought by "two separate entries" he meant two articles, but I think he just meant a redirect. I've asked for clarification but haven't received a response yet.

Regarding the pronouns, he wrote: "Female pronouns should be used for only post-announcement material." Regarding the photograph: "Chelsea is proud of that photo and would want you to use that until she can provide a better photo at some point in the future."

I've forwarded the email to BD2412. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Chelsea Manning has done nothing notable post coming out. Furthermore, I don't think Manning's lawyer will be using pronouns like "she" or "Chelsea" in future court filings. The name switch and gender change should be a section in the article about "Bradley Manning". Manning will not receive mail addressed to Chelsea. Manning will not be housed in a female penitentary. Will we now have to change every article on "male prisons" because some may contain people that identify as female? I think not. Manning will contradict his own announcement when he files motions that refer to himself as Bradley Manning and any pronouns in those documents will be masculine pronouns. The first time he does this officially, do we move the article back because he then refers to himself as "Bradley" again? --DHeyward (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding pronouns

People keep trying to rewrite sentences to avoid using pronouns, swapping she for the child, the soldier etc, or using Manning's name repeatedly. This isn't helping the writing and there's no need for it, so I'd really appreciate it if the anti-pronoun tweaking would stop. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For events prior to her announcement, it seems to me to be the right way to dodge an impossible ambiguity, so I would tend to disagree that it's not helping or that there's no need for it. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, especially the sentence about "she was small.... for a boy" - the prior wording was better. Sometimes, you have to word carefully, and sometimes that means avoiding a pronoun (for example, if you have a quote in the same sentence that uses "he", you should eschew "she" to introduce it).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDENTITY specifically supports what Slim is saying, why should we make an exception for Chelsea?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You would "appreciate" it? I'd appreciate it if the article were coherent, which is the only reason I'm even bothering with this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDENTITY specifically supports what Slim is saying. There is no need to write poorly to enforce an opinion that she is less female in some way. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well apparently that is just a guideline, and AFAICT there is no mandate to use it part and parcel. And if what Slim reported to us is correct (and I apologize for my snippy response Slim), Manning doesn't want female pronouns to be used for his "male" life, only his "female" life.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not so, this argument has been put and shot down already on this page only days ago, guidelines are equally important as policies, which is why the opposition to calling her Chelsea has been so damaging to wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No, policies are mandates. Guidelines are suggestions, Your opinion of what is and what is not damaging is just that. An opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have seen reliable sources using both he and she in the same sense as well on Margaret Thatcher's page where her name is referred to as Robert in her early life section, your reasoning is poor here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Where here does it say that, Two kinds of pork?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You never answered what I had to say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is challenging the Thatcher usage and anyway transgender issues are substantially different from issues resulting from peop´le getting married, IDENTITY clearly supports what I am saying here. Is there a guideline on usage of maiden names for women? Does it say we shouldnt use them?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And where is the consensus to support what you want? If there is no consensus we stick to the guidelines. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Once the RM is decided, we can open an RfC about pronoun use if that's wanted. But in the meantime, we shouldn't be writing Manning this, Manning that, the child, the soldier, etc, to avoid using any pronoun at all. It's poor writing and it's stigmatizing, as though we're saying Manning was neither a he nor a she. She should be used in exactly the same way he was used in the previous version, except where the context really does require some rewriting (e.g. where a nearby she refers to someone else). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I made the following change: from "she was not allowed to live as an openly gay man" to "Manning was not allowed to live as an openly gay man." It's a logical impossibility for someone who is female to be male. More specifically, someone referred to by the pronoun "she" cannot possibly be a "gay man." The previous sentence took the same basic form as "She was a gay male," which I believe to be logically invalid. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes on this article.

Briefly: I changed the pronouns in this article up to his gender change. I changed them for two reasons, first BLP demands accurate information and trumps pretty much everything else, however, I agree that a person is the best source for information about what they think and believe (WP:V). So, all of the narrative up to his announcement of a gender change, I changed all pronouns to male (never mind the fact that the feminine pronoun in sentances like "She announced her self as female " or " She appeared in a photograph dressed as a woman " look ridiculous. All of the pronouns after he announced his gender change to a female (he hasn't changed it yet, and is still very much a man ) were left as female, again, because here it becomes very much BLP vs V (not to mention that a lot of the news stories prior to his gender change referred to him as male ).

I won't edit war on this, I'll make that change only one time. Feel free to revert if you feel strongly or discuss.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You also removed her new name from the lede and stripped the identification of her as a transgendered person. Moreover, you changed pronouns that refer to the future tense - "he will serve his sentence" which is no longer true, because she will serve her sentence. While the other pronoun issues might be debatable, it is not debatable that her new name should be mentioned in the lede. So yes, I have reverted you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, he's still Bradley Manning , legally and therefore , yes he will serve his sentance is correct. Notice that from the moment he declared a gender change, I left the feminine pronouns in. It's as I explained it, he started off life as man , therefore, masculine pronouns are appropriate, per BLP and V, however, the second he declared his desire to become a woman,in the article, the masculine pronoun becomes inappropriate, the feminine pronoun becomes appropriate per V, now if he decides go through with his gender change, then at that time, the entire gender pronoun may change to all feminine (like Billy Tipton ).

Bottom line, this proposed change takes both BLP and V into consideration without stricly favoring one over the other (as both are policy ). BLP and V for historical portions of his story, prior to his announcement that he wants to change his gender to a woman, and V a bit stronger for the portion of the story thereafter (as people are considered verifiable for what they think and believe). You follow ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, until and unless MOS:IDENTITY changes, follow MOS:IDENTITY: That means retrospectively using the person's preferred pronouns. Cam94509 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, as has been explained many, many times here, one does not have to go through any legal process to change one's name and at any rate, there is no policy or guideline that requires Wikipedia to use a person's "legal name" anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Per MOS:IDENTITY, Manning should be referred to by female pronouns throughout the article. See George Sand for a comparable situation. The decision to keep the article name as Bradley is separate from a conversation/consensus about pronoun usage. (Note, I was not logged in when I first made this comment, so it will show up as an IP in the page history). NewAccount4Me (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mos Identity is a guideline, BLP and V are policy. Policy always trumps everything else, once again , see Billy Tipton. Billy Tipton was born and died a female, but lived as a male. In that article, V is used to always refer to Billy Tipton as he. This is a simliar situation. Bradley Manning, at this time, is male, is referred to is various reliable sources as "Bradley Manning" and a plethora of masculine pronouns. At least, in this article, prior to his decision to change his gender, he needs to be refered to with masculine pronouns (BLP and V --- I also remind you that MOS:IDENTITY is being disputed right now, and is a guideline only ). Once we get to the section in the article where he states he wants to change his gender, it's acceptable to use a feminine pronoun, per V ( again , policy). By the way, George Sand is not comparable, "George Sand" was a psuedonym for a female writer who is referred to as female throughout the article. Bradley Mannings legal name as of this second, is Mr. Bradley Manning, and he's legally male at this time.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation when referring to an article subject by their self-professed gender. Had that information come from TMZ or some non-reputable blog, it would be a BLP violation, but as this info came from a public statement from the subject themselves, it is clearly not a BLP violation. There is no validity in a WP:V argument. My use of Sand as an example is to provide a situation where the article's title and pronouns used are in seeming opposition to one another, but work for the subject in question. There is no "need" for us to rush to discard MOS:IDENTITY at this time. I'd say wait two or three weeks, and then start a reasoned discussion on the talkpage, after the heat from the RM has calmed down, and find a consensus among users about appropriate pronoun usage on this article. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh? As far as I can tell, Billy Tipton lived a big chunk of his life identifying both privately and publicly, until his death, as male. The fact he had female anatomy which was made public around the time of his death doesn't mean he 'died female', there's no evidence he changed his mind and identified as female at the time of his death, in fact logic would suggest this was not the case since he was dying or dead. In other words, the example you've chosen actually supports us using female pronouns just as we use male pronouns for Billy. As NewAccount4Me has said, there's clearly no basis for a BLP argument to use male pronouns, quite the opposite in fact, nor is there a V one since the fact that Chelsea identifies as female and female pronouns are preferred by her and used by other sources is clearly verifiable. Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll suspend the BLP argument, and just use V (Verification ), because I agree, verification is extremely important for a living person. So, let see what the sources in this article tell us:

In Summary: 60 + sources refer to Bradley Manning as Male, including one that refers to his announced gender change, which , although it acknowledges the gender change, uses all male pronouns to refer to Bradley Manning versus 4 that refer to Bradley Manning as a woman, including 1 reference from his defense that talks about an "alter ego". Just on basis of Verifiable references (even if you exclude Salon.com and Huffington Post) you still have a ton of verifiable sources referring to Bradley Manning as male. The references to Bradley Manning as female become very questionable when the reference attributed to Bradley Manning's defense is used. So.... long story short, just on verifiable data, Bradley Manning should be referred to as male through the article.

(raw data below --- it's long, so it's collapsed already )

Sources that refer to Bradley Manning as male and Sources that refer to Bradley Manning as female - Warning, a bit long

References to Bradley Manning as a Male References to Bradley Manning as Female http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-35-years-prison-wikileaks-sentence http://www.today.com/news/i-am-chelsea-read-mannings-full-statement-6C10974052 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-announce-verdict-in-bradley-manning-case-today/2013/07/29/e894a75c-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915 || http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/manning-verdict/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bradley-manning-comes-out-as-transgendered-i-am-a-female/2013/08/22/0ae67750-0b25-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/bradley-manning-verdict.html?_r=0 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/bradley-manning-defense-reveals-alter-ego-named-brianna-manning http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-wikileaks-judge-verdict http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-sentence-bradley-manning-today/2013/08/20/85bee184-09d0-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ || http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/ManningPreferralofCharges.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/lifestyle/magazine/2011/manning/manning_charges.pdf http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41876046/ns/us_news-security/#.UiPTa1Mimto http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57571812/bradley-manning-enters-guilty-pleas-in-wikileaks-case http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/manning-serve-sentence-famous-leavenworth-20023673 http://nymag.com/news/features/bradley-manning-2011-7/index1.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110429142813/http://thislandpress.com/09/23/2010/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23780581 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-14/world/41408520_1_bradley-manning-former-army-intelligence-analyst-military-judge http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-lonely-soldier-childhood http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/13/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Bradley-Manning-WikiLeaks-martyr/UPI-44541300001400 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/who-is-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2011/04/16/AFMwBmrF_print.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/interviews/brian-manning.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/interviews/jordan-davis.html http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=53 http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/portrait-mind-bradley-manning/68341 http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/who-is-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2011/04/16/AFMwBmrF_print.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/28/bradley-manning-video-transcript-wikileaks http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/18/bradley-manning-wikileaks-hearing http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/bradley-manning-court-martial-sentencing http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7918632/Bradley-Manning-suspected-source-of-Wikileaks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook-page.html http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/12/19/letter_suggests_manning_wanted_to_make_history http://technology.inquirer.net/6977/investigators-link-wikileaks-suspect-to-assange http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/world/middleeast/07wikileaks.html http://www.theage.com.au/national/wikileaks-has-more-us-secrets-assange-says-20130305-2fihd.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/bradley-manning-email-drag-photo-sentencing http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8964543/Bradley-Manning-attacked-female-soldier-and-sent-picture-of-himself-as-a-woman.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/27/bradley-manning-us-military-outsider http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/12/19/letter_suggests_manning_wanted_to_make_history http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html http://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/wikileaks_28/singleton/ (Questionable notability ) http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/adrian-lamo-bradley-manning http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak http://www.salon.com/2010/06/18/wikileaks_3/singleton/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/02/national/main20038464.shtml?tag=breakingnews http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/30/bradley-manning-keeping-sane-madness http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/05/AR2011030503624.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/final-arguments-pfc-mannings-wikileaks-case/story?id=15215559#.T4EUD9XNjZw http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031106542.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/04/bradley-manning-jail-conditions-improve http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/30brfs-PANELSAYSWIK_BRF.html?ref=bradleyemanning http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/wikisecrets/what-happened-at-bradley-mannings-hearing-this-week http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/army-manning-hearing http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bradley-manning-offers-guilty-pleas/story?id=17674599#.UKasVIauWk8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-charges-against-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2013/01/08/2eab1f62-59cb-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_story.html http://m.cnn.com/primary/cnnd_fullarticle?topic=newsarticle&category=cnnd_latest&articleId=cnn/2013/08/14/us/manning-sentencing&cookieFlag=COOKIE_SET http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/14/20020933-im-sorry-that-i-hurt-the-united-states-bradley-manning-apologizes-in-court http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/bradley-manning-im-sorry-i-hurt-the-us.html http://www.today.com/health/beginning-gender-change-prison-long-shot-6C10974050 (Discusses his gender change, but still refers to him with masculine pronouns) http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42770631/ns/us_news-security/t/did-obama-taint-wikileaks-suspects-right-fair-trial/#.UiPV8dJwon0 http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/04/22/video-of-obama-on-bradley-manning-he-broke-the-law

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. You ignore the fact that once something has changed, it's changed. The references from before Manning announced her transition are effectively irrelevant, because they are artifacts of a previous status. They became outdated the moment she expressed her gender identity publicly. They might apply historically, and that is a matter for reasonable debate. But facing forward, there is simply no question that Manning is now female and we will use her expressed name and identity.

There is absolutely nothing "questionable" about the sources reporting her transition. Every major news organization in North America, and many overseas, have reported on it. There is no evidence presented by you or anyone else that there is any reason to doubt that Manning made the statements that she did. Unless you have any such evidence, those reliable sources are controlling: Chelsea Manning announced her transition, is now a woman and that's pretty much the end of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Irregardless of whether these references are from before Bradley Manning stated he'd change his gender, they're still reliable references that refer to Bradley Manning as Male. The bulk of the resources refer to him as male. As of this second, he's still male, legally and biologically. Once he decides, if he decides, to go Christine Jorgensen, and legally change his name (I ' actually planned to change my name at one point and can tell you that it's a legal prodceedure, nothing big or anything, you submitt a form with your given name and the name you want to change it to, swearing under penalty of perjury that you're not a felon, and you're not trying to escape any existing debts or legal obligations. Once that change is granted, then you change your identification, which is also a legal process as you're swearing under penalty of perjury that the name you are changing your ID to (and credit cards, and everything else ) is your legal name '.) THEN' and only then can we think about call him his female name. He's still a male per the military, he's still a male biologically and still a male legally. We further have an assload of sources (reliable ones, even if we remove Huffington Post and Salon ) that refer to Bradley Manning as male. Reliable Sources and BLP (IE We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. and All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

That Bradley Manning is a male is sourced reliably, even in a source that actually talks in detail about his gender change .
That Bradley Manning is a male is also verified via the same sources.
That Bradley Manning is a male is also a matter of legal record ( Current Military Records, Current Legal ID, etc...)
That Bradley Manning is a male is a matter, in this case, of his present circumstance, the military will not provide him with hormones, nor surgery, nor female clothes, nor wigs, nor anything else pertaining to a woman. He is, at present, still dressed and living as a biological male.

Break as this is getting T/L

When any individual transitions from one gender to another (in this case, male to female) they must live as that gender for a period of 1 year and undergo counseling during that period. Once that one year period is complete, they can then start hormone treatments, get the various surgeries needed to change their biology. Manning is doing none of these, therefore, he's still in every sense of the word male. He's a male, period.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  10:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Kosh, you're just... incredibly wrong. I don't know how else to put it. The MoS has been very clear for some time on what to do here, and your refusal to abide by that is disruptive. We don't get to decide what gender someone is. If you want to change the guideline, there's ways to do that, but this is not it. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pink, go ahead and prove it. (Not a challenge, but a request) I've given evidence using verifiable evidence and your response is to say I'm simply wrong, so show me where or how.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Weight given to Manning's request regarding pronoun usage

On 26 August, 2013, David Edward Coombs (Chelsea Manning's attorney) released a statement:

"[...] she also expects that the name Bradley Manning and the male pronoun will continue to be used in certain instances."

This has been properly identified by many above not as an expression of her personal desire, but more of a realization of the reality of the situation.

However, on 27 August 2013, SlimVirgin reported receiving an email from David Coombs, and stated that,

"Regarding the pronoun, he [David Coombs] wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material. I also asked about the current main photograph, and he said that Chelsea is proud of the photograph and would want it to be used until a better one becomes available."

Should weight be given to Manning's request, with male pronouns used for pre-announcement material, or do we follow WP:IDENTITY's guideline of retroactively applying female pronouns, in opposition to her request? -- ToE 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Modify IDENTITY because it's stupid.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Bradley Manning → Private Manning – This has already been discussed briefly at the article talk page, where most editors who opined were supportive. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recommends not using one name to the exclusion of the other, but rather to use the old name when writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender.[2] We already have an article titled Colonel Sanders, and the CS Monitor just came out with this headline on August 25: "'Bradley' or 'Chelsea' – What to call Pvt. Manning?" Manning's website is called the Private Manning Support Network. It was changed to this name on Aug 26, 2013, after being previously called the Bradley Manning Support Network. So, "Private Manning" is an excellent title per NPOV and also self-identification. Per common, one way to check for commonality is to do a Google search. By that standard, "Bradley Manning" (16,000,000 hits) is much more common than "Chelsea Manning" (3,240,000 hits). I get 136,000,000 hits searching for private or pfc manning on Google. Another advantage of moving our title to "Private Manning" is that it's very informative to indicate the person is a soldier in our article title. Of course, there are other ways to do the search. For example, if I search for "private manning" OR "pfc Manning" OR "private bradley manning" OR "pfc Bradley manning" OR "private chelsea manning" OR "PFC chelsea manning" then I get 43,900,000 hits. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• oppose What hell is "Private"??? BrianLune (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.249.171 (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, While I was in support of this at first, Manning was most notable under the name Bradley. Also please read WP:GHITS in regards to ghits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• oppose I think we should wait 30 days. By then there may be sourcing to move to Chelsea. Private is an interim solution and not needed, Bradley is still the dominant search term. Please don't quote bogus google search numbers - past around 1000 hits they are wild guesstimates and actual hits May be off by several orders of magnitude, so your numbers are literally meaningless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• support At least in the interim, this seems like a good compromise position to take, and creates less conflict between the pronouns MOS:IDENTITY requires us to useand our title. Given that the RM closure explicitly allows for this proposal to be made, I think it's a good thing to do especially because it had a reasonable amount of support above. I'm not sure exactly what the formal process is to propose an article be moved, or I'd just straight up do that. Cam94509 (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Honestly, I'd rather see it titled after a non-existent woman's name than I would renamed to this. It is a good-faith attempt at compromise, sure, but you simply can't name a person by something as ephemeral as a military rank, Private Benjamin and Corporal Clegg notwithstanding. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the "good faith" remark, Tarc, which I reciprocate. But I disagree that the rank is ephemeral, any more than a maiden name is ephemeral, or Colonel Sanders is ephemeral. We know that he's going to retain the rank for decades to come, unless the world blows up first. Nice context for the word "ephemeral" BTW.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A Kentucky colonel is an honorary title though, and in Sanders case it became part of his public persona. I don't see that as the same as a genuine military rank. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I freely admit that the Sanders analogy is not perfect (if he was transgender then it was kept as secret as his recipe).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support Private Manning would be a suitable compromise while we wait the 30 days (or more), and would help avoid the confusion of a page named Bradley referring to she. However, I'm also content to just let the dust settle now, and are there any other military articles on real people in the form of Rank Last name? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Colonel Sanders - who isn't even a Colonel. Private Manning is the more neutral and less argumentative option here; if we want this page to avoid a stand either way, Private Manning is a decent choice I feel. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support &n-dash; but only because Private Manning is a better title than Bradley Manning and an interim solution that is less offensive while waiting for sanity to prevail and the appropriate name to Chelsea Manning to be implemented is justifiable. EdChem (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per EdChem. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. While this is a clever attempt at compromise, it's Abraham Lincoln, not President Lincoln. As for the final title, unless she manages to become more famous post-transition than he was pre-, it's Bradley Manning, not Chelsea Manning, and no number of snide comments about "sanity" will change that. --erachima talk 05:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This opens another brand new can of worms - do we call him "Private Manning", or "PFC Manning"? Which title should we choose, and why? That kind of discussion has already taken before, and it was also a messy one. There has been arguments that "calling him Private is demeaning", "calling him PFC is incorrect because he was stripped of that rank", "the majority of notable events took place when he was PFC", "he has bad relationship with the military", et cetera, made by other people earlier on. We're just going to end up being even more divided. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

PFC stands for "Private First Class". It's just a flavor of private. Likewise, there are several flavors of general, but it's okay to call all of them generals.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support While the article title should be Chelsea Manning, it has been decided to not just refuse to make this common-sense change, but to undo it and refuse to reconsider the matter for a month. This proposal would, at least, be a better option than pointlessly offending readers and editors. MaxHarmony (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - weird title that's worse than either name option - David Gerard (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. One can (and we have done so at length) argue whether Bradley or Chelsea is the common name of the subject. It's definitely not "Private Manning", though. Obviously, the current "Bradley Manning" is much better known.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – I doubt anybody knows or refers to her by that name, and this would also suggest that she is a private person, i.e. that she is not disclosing her name (which is not true). This is not a good compromise. Heymid (contribs) 08:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – A poor compromise. "Private Manning" is clearly not the common name: if you'd used quotation marks in your search, you'd have gotten less than a million hits for "private" and "pfc" combined. Although I supported reverting back to "Bradley" in the previous move discussion, I will be happy to support "Chelsea" after a reasonable period of time and evidence that the new name is sticking in our sources. – Smyth\^talk 12:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Policy, naming conventions and consensus dictate that this article be named Chelsea Manning. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support. Weird indeed, as David said, but neutral. Oppose. Silly idea. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 13:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – although I find the implicit sprit of compromise in this request refreshing, even admirable. "Private" is not the common name. I favor waiting the 30 days and re-assessing at that time. Skyraider (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. For one thing, there's supposed to be a moratorium on move requests. For another, the proposed name is clearly not superior to one of the two alternatives suggested in the earlier request; the dispute is over which one. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In case you missed it in the move request resolution, the closing administrators prohibited only a move request to "Chelsea Manning" in the next 30 days. The resolution explicitly allows for a change such as the one being proposed here. Here's the relevant passage:

In the interim, editors may propose moving the page to a compromise title such as "Private Manning" or "Bradley (Chelsea) Manning".

CaseyPenk (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - horrific title, very vague, not common, not widely sourced. Red Slash 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support If it's good enough for America's most celebrated Army hero Alvin York to be known as Sergeant York then there's no good reason to oppose America's most notorious convicted Army criminal being known as Private Manning — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyTesseract (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's factually inaccurate though: Sergeant York is the film, Alvin C. York is the biopage. --erachima talk 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We should use the vernacular, which can be identified by using the media as reference. Colonel Sanders is the vernacular for Harlan Sanders, that is the usage here despite the fact that he was never even a Colonel.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a good solution. "Private Manning" is not a common name for Manning. With the exception of those known by names that include professional titles, we generally do not 'use' those titles. (I think WP:CREDENTIAL would apply to military rank, c.f. Colin Powell) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. What a copout. — Richard BB 20:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess that depends upon what you think Wikipedia's responsibilities and commitments are.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose His current rank is merely a technicality for the duration of his incarceration. He did not gain notoriety with this rank and the name Bradley is just fine. IFreedom1212 (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are already aware, but please note that Manning prefers to be referred to using feminine pronouns. Many other editors have expressed a similar desire and MOS:IDENTITY asks that we use the person's preferred pronouns in article prose. You may wish to consider their perspectives if you have not already, or consider them again. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose For the same reason as the last name, the common name is Bradley Manning. That's what the sources say, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. While we do get creative with novel and descriptive titles for contrived topics like List of districts of India that are not directly referenced in reliable sources, for topics that are directly referenced in reliable sources, like all individuals sufficiently notable to have coverage in WP, we follow the most common usage in those sources. There is no evidence that "Private Manning" is being used more commonly than "Bradley Manning" in reliable sources, so we should not use it either. --B2C 17:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use honorifics/titles/ranks in article titles unless they are the overwhelming common name. Zarcadia (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• weak Support as better than the BLP/NPOV vio name Bradley though Chelsea would be even better and should be revisited in 29 days even if this RM is successful. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - this request is a non-starter! The only move that makes any sense is to Chelsea Manning. I am not bothered if it waits 30 days, or if it happens sooner, but using the rank doesn't fit any policy or guideline; in my opinion. As an aside; I see a push to have the middle name used as if it is the common form; looking at the source for the infobox signature shows Manning signing her name over the typed name: Chelsea E. Manning but the signature itself is Chelsea Manning. I had a similar concern during the Laura Jane Grace move where we were ahead of sources and chose a name that hadn't achieved its own wp:commonform. It seems worth thinking about anyway. :) John Cline (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think we should wait 30 days with any new move requests as sugested by the admins closing the previous one. Space simian (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no adequate reason to ignore our naming conventions here. VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not even sure transgender is proper diagnosis let alone changing the title from the common name to something even more ambiguous. --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obviously. This matter has been resolved. Now leave it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's wait 30 days and see where common usage begins to fall. NewAccount4Me (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Public Manning is not the way to go. Agathoclea (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Given the fact that Wikipedia's early use of Chelsea was newsworthy and there's bound to be more attention on the move back, is it reasonable to give or link to a brief explanation about the move back at the top? I feared this would be the somewhat embarrassing result, and the irony is that if procedure was followed we'd probably have moved to Chelsea either by now or before the 30 day cooling off period. It's probably better that it be clarified it was largely moved back because the initial move was an abuse of procedure. StuartH (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:CRYSTAL though we dont know what the media is going to do, looking above here there are just as much sources that are using the name "Bradley" as opposed to Chelsea and this is just in the last few hours. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

you can use the oldmoves template, there's one at Ivory Coast I think. Note: the admin determination was no consensus to move. They did not move it back because of an abuse of procedure, they moved it back b/c discussion had no consensus to move and in these cases the original title remains.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we may be arguing about semantics here; disagreeing with exactly how StuartH phrased his statement. My belief, and perhaps StuartH's belief too, is thus: given there was likely "no consensus to move" yet performing the move anyways meant that "the initial move was an abuse of procedure."

• Comment: Having initiated the previous move request I'm not particularly keen on delving into this one much. I'll reserve formal judgment, at least for now, regarding this move request. On the one hand, I would note that "Private Manning" is not a commonly used term. "Bradley Manning" is oft-used, and "Chelsea Manning" is oft-used, but I don't really see "Private Manning" being used in reliable sources. On the other hand, I do think "Private" is a more neutral way to approach this than picking a given name (a decision clearly wrought with controversy). I could see it being acceptable as a temporary compromise before the move request in thirty or so days. Anyway, I'll leave it to the rest of you to work out a solution. Good luck.

PS: The discussion so far on this move request appears to be reasonable and civil, without personal attacks. I hope it will stay that way, as presenting arguments in a reasonable manner is almost certain to make others trust your opinions more. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify (one proposer to another), I don't see this as a temporary move. If it's a valid move---which I think it is---then I expect it will remain so after 30 days. Time won't change the fact that his most notable actions occurred while he was very clearly Bradley Manning and very clearly Private Manning, not Chelsea Manning. But who knows what lies ahead in this dramatic drama. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, this: "notable actions occurred while he was very clearly Bradley Manning" is irrelevant: What matters is the persons CURRENT COMMON NAME, not when they were most notable. Cam94509 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on that policy. How about Shirley Temple and Cat Stevens? Neither now goes by those names. Anyway, has Wikipedia ever affirmatively decided to reject the recommendation of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) to not use one name to the exclusion of the other, but rather to use the old name when writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME states, "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." In other words, recent sources (which may refer either to Chelsea or to Bradley) are given higher priority but older sources (which refer to Bradley) are also to be considered.

If you have not already seen it, you may want to check out this essay (AKA opinion piece) on recentism to understand why some may oppose focusing exclusively on the current name. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Without examining the merits of such a move, there won't be any moves for the mandated 30-day period, so please just close this discussion as, as someone (in)famously wrote (repeatedly) in a related context, being "too premature". --Mareklug ^talk 05:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm... Incorrect. This move discussion is EXPLICITLY allowed by the RM closure. We are merely not allowed to start a move discussion for moving the page to Chelsea Manning. Cam94509 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, while I'm not sure another RM is a good idea, the closing statement clearly allowed a RM of this sort I presume because such a proposal/compromise version was barely considered in the previous RM. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Please know that Google is not a valid measure of popularity of terms. See WP:SET. Specifically, WP:SET#What a search test can do, and what it can't. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone that is supporting this move with the "it's better than Bradley" rationale will most likely have their vote discarded by the closer.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

Is there consensus to start with the male or female name? The choice is basically:

• 1. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who ... [3]

or

• 2. Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is a United States Army soldier who ..." [4]

Personally I prefer to see the lead match the title, but it works the other way too, so long as the lead includes the sentences about the name-change announcement. Someone moved the announcement to a footnote, but it needs to stay visible to explain the female name and pronoun. It would be good to get agreement so that the article stabilizes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• IMO, the RM was as good as a coin-toss. It makes sense to give the first sentence to the losing faction as a consolation prize. Formerip (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning)" is the appropriate solution as it conveys that she now uses the name Chelsea and that Bradley is her former name, not her current name. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an entirely inadequate solution. The title already misgenders her, and the first sentance won't correct that. As it is, the title denies Chelsea Manning's identity, and is an attack on her, and nothing in the rest of the article will really make up for that. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

for the sake of argument you have to concede the name change should remain the same to be part of this particular argument

• I prefer the second option. Many/most readers will have never heard of the change in gender identity. A note of the change with since August 2013 solves this. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer the second opinion, Bradley Edward Manning. Also how is using the name Bradley Manning an attack? That is Bradley's legal name, Bradley has not legally changed names yet. BeckiGreen (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• My 2¢ is to start with the "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning". A similar approach is taken on other articles that are not at the subject's "proper" name e.g. Cat Stevens, Republic of Ireland, --RA (✍) 21:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and since August 2013 prefers to be referred to as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is a United States Army soldier who ..." Manning will be filing documents using his legal name. It is Manning's preference to be called Chelsea but won't be filing anything as Chelsea. It currently is a preference that doesn't seem to have any more value than a nickname. The gender identity issue is separate and Manning could easily have said he is keeping his name and changing his gender. I'd even argue that the following is less contentious and accurate:

Bradley Edward "Chelsea Elizabeth" Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who ..." --DHeyward (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Should start with current name. Contrary to some assertions, there is no rule that a biography must start with the same name in the title. See for example Slim Pickens (which is referenced in WP:MOSBIO). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Go with Option 1 (Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning)...), per [[RA and Sam Blacketer. -sche (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Option 1 is consistent with Wikipedia practices and policies. See Cat Stevens for example. Wikipedia:Article titles is only applicable to titles. WP:MOS and WP:BLP are the applicable guidelines for the body of the article, including the lead sentence. WP:MOS requires that we use female pronouns throughout, thus it would be most appropriate that we lead with the female name to match. Also WP:BLP states that articles on living people "require a high degree of sensitivity". Disregarding Manning's change of gender identity in the lead would not be in keeping with that policy, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Start with the male name. If people can accept the word "also" then put that in too: Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and also known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is...." The "also" makes the sentence more accurate while taking care of the "is"problem discussed below. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• (Opening sentence is the crowning glory of this repugnant głupota)

"Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is …"

I hate to focus on such irrelevances as past and present tenses in the context of that thing called non-self-contradiction, but how can the article involve the pair of statements—within the same sentence and with a straight face—"known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" and "Bradley is …"?

If the article acknowledges that she has been "known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning", how can the present tense statement "Bradley is …" make any sort of sense? After all, the phrase Bradley Manning is is an assertion that she is not known as Chelsea Manning, a fact that is in straight contradiction to "known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning"? With regard to the paired statements just mentioned, you can have Bradley manning was, or Chelsea Manning is, but you can't have Bradley Manning is any more than you can have Chelsea Manning was.

In a similar vain, if she has been "known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning", why is the article titled Bradley Manning?

Is it too much to ask for old-fashioned consistency in the opening sentence of an article's lede? I mean, this reflects on me as a Wikipedia editor, and I don't enjoy being associated with such farce, as much as some people here seem to revel in it. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you say above whether you prefer 1 or 2? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The only acceptable version to me, and the only morally acceptable version, is to have the title as Chelsea Manning. As regards the first sentence, it should contain, in my view, a parenthetic mention that her legal name is Bradley Edward, so as to assist any readers less familiar with the name-changing. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It can make sense because it’s possible to be known by multiple names at one time

"it’s possible to be known by multiple names at one time"
For sure, but that is not relevant to the pair of statements we are concerned with. The statement is not "also known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning". LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that "also", omitting it doesn’t necessarily imply a person has no other names

"omitting it doesn’t necessarily imply a person has no other names"
For sure, but we are dealing with the inconsistency of the pair of statements above, not the implications or otherwise of "known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" taken in isolation. My simple complaint is the use of Bradley Edward in a sentence that asserts she is now known as Chelsea Manning. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I would add, using also would be normal, or at the very least least highly recommended, as other articles make clear. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The first version is considerably less worse. The second seems to make a point of using her old name - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know why you changed the first sentence again, it should reflect the most recent name as on most other blp (i.e. choice 1 is preferable). There are numerous blp where the title does not match the lead (e.g. Cat Stevens, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, were title is the most commonly used term and lede use subjects actual name). The way you wrote it really is offensive and appears to make a point. --Space simian (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed it back to the previous version (Chelsea, version 1 above) until consensus forms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• 1 is the better option, much more accurate. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Option 1 (Chelsea) first. The title is one thing and I understand putting it at the most recognizable name, but in the body of the article I think we should honor her wishes and address her primarily as Chelsea. (My vote makes the tally 11-5 in favor of Chelsea if I count right.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Option 1. Use the name she is currently known as. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Option 1, per RA and Kaldari. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option 1 - start with the current name per above...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)#
• Option 1, as she is currently known as Chelsea. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option 2, Chelsea is his subsequent name and Manning explicitly asked to be called Chelsea "starting today", i.e. August 22. In this case the name would be in chronological order and in harmony with the article's title. Brandmeister^talk 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Does that mean that you would start Bill Clinton "William Jefferson Blythe IV, later William Jefferson Clinton ..." and start Gerald Ford "Leslie Lynch King, Jr., later renamed Gerald Rudolph Ford ..."? Please advise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Besides, option 1 is also ordered chronologicaly. --Space simian (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • William Jefferson Blythe IV and Leslie Lynch King, Jr. are better known as Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, but Manning has been (and currently is) better known as Bradley Manning, not Chelsea Manning. When the majority of reliable sources start to call Manning Chelsea, not Bradley, then the issue may be largely solved. Brandmeister^talk 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Option 2. Manning has not changed his legal name. Until such time as he does, Chelsea is a nickname. I would submit that hardly anyone knows Larry the Cable Guy's real name, yet his article begins "Daniel Lawrence Whitney..." albeit not in bold. In the case of Bill Clinton, his last name was legally changed to Clinton so it makes since to say "born William Jefferson Blythe IV". To say Manning was born Bradley Edward Manning falsely implies that is no longer his legal name. Talmage (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia wait 30 days before correcting an attack on Chelsea Manning and on trans people in general?

I'm shocked that the article was moved back here, in violation of several policies including Biographies of Living Persons (sic) and the ban on attack pages, and I'm unclear on how editors are supposed to go about resolving this. I understand that there is a procedure for reviewing moves, but I don't understand how to go about it. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• it's not an attack just because it might upset her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • It is an attack on trans people in general. Whether it is conscious or not, it won't change that. The fact is that wikipedia thinks Lady Gaga can pick her name, but trans women should have their dead name imposed on them.Vexorian (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attack because the title isn't directed at Bradley Manning and because insulting him isn't the purpose of the article. The title is directed at the reading public. Similarly, the depictions of Muhammad are not an attack on Muslims, since they weren't added for the purpose of insulting them. 24.16.96.146 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Since this came up above, I'll repeat my deliberately absurd example, I were to claim that "for anyone reading this, x-y-z sacrifices children to Moloch," I think that would be an attack on x-y-z even if its "directed" at "anyone reading this," and whether or not x-y-z reads this. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What attack? How is using the name Bradley Manning an attack? That is Bradley's legal name, Bradley has not legally changed names yet.BeckiGreen (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As I posted above: It is not the responsibility of trans people to explain why an attack on trans people is an attack. Someone can always keep asking why, whether about misgenderings or about violence or anything in-between. Someone can show up and ignore previous discussions and ask why. Anyone can get worn down by too much of that. It is the responsibility of cis and other non-trans people to do some basic research before weighing in on trans-related disputes. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

Please sign your posts, User:109.151.144.40. And I've offered explanations, but there's no way for anyone to keep up with all the questions asking why and how denying someone's identity is attacking them, and some things should be obvious. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • you have not answered that question once on this talk page. if you have the Burdon of proof and it's hard to meet that Burdon it's kind of your problem, that’s kind of why most people think of a "Burdon" as a bad thing

If you are saying that Chelsea Manning's identity isn't real, and isn't worthy of respect, how is that not an attack on her and on all trans people? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • It’s not an attack on trans people because Bradley doesn’t represent all transpeople. I’m saying her name change isn’t worthy of respect because it has no legal basis and in this context a name’s ultimate purpose should be identifying a person and I think that purpose is best served by referring to her as “Bradley”. I think that isn’t an attack on her because the primary intent isn’t to harm her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk)

I think that is an attack on Chelsea Manning and on trans people in general. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • that’s a statement not a counter argument?

Why should I offer a counter argument, when I've already made some of my arguments, here and elsewhere? How do any of your remarks add to this discussion? How am I supposed to distinguish your behaviour from deliberate obnoxious trolling? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • "Why should I offer a counter argument, when I've already made some of my arguments" because those arguments were poor and did not convince me. "elsewhere" what you said elsewhere is irrelevant unless you provide links. “How do any of your remarks add to this discussion?” I think my viewpoint is the correct one and I haven’t seen it put forward properly by someone else, I imagine everyone else thinks the same thing more or less. “How am I supposed to distinguish your behaviour from deliberate obnoxious trolling?” you can’t but it would be arrogant not to give me the benefit of the doubt

Elsewhere on this thread. I am feeling very sick, and do not need any more stress, so if there's anything that I've not answered somewhere here, do your own research. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • • • "Elsewhere on this thread" you’ve said nothing substantive anywhere on this thread. “I am feeling very sick, and do not need any more stress” don’t argue with people or put up with the stress. “do your own research” prove your own points!

One can dedeuce that the triumvirate determined there were no "BLP" issues, or else they would have left the article title in place. Nothing is forcing you or anyone else for that matter to wait 30 days. From what I can tell that 30 days is not enforceable as a requirement, but someone else called it a "dictum". What that means here on Wikipeida, I have no idea.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it would be appropriate to take this to Wikipedia:Move review. However, if you think the three closing admins did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, or were unaware of significant additional information not already discussed in Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request (the points you raise here, I'm afraid, were found unconvincing), there are instructions there for opening a review of the close. Please read those pages carefully and make sure one of these two reasons applies; merely disagreeing with the outcome is not a sufficient reason to go to MR. You would probably do better to take part in the above discussion of the proposed move to "Private Manning". Whatever you do, I recommend creating an account. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the move review page and couldn't understand it. Something about closers, whatever that means. And I thought all the other discussions had been closed down. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been to WP:MV before (see here). Basically, you just endorse or overturn the move. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Although I was and am of the opinion that following Wikipedia policies and practices, the title should be "Chelsea Manning" and not "Bradley Manning", I think that a requesting a move review of such a contentious and yet also carefully-closed move request as this one would be unlikely to have any positive effect or result. -sche (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I originally added this comment in diff, but it went missing in the shuffle of these diffs. -sche (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Look: under the circumstances, having the name of the article be "Bradley Manning" does not constitute an "attack", and referring to it as such does not help the discussion.

This is a really difficult situation, and there just plain isn't a single right answer. One of the ways to de-escalate the tension is to focus more on what the article says, and less on what its title is. (I'm reminded of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Right up there in the title, it says that her identity, and other trans people's identities, aren't worthy of respect. Respecting people shouldn't be "really difficult" either. Since the article's locked, I can only raise the issues, and may as well point out one of the biggest issues.173.66.211.53 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The title says none of that. That's your interpretation. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Steve Summit, it is difficult, but not at all unusual. When Metta World Peace changed his name from "Ron Artest" it took a month before editors were satisfied that it was his common name, and opinions about moving the article varied. For Chad Johnson it was more contentious when he changed his name to Chad Ochocinco than when he changed it back from that name, but there was not immediate agreement that a name change, even when a legal one, constituted a new common name. It happens all the time, actually. Just usually not as explosively as this time. 99.192.66.56 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• Please, we need to avoid advocacy on these pages. This is a confusing situation and it will take time to get it all sorted. The massive heat generated by some folks is not helping at all. I think that there should be an RFC to sort out policy on how we deal with situations like this. It's not something that has confronted Wikipedia before. Editors need time to think it over and discuss. We don't need activists or biggots rushing in to push their personal points of view. We need rational discussion by people who have an academic interest, rather than a personal interest. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

. In general, trans people are more likely to face or have faced misgendering, and are most likely to understand the interplay between deliberate misgendering, society-wide disrespect, and violence. trans people are also more likely to understand the practicalities of name changes, too for those arguing that this should wait for legal name change. I know it can be hard to contribute while dealing with trauma, and that's one reason for less interested/less activist people to study the issue elsewhere instead of asking for explanations of everything on here. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• "I don't understand why personal interest/activism would disqualify people" because they're biased. Also it's unreasonable of you to expect not to have to defend your viewpoint

Everyone is biased. I'm biased against transphobia that gets trans people beaten and killed. Also it's unreasonable of you to deny the obvious, ignore other editors when we explain and defend the obvious, and then harass us for not defending the obvious when we already have.173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • "Everyone is biased" some more than others though. "Also it's unreasonable of you to deny the obvious" asking someone else to prove their claim does not equate to denying it. “ other editors” no one on this talk page has explained your viewpoint but you. “obvious” I’m getting tired of your arrogance

That said, although I haven't been able to follow the entire discussion, and pretty much avoided it between moves, I think maybe it would help to hash out some principles for this kind of discussion. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mods' reasoning that this doesn't violate BLP

I will quote from the move request resolution:

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".

I think this makes it reasonably clear that the panel of admins who closed the move request believe that the current page title does not violate WP:BLP. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Going over the policy on biographies of living persons (sic):

• I think the current title denies/disparages Chelsea Manning's identity, and by extension all trans people's identities. I do think this is an attack on her.

• Arguments about her not having legally changed her name, or her presentation, or started hormones, ignore the barriers she and many other trans people face in any or all these, and reinforce the idea that acceptance should be conditional on these things. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think acceptance of a name change should be conditional on a legal name change, I don’t think acceptance of a gender should be conditional on physical sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Once again, all but four US states permit name changes without any court proceeding or other legal action. A common-law name change is valid in 46 of 50 states, including all those that Manning has resided in or will reside in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • he should do that then if it's so easy
        • She has done that. A common-law name change simply involves changing the name one uses publicly. She now holds herself out to be Chelsea Manning, with no intent to confuse or deceive, which constitutes a legal change of one's name under the common law. See legal name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry I misread (also not that it matters hear but I disagree with that law). Someone told me inmates in military prison aren’t legally allowed to change their name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
          • You've repeated the common law name change meme a few times. Manning is noteable for the Army, indictment, court martial and soon prison. None of those entities will honor the desire to be called Chelsea without a court order. Specifically, he enlisted as male and "Bradley". Secondly, no prosecutor would allow a change of gender or name to go unchallenged as they would allege it's fraud and would require a hearing. If that weren't the case, there would be no male inmates at all as they would simply declare themselves as female and attempt to be housed females. That's not saying Manning is being untruthful, just that common law changes would be challenged as fraudulent and the name would be determined by statute. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
            • You're wrong about what Manning is notable for. Lots of people go in the Army, are indicted, court-martialed and imprisoned and never have Wikipedia articles. She is notable for leaking documents that portrayed U.S. military abuses and exposed U.S. intelligence and diplomatic conversations - which then led to those various results, but those results only followed because of what she did. As I noted elsewhere, if she had leaked meaningless documents of no consequential interest to anyone, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You have cited no sources for your claims about what a prosecutor would do, and therefore that's all they are - unsupported claims. Your supposition that "male inmates would declare themselves as female" is misleading and offensive, as if gender identity is some kind of thing people do for fun.
              • You would be foolish to believe that people wouldn't take advantage of having a "no questions asked" policy for gender dysphoria if they received a benefit from it - or less of a punishment. In fact it would be harmful to persons that truly have this condition because it would have "fraud" attached to it. DSM revises disorders because of stigmatizing criteria that make diagnosis and treatment more difficult. Allowing a person facing a lengthy prison term to self-diagnose their condition and never question it does a disservice to those that have the disorder. It is very reasonable and responsible to have supporting proof such as diagnoses, etc. to protect people that are afflicted with gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria. I'd note that prior to his conviction, he sometimes went by the name "Breanna". There was no rush to change his name to "Breanna" or change the gender terms in the article to female. I am not aware of any reliably sourced information that has changed since his "Breanna" days to his "Chelsea" declaration. Manning does LGBT causes no favors by blaming his emotional instability, untrustworthiness and crimes on GID/GD. In fact, it makes the case that there should be very strict criteria for that diagnoses if it's going to be considered a mitigating factor for crimes and a criteria for places of incarceration. If we take the Manning case as his defense presented it, no one with gender identity disorder should ever get a security clearance because of emotional instability. That should be offensive to everyone that has gender dysphoria and the bar of proof should be high. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Moreover, you are missing the point of my argument. The broader point is that there are many people who never go through any legal name-change process, and yet change their name - because there is a common-law process in place. For Wikipedia to condition anything on a "legal name change" is to require something that is not even necessarily legally required in the United States. Ergo, it's a completely-unworkable standard for us to attempt to follow. 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
              • "Common-law process in place?" That makes no sense. Common-law recognizes that someone can take a name/nickname/psuedonym and be known as another name other than the one given them by statute without it being a crime unless it was done for fraud or other illegal reasons (i.e. identity theft). But it's not a "process." "Chelsea" was also "Breanna". During that entire time, and including today, Manning is statutorily and commonly known as "Bradley." "Bradley" is also the name used to secure the clearance necessary to access the documents he leaked. It's the name used to enlist in the Army. Manning will also continue to use the name "Bradley" despite the statement just like Manniing continued using "Bradley" when he also assumed "Breanna". Manning has a statutory name that is unchanged by any requests to be called something else. The statutory name also happens to be the name that makes him notable and commonly referred as. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• oppose any suggestion of starting a new move request before 30 days have passed. we've spent enough time and energy on this, and there are still hundreds of thousands of BLPs with potential violations in them. 30 days will allow a more careful tallying of sources and the building of a stronger case to move to Chelsea. I suggest those who want the article moved put their energy into mapping media usage and making a strong COMMONNAME argument, or at least demonstrating that Chelsea has become *as* common as Bradley - if so, then other titling considerations can come into play and COMMONNAME becomes a weaker argument for oppose.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• also oppose It is way too recent to move the article (and possibly at all). First, it is very likely that despite Manning's personal plea to be addressed as "Chelsea" from this point forward, s/he will file appeals using the name "Bradley." That's contradictory and it will be untenable to have older sources saying Bradley, then a spate of sources with Chelsea, followed again by references to Bradley in court files. Lastly, transgenderism is not in the same category as other self-identified groups especially when sexual reassignment is requested as Manning has done. It is one of the few sexuality identities that requires a diagnoses and treatment. He isn't going to show up at the pharmacy and say "My new name is Chelsea and I need hormone replacements" nor will a surgeon perform an operation simply on the patients word. He will need to be evaluated professionally. That doesn't diminish what he believes he is feeling and there are many people that are evaluated and get the treatment. There are also those that don't meet the requirements for a gender change. Personally, I doubt any psychiatrist that specializes in this area would recommend a surgery after so much stress. Because the bar is higher to receive gender reassignment treatment, simple self-identification may not be sufficient to assert such a claim. If a court ordered doctor evaluated Manning and came back with testimony that Manning was depressed, gay, and transvestite and that a physical gender change would only exacerbate the depression he blames on being transgender, what then? Do we use self-identity that conflicts with an experts opinion on treatment? the would likely deny any treament if an expert says no. This all needs resolution before the article name and pronouns are scrubbed. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - All of that argument is useless and completely unsupported speculation. Until and unless you have any reliable source reporting that any of the above is true, it's nothing more than your completely-irrelevant fantasy. She has self-identified as a female. That has been reported in reliable sources. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

DHeyward, you continue to claim that a professional diagnosis is needed, but as has been pointed out, Manning has already had a diagnosis of gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, by several different psychologists. But you are correct that the legal papers will continue to refer to her as Bradley. The 30-day waiting period will give us time to have a new news cycle, with new stories about Manning, and we will see whether the use of Chelsea persists, increases, or decreases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment earlier. I've have found no sources for the diagnosis or who made it but have heard it stated. The diagnosis by the Army psychiatrist when he was involved in a fight was "occupational problem and adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.” The Dr. referred to gender identity issues but that was not made as a formal DSM diagnosis. Manning also sometimes referred to himself as "Breanna" at that time [5]. Do you have a link to that so I can put it in perspective and we can source the DSM diagnosis in the article? The claim that is sourced to Manning appear sin the article and the only reference is the letter Manning sent to the sergeant titled "My Problem" with the picture that was released of Manning in a wig (this is in the article - and I'd also note that at the time, that was his image of "Breanna", not "Chelsea"). There is no reference to a psychologist or psychiatrist making a diagnosis, though. My concern is that the Army psychiatrist or MD that is part of the prison medical staff will not make the diagnosis and therefore not authorize the hormone treatment but possibly classify it as depression or anxiety. In essence, we will have an expert saying "no" and Mannning saying "yes". The Army, if they send him to Leavenworth will have made that determination. Where do we go when that happens? whence the wait for 30 days at least. It still also leaves the pre/post references problem because the AP and NYT, while they will refer to Manning as female in the future, will not go back redact articles they way wikipedia does. They have the ability to do it, but choose not to. --DHeyward (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Linking to this article from other articles

Before I write anything else, I wish to emphasise that I have not participated whatsoever in the above discussion and that I do not wish to cause any kind of impassioned discussion here. I ask in particular that those editors who vehemently insist that all references to 'Bradley Manning' be removed refrain from commenting, since the outcome of the move discussion makes it rather clear that this is not necessary. I would appreciate any carefully considered, neutral responses.

Naturally, there are numerous links to this article on other Wikipedia articles. My question is whether there is any kind of policy as to which link (Bradley Manning or Chelsea Manning) is used. I have seen phrases such as 'Bradley Manning (now known as Chelsea Manning)' and 'Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning)', which appear to be relatively understandable. Is one of these two to be preferred?

A problem is when one name is not included in the phrase (so there is a mention to simply 'Bradley Manning' or 'Chelsea Manning'). The above discussion appears to suggest that 'Bradley Manning' is the common name of the subject, and thus one might consider it unwise to put a link to 'Chelsea Manning' with no further explanation. For this reason, should any links to 'Chelsea Manning' be changed to 'Bradley Manning' exclusively or a combination of both names?

I have found an unusual example on the article Manning, which contains an alphabetical list of people with the surname Manning. Currently, there is a link to 'Chelsea Manning', with a note alongside saying 'born Bradley Manning, 1987'. Since 'Bradley Manning' could be considered to be the common name for the subject, I believe it could cause great confusion for anyone searching for Manning who is not aware of the change of name, since 'Bradley Manning' is apparently omitted from the list entirely unless one looks carefully in a place one would not expect to look. In these cases, should the name most common (apparently 'Bradley Manning') be listed instead, or could links to both names be included?

I apologise for the length of this message, but I hope any replies might help me and many other editors. 86.137.46.247 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Both links will function precisely the same. For the list example, you could say see the other one, or some other such solution that helps the reader - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The link that states Chelsea Manning (born Bradley Manning, 1987), U.S. Army intelligence analyst, convicted of leaking classified materials to WikiLeaks, should be changed to Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. Since the Bradley Manning article is now named Bradley Manning, and also because Manning is still legally Bradley Manning. Manning has not had a legal name change yet. BeckiGreen (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

86.137.46.247, MOS:BIO says, "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." This should tell you what to do if the link is in another bio article, but it also provides more general advice for non-bio articles. As for the "Manning" article, since Chelsea's claim to notability to be included on the list in the first place was for things she did when her name was "Bradley", the MOS:BIO advice would seem to suggest that she be listed there as "Bradley". But there is no reason there cannot also be a "now known as" parenthetical afterward. 99.192.66.56 (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

BeckiGreen, you appear to be under the misconception that there has to be something called a "legal name change." There does not. 46 of 50 U.S. states recognize the right to make a common-law name change with no formal legal action required. Those states include the states Manning has resided or will reside in. See our handy legal name article for details. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Common law name changes are not accepted for identity in federal courts (the main reason Manning is notable). Nor would the Army being a government entity. Assuming a name under common law is simply not illegal. Manning can be called anything s/he likes except in court, prison or the army. If there's a place for a Manning article outside of the Army, prison or court, any name desired could be used. Otherwise, those three entities consider him to be male, named Bradley Manning exactly as it is stated in his enlistment papers, indictments, etc. "Today my new name is Chelsea" is not illegal but not recognized. If, for example, your legal name is "Robert" and you go by "Bobby" or "Bubba", it is not illegal to do so. However, the government is under no obligation to honor that until/unless it is registered. If you were given a name at birth and it was registered with the government, that's your name for future interactions with the government including government service, courts, prison, etc. Common law makes registering a new name very easy and limits what the government can deny but it is a far cry from "Today my name is Chelsea." One of the requirements is that the name change can't be for fraud. The prosecutor will not simply ignore a gender/name change and have Manning sent to a female prison. They will argue it is a fraud to get out of Leavenworth which would necessitate a court decision. --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't name people exclusively based on what name their government calls them. The rest of your argument is similarly non-responsive. Wikipedia is not required to base its article names on what a prosecutor wants.

Also, the main reason Manning is notable is for the contents of the documents he leaked, not the fact that he was convicted for leaking the documents. If he had leaked meaningless documents revealing nothing of significance, nobody would have ever heard of him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you immediately forfeit your civilian rights upon joining the military? If certain laws apply differently to him, then why are we still pretending that he is a civilian? If you want to argue Wikipedia policy, that's fine; what I don't get is the constant referrals to how "46 of 50 U.S. states" do things. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies (in particular, the reference to MOS:BIO). 86.137.46.247 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Now the Most Famous Transgender Inmate in America

Chelsea Manning Is Now the Most Famous Transgender Inmate in America. Will She Be Treated Humanely? Slate.com. By Amanda Hess | Posted Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013.

I think she may be one of the most famous trans women in the world as well. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

At the present time you'd have a hard job demonstrating she isn't the highest profile trans* person in the world. How this plays out long term we can't yet know, but it wouldn't surprise me if she remains in the top 10 for a long while. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Which one article provides more excuses to push a political agenda to the foreground rather than reflect what the person is best known for? User:Carolmooredc 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. A person can be notable for many things and the trans issues simply are making everyone take pause while some on the religious right go apoplectic because OMG someone is changing their gender identity. Luckily the rest of the world is moving away from those tired views and Wikipedia can simply focus on what reliable sources bring forward. i think she is a major trans celebrity and newsrooms will soon be educating the world on more what it weans to transition and the legal hurdles one faces. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay a "major trans celebrity"? Come on now enough of the personal opinions already. Also what you are saying is WP:CRYSTAL anyways, Manning was more notable as Bradley this is proven by the fact that books have been written about him, as well as the majority of sources that followed the trial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the snide remarks and these aren't just my opinions these are how the rest of the world is moving progressively forward. Gay marriage means that Chelsea can marry the man or woman she chooses, this was simply not true even a few years ago. Chelsea is a transwoman and of course a celebrity, the article points out she is the most famous transgender inmate. Your disagreement is with Slate.com. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Again they are more of your personal opinions, come to think of it what does this have to do with improving the article if anything? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of apology is noted. Again facts are not the same as my opinions although my opinions are rooted in factual evidence. As for the article I think we should reflect that when Chelsea came out s a transwoman she became a highly visible member of the trans community and the most famous transgender inmate in the U.S. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Bradley Chelsea Manning is not the most famous transgender inmate in the U.S because ONE magazine article states that. And it wouldn't improve the article anyway. BeckiGreen (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I follow what the sources state and i have little doubt that more will write on her influence in shaping mainstream US ideas on what transgenderism is. I do disagree, of course, that a good article would discuss this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(sorry about the earlier ec) Some are already writing about her, Michael Silverman, Executive Director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund said this; "...Manning may not be the best figure to be the one to help educate the public on trans issues."[6]. Kristin Beck, a former Navy Seal who came out as transgender in June, issued a blistering statement against Manning; [7]Susan Estrich was also highly critical of Manning;[8]. Brynn Tannehill, Director of Advocacy at SPART*A said; “If you’re wondering if she’s being embraced as a hero in the military trans community, she is absolutely not.”[9]. Time will tell if she was a positive or negative influence.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one detailing the connection:

• Chelsea Manning's Gender Transition Could Set Military Precedent

Related:

• ACLU: Denying Chelsea Manning Hormone Therapy May Violate Constitutional Rights

Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mannings requests puts spotlight on being transgender in America How Will the Military Handle Bradley Manning's Request to Be 'Chelsea'? (PBS) . Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think this will fade. Manning blamed gender identity disorder for crimes committed including assaulting a female superior, leaking documents and being emotionally unstable. Making Manning a transgender celebrity brings attention to it, but the end result will be if the Army does recognize it and treat it, they will tie the diagnosis to the experience they had with Manning. Will all military personnel diagnosed with GID/GD lose their security clearance because of the emotional liability and turmoil that Manning exhibited? The law of unintended consequences is very much in play. Manning may bring transgender issues to front page but the end result may not serve the LGBT community very well. The collision of progressive LGBT causes and progressive causes supporting the leaking of the classified documents might turn into a train wreck. --DHeyward (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. BTW, where did manning blame transgenderism for anything? I think I missed that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PEACOCK I do not think this is helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's no, more or less, true or relevant than saying Manning is the world's most famous transgender female named Chelsea. It's an Ignoratio elenchi; much more about advocacy than improving this article. Unfortunately, I've seen it before, too often. And it does affect credibility for the side advocating—in my opinion (practically meaningless). :) John Cline (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'll read the peacock guide it states "without attribution" which is not applicable in this case. The source calls her that. And nothing has been entered into the article anyway. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we bring the arguments together?

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 am feeling very sick and can't follow through on this right now, but right now, it can be hard to keep track of the arguments scattered here and there through the threads, repeated, not repeated, and interrupted. So it might help to create sub-threads grouping several of the arguments in favor of referring to Chelsea Manning, in the title and the article, with links following, under one heading, counter-arguments and questions in another, arguments in favor of referring to her as Bradley Manning in a third, with links following, and counter-arguments and questions under a fourth heading. This should 1. Make it easier to find a given argument, 2. Make it harder to miss a given argument, 3. Make it easier for different people to address different aspects of this, address stuff the others aren't familiar with, etc., and 4. Help avoid around-and-around arguments. I am very much on one side of this dispute, but I hope this will clear things up for everyone. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be too soon to do that or even near-impossible as this is a developing story and several discussions are taking place elsewhere. There is FAQ at the top that answers some questions and you can do an archive search of past discussions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A search isn't any way to find substantive arguments though. I want to assume good faith, but it's really hard, with all the harassment and the calling her "Bradley" and "he." 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's hard to assume good faith when you consider following what is reported by reliable sources to be "harassment". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's offensive to call someone by their former name when asked not to. It's also offensive to disregard using a living person's stated name and gender identity when you know better. Chelsea has stated her wishes, it shows disrespect not to follow them.Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that most of these discussions should be brought to a close under WP:DEADHORSE, if only because both sides have had their say many¹⁰⁰ times and as far as I can gather, hasn't actually helped improve much on the article since the page move. Time to let the dust settle, regroup, then come back later when everything isn't so emotionally charged. I know that's probably not a helpful suggestion as you asked whether all of the arguments should be brought together, but I cannot see that happening whilst everyone is spitting feathers. Badanagram (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I think you mean "as if you know better"?. also I totally disagree that avoiding offence is in of it's self important

If the editors here are being disrespectful so is the media; this isn't to say that referring to Chelsea as Bradley and she as he is acceptable but rather that it's widespread. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant that one knows when something is offensive so they shouldn't do it. Referring to Chelsea as Bradley is offensive, as is calling her "he/him/its" etc. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The editors here are not paid to foment anxiety and sell their products, we are here to neutrally report on a living person. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

When I called for civility, and suggested that editors do their own research, instead of expecting trans people and allies to offer all the explanations for them, one of the other editors started attacking me for not answering their questions, and for not making arguments which I'd made elsewhere on this page or set out to make, or for not proving points which seem obvious to me, as well as breaking up my explanations with their edits, as well as insulting and degendering Chelsea Manning. It feels like harassment from here.173.66.211.53 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • do think everything is an attack? I kept asking you to explain your self because you kept making statements without explaining your reasoning, it doesn’t matter how obvious you feel your view point to be you still have the burden of proof. “as well as breaking up my explanations with their edits” I quoted you in my replies so you’d know what I was referring to. “as well as insulting and degendering Chelsea Manning” for any mods who read this, that is a lie. I called her Bradley once because I was ignorant of united states law regarding legal name changer, but that is all. “It feels like harassment from here” it feels like banging my head against a brick wall from here

I still don't know what you want me to explain, or what you think is missing from my explanations. And you broke some of my replies into incoherent bits. You inserted your reply between my reply and my signature. You inserted your reply into the middle of one of my comments. You have inserted your reply at the beginning of other users' comments. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • "I still don't know what you want me to explain, or what you think is missing from my explanations" the part where you actually explain stuff instead of just stating your views. "you broke some of my replies into incoherent bits" I qouted you for clarity. "You inserted your reply into the middle of one of my comments" no I didn't, you're lying agian. "You have inserted your reply at the beginning of other users' comments" no I didn't, you're lying agian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you inserted some of your comments into the middle of mine. And into other users. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • who the hell the lies about stuff that anyone can check my just looking at a different part of the same page the lie is written on?

That's what I've been wondering. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

For example, in "Nieskażona głupota—a complaint" above, you inserted one of your comments, unsigned, at the beginning of one of SqueakBox's comments. That may have been an honest mistake, but it confuses everything, and makes your comment look like part of theirs. In "Why should Wikipedia wait 30 days," you inserted your own comment between two lines of one my comments, splitting the two parts. It's right there. It's sometimes acceptable to insert replies between two parts of one comment, but generally, you should only do so when it doesn't break the flow of the comment and also with proper indenting so that the relationship between replies is clear. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The detached signature seems to either have been fixed, deleted, or archived. I can't find it just yet. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • you mean when I accidentally put my reply between your comment and you signature, I corrected that about a hour ago when I noticed it?

Yes that; thanks for fixing that. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not ideal. I suggest starting at Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale which lays out some of the main points during the original major move discussion. Then go to the top of that page and see why a 3-admin committee decided Bradley was the correct title for the next month. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest creating a sub-page here, like Talk:Bradley Manning/Move proposal 2 and start gathering evidence from media and putting together a case, rather than continuing to re-argue the move (which is frankly rather useless at this point. what's done is done). Within 30 days, you can submit it. If commonname and recognizeability of the name Chelsea has shifted and is sustained, I will be first in line to !vote to move.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the last discussion was moved (by me) to Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request, and since the bulk of the next discussion will likely take place in October (unless some higher body overturns the 30-day waiting period imposed in the close), I think it would make more sense to have the follow-up at Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request. If necessary, other titles can redirect there. I would also suggest the use of the traditional discussion format used for lengthy policy discussions, nominations for adminship, and other such processes, with evidence and argument presented by the proposer at the top, followed by a section for editors indicating support, a separate section for editors indicating opposition, a third section for editors indicating neutrality, and a fourth section for discussion, divided into as many subsections as are needed to address however many issues come up. bd2412 T 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Done - I created the skeleton structure. I suggest all editors wanting to contribute to the new move request join the Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request and start collaboratively preparing evidence there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@bd2412, can you concisely state somewhere - as the newly created page offers no discussion area for sharing ideas - which policies need to change and how so this never happens to another trans person? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Obi-Wan Kenobi, I was looking over your proposal and it looks great. I do question though whether we need a section for Evidence from RS on how misnaming and misgendering affect trans people. Do we really need a section to state the obvious? By including this section, I think there could be a reasonable argument made that many editors might be inclined to base their arguments solely on how misnaming and misgendering affect trans people, rather than arguments based on WP polices and guidelines concerning article title moves. I would also suggest that many RS discussing this issue are of a general nature, and don't address evidence on how misnaming and misgendering affect trans people in the military, in military prison, widespread media reporting and other variables and parameters that are unique to Manning's case. Coming out as transgender is an individual's choice and how it will affect their life is unique to that individual. I would suggest that any editor who wishes to address this issue, do so in the context of an argument that is based on WP policies and guidelines. Thoughts?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Sportfan5000, there is no statement at WP:BLP or at WP:TITLE to the effect that the title of an article should be changed when a notable person publicly announces (personally or through an intermediary) a change of name in association with transgender status. If such a statement existed, I believe that a majority of the editors who participated in the move request would have expressed their opinions accordingly. A proposal along these lines was initiated by CaseyPenk at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Article titles for transgender people, and was closed by Obi-Wan Kenobi pending the outcome of the requested move here. I believe that this proposal can now be reopened and revisited. I would add that I think that our policies should also consider the cases of notable persons who adopt a new name as part of a religious conversion or a similar change in circumstances. bd2412 T 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for us to discuss the terms of a future discussion on article titles before we actually initiate the discussion. This will ensure a more orderly process and avoid us having to shift gears from one proposal to another mid-stream. All are welcome to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Preparation for another discussion: Article titles for transgender people. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • @bd2412, I'm seeking which policy should change so we do follow the wishes of a notable transperson and don't get in this mess again. Allowing a clause for religious conversions is fine by me. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:10, 2 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.

Crime category

I was going to add some categories, but am concerned that I'm not sufficiently informed. Based on the conviction under the Espionage Act, would any of the "People convicted of spying" categories be appropriate? Right now, the categories don't reflect what the conviction was for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How is that category defined? IMO a "spy" is operating for specfic entities. Manning didnt spy as much as release classified information without authorization.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm not sure of - not familiar enough with the Espionage Act and how WP handles other people convicted under it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Add a new category for "people convicted of espionage". I've no clue how to do that however.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Creating a new category isn't as easy as all that, and it would probably be deleted for redundancy with the spying category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

He is already in a "people convicted under the espionage act", which is sufficient in my mind.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

She's in a category for persons charged under the espionage act. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Ok, we now have a convicted category. The categories in the US are for "people convicted of spying against the united states" - in this case, he was convicted of espionage, but was acquitted of aiding the enemy. So i'm not sure if the spying cats are appropriate, at least as worded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We have spying cats? ;) 09:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smowton (talk • contribs)

Category: Women in the United States Army

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.

---

This category was removed by User:Two kinds of pork claiming that that category refers to "sex, not gender". (a) this distinction appears completely spurious and novel in terms of the label "women" (b) the category page certainly makes no such distinction - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning is not a woman, to be a woman you have to have the sex change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the category. I also disagree with Knowledgekid87, I certainly dont think you need corrective genital surgery (or whatever its called) in order to be a transgender woman, and Manning certainly fits what a transgender woman is without surgery or hormone treatment. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the category I see just as much of an issue as if someone were to add the category: Men in the United States Army - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This trying to re-fight MOS:IDENTITY over every little issue is disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is though is that MOS:IDENTITY its-self is under dispute. Why cant we respect WP:NPOV here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What about NPOV requires actively treating Manning as a man? (And I say "actively" because "women in the US Army" is the category we use for women soldiers; simply omitting a "men" category which doesn't exist anyway doesn't make the treatment equal, due to other issues in the way the category structure depicts real-world gender biases leading to the lack of many "men" categories.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So removing the category would imply what? Manning being a woman is contested so adding the category would be a WP:POV point to take. Not adding the category makes the article no less neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Manning has a penis so he is a man" does not make the issue "contested." Invalid comments are typically dismissed out of hand and this instance is no different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the category is appropriate, but I am curious who decides what is an "invalid comment" or not? The remark there, okay I understand, but more ambiguous remarks that arn't clear cut? Who decides?--v/r - TP 23:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a comment you have in mind that "contests" Manning's gender but wouldn't be invalid? The closing admins of the move discussion specifically and explicitly ignored remarks based on her legal or physical sex. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop making comments based on your own personal point of view? Believe it or not editors here are learning more about the transgendered community, not every comment you see has been done in bad faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If there's any comment of mine you have a problem with, do let me know (probably on my talk page). I'm well aware that many people here are not familiar with the research into transgender issues or with the proper way of referring to trans people. However, I'm concerned that you're confusing "made in good faith" with "equally valid," and that simply isn't right or workable. If an editor went to the article on, say, Elizabeth II and changed all references to "Queen" to "President" - because in his country the head of state is a president, so shouldn't all heads of state be called presidents? - we might accept that as an honest mistake, but not treat it as an equally valid point of view. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I struck my comment, I dont understand why you would want to be POV with the category. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Bradley Manning is a man" (or generally, "transgender people are really their original sex") is a POV similar to how "being gay is a choice" is a POV. Some people believe both things, but they're (a) impossible to verify (in the sense that you can't definitively assess gender, as opposed to sex,) and (b) are generally considered, at least in the community concerned and increasingly in wider society, as unacceptably aggressive stances on their respective issues. It's obviously very difficult to objectively assess when a comment crosses the line of being too aggressive for legitimate debate, but I think this comment steps over that line and striking it is the right choice. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you made a similar remark below and were called on it by User:NorthBySouthBaranof using very similar reasoning, so nothing new to see here. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I partially agree with Squeak. Genitals have nothing to do with this. Chromosomes however are a different issue. I would not object to transgendered women in the army, which is more accurate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No need for a transgender women category as they can just be included like any other women. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I know plenty of women who never had a sex change. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well indeed, in many poorer parts of the world genital reassignment surgery is not available free of charge or even at all but that does not make ppl living in these countries less women than those in richer and perhaps less conservative countries. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Since when did the term "woman" change from a word defining sex into a word defining gender? And here I thought we were to discuss changes after an objection was made. Tsk tsk.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

See Sex_and_gender_distinction#Sex and Sex_and_gender_distinction#Gender. "Female" is used to describe sex, "woman" describes gender, at least as used by the WHO. What would you use instead to describe gender, if not man/woman? LFaraone 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Intrestesting reads. I didn't see the WHO part, but will look for it later. Thank you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And one of the problems with categorization is that Wikipedia uses the words interchangeably. Category:Women soldiers is a subcategory of Category:Female military personnel which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Women by occupation. StAnselm (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Back in April I did bring the inconsistency to CFD but there was little support for standardising it though some individual tidying migh have got through. But there's very little common use of the terms to distinguish between gender and sex. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is really uncool. I got "warned" for undoing changes a few weeks ago and haven't done it more than once since. What gives everyone else the right to do so?Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

One reason was that the diff you reverted actually contained its reference supporting both the "women" and "in the United States army" parts of the category - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, that doesn't give others carte blanche, you included, to undo without justifying first.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Futhermore, your "that's a novel distinction" wasn't an explanation at all, but condescending. I know you've had a rough week, but don't take that out on me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be why I noted it here on the talk page, which answers both your points. Your objection came across as completely irrelevant to (a) the category (b) the reference (so you're not a fan of WP:V?), and (c) was a novel and spurious distinction to the article. It very much came across as an attempt to remove anything describing Manning as a woman, without any colourable justification - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the category makes no distinction between gender/sex ain't my fault. You never mentioned (b) until just now and (c) is based upon what? I'm willing to listen to arguments, and in fact I'm leaning towards yours and others just made here. Communication is a two way street.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, keep "Women in the Army" outta here. Bradley Manning's a man as of this second. When and if he decides to pull a Christine Jorgenson, then we can consider that category, but for the moment, he's male BLP and V are key here, and stop regurtitation MOS:IDENTITY please. That's actually not even officially a guideline as it's inclusion is being disputed.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  23:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP and V are key, and they go along with IDENTITY rather than conflicting with it. I'm afraid your personal belief that genitals determine someone's gender does not override either our policies or the current scientific position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask why such a category exists in the first place? It's not as if there's a corresponding Category:Men in the United States Army. It sounds to me like a similar problem that existed for Category:American women novelists (see Salon.com, Guardian, etc.)

The category Category:United States Army personnel exists and thankfully contains women such as Jo-Ellen Darcy. Problem solved, --RA (✍) 23:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, thanks RA. I would also recommend placing the category Women in the United States Army up for deletion based on your reasoning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:United States Army personnel covers the issue with a NPOV and without violating BLP, IDENTITY, or any other (currently) divisive issues. GregJackP Boomer! 23:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So can someone swap out the categories? I would do it but wont violate WP:3RR - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that the article already has Category:United States Army soldiers, which is a subcat. StAnselm (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine Category:United States Army soldiers can be seen as being more neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) There is no "compromise solution" agreement here in the least. If you believe the category is inappropriate as a whole, the solution would be to place it up on Categories for Discussion - not to selectively remove it from a page you're bound and determined to ignore MOS:IDENTITY on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a category we are talking about as in mainspace information, not article content, why place a category that conflicts with another category and why be WP:POV here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't conflict, and it is not a "POV" that Chelsea Manning identifies as a woman - it is a fact. That is not subject to POV, just as a person who identifies as gay or lesbian is not subject to POV. There are, no doubt, people who think gay and lesbian people don't exist. Nevertheless, we categorize gay and lesbian people as what they are. If you think trans-people don't exist or aren't really what they are, you're welcome to that opinion - but Wikipedia is not required to give the time of day to your fringe ideology. The scientific facts relating to gender identity and gender dysphoria are essentially settled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

POV is claiming that Chelsea is other than a woman, NPOV is stating the fact that Chelsea identifies as a woman. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Using a gender-neutral category does not push a POV, it is definitely NPOV. It also serves the laudable purpose of reducing conflict until this can be resolved by ArbCom. I don't care how Manning is classified gender-wise, it really isn't that important to me, but the more the conflict goes on, the more emotional people get about it, the more likely that a bunch of people (on both sides) will be sanctioned. For now, why not agree on a gender-neutral description and try and tone things down some? GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Because a "gender-neutral" category when there is a gendered category is not NPOV, rather it asserts the POV that Manning is not a woman. Which might be your POV, but it is rejected by reliable and verifiable sources reporting on her transition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And what are you basing your determination of my position on? I have no problem with Chelsea being identified as a female, using female pronouns, etc. Nor do I have problems with her transgender issues, although I don't think that it will be as easy as some apparently think it will be. A gender-neutral category is just that, neutral, and it can step down the rhetoric. I will say this, putting in your two cents about what "my" POV is will not win you my support and to be frank, is counterproductive. GregJackP Boomer! 01:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it can ease tensions a little, but it's not ideal -- this strikes me as similar in tone to the editors that reword the article to replace female pronouns with "Manning" or other non-gendered constructions: whilst technically it replaces a statement with a non-statement, I think a user viewing the diff might reasonably conclude that we were trying to avoid saying she's female -- and why would we do that? Presumably because it ain't so...

IOW I don't think using the neutral category asserts she is not a woman, but I think it waggles its eyebrows at the possibility in a way that may be misconstrued. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

NorthbySouthBaranof, you're literally the only person regurtitating a disupted guideline. Knock it off! Bradley Mannings a dude, based on gender , not to mention common sense (but if you need verified references, and I sure hope you don't check my post near the top, complete with collapsed references, as theres about 60+ to 4 60 + male , 4 female ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, there are plenty of people on the project that believe that WP:IDENTITY is a valid issue on this article, and it is not a disputed guideline. You need to be aware that the reason that the article was moved back to the name Bradley is not because the community believed Manning to be male, but because there was no consensus in the community to make the original move to Chelsea. It is likely as time passes and more and more sources use the name Chelsea and the feminine pronouns, that the article will be moved back to Chelsea. At that point both IDENTITY and COMMONNAME will be in sync and the community will support the move. Manning's male appendage does not determine identity. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not "the only person" pointing out MOS:IDENTITY here. The fact that you and some others dispute the existence of the guideline does not negate its existence and its force. In fact, an attempt to change the wording in question was just closed and rejected, with the closing admin noting that "there is a distinct majority in support of keeping the MoS advice as written, which advises that the subject's declared current gender preference should apply "in references to any phase of that person's life." Moreover, your repeated insistence that "Bradley Mannings a dude" demonstrates nothing more than your apparent willful ignorance on matters of gender identity and the lives of transgender people. It will convince exactly nobody. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If we have a category for transgender people in the US Army then so be it. Otherwise Chelsea is a woman in the US Army. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oy vey. This is a different can of worms altogether, and not governed by the now-everpresent pronoun and female name insistence. Try sending a postcard to "Chelsea Manning" addressed to Ft. Leavenworth, KS. It will not get there, as the Army does not recognize such a name. There's also the fact that Manning is held at Ft. Leavenworth and not Miramar. This is not really a debatable matter; as far as classification and categorization goes, by all measurable Army regulations and standards, this category is simply not accurate. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  Your contentious proposal is rejected as we all know that until the military is forced to it will not recognize any name change. Essentially you are repeating the tired and inflammatory idea that we should disrespect a BLP wishes to be recognized by their gender identity. Luckily there are people with common sense who also edit here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  So now you think we should be identifying people based on what the United States Postal Service recognizes for mail delivery? What policy or guideline supports the view that we defer to the post office? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  Well, personal attacks aside, I will again point you both back to what we're actually talking about here, which is the categorization of women in the United States Army. The United States Army, at present, has no recognition of a woman named "Chelsea Manning" in the service. How do you justify the categorization of a person into an organization if said organization does not list that person as such? Btw, it isn't the Postal Service that denies recognition, it is the Army that will refuse the mail. You both know this is true, right? Read Manning's statement, the "except in official mail to the confinement facility" line in particular. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  I think you're right that she is not a member of the army that the army recognises as a woman, but barring fringe opinions she is a woman, and she is in the army, so she is a woman in the army. Note that the category title does say that the army makes the gender determination (unlike if the army assigned special female-only ranks, along the lines of Woman Police Constable, where we'd have to carefully clarify that the person is a (woman) (Police Constable) but not a (Woman Police Constable)) Chris Smowton (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, Chelsea Manning is a woman. Regardless of what title this page is at, that verifiable fact is not at issue. Rejecting that fact is a patent violation of the biographies of living persons policy. She undisputedly belongs in the category being discussed. The hand-waving over mailing addresses and surgery is just that - handwaving. Using the fact that the page is titled "Bradley Manning" as a pretext or excuse for rejecting Manning's self-expressed gender identity is simply right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the same line of argument that had been deployed by you and a few others for the last week now, but it didn't sway the Move Request (seeing how the article is back to "Bradley") and it doubly does not work here either. Again, this is a separate matter from other discussions as I detailed above; we're talking simply about how people are categorized, in this case men and women in the U.S. Army. If the organization does not categorize this person a woman according to their own rules and policies, for you to try to do so just isn't...correct. A woman in the U.S. military would not be held at an all-male facility, that's kinda the biggest indicator here. Tarc (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean that "per WP:BLP, Chelsea Manning is a woman". What part of WP:BLP are you referring to? It is an undisputed fact that Manning identifies as a woman. What is in dispute is whether she really is a woman, and whether it's appropriate to categorize her as such. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to quote a line from BLP to support that. Manning is a man who identifies as a woman. Whether that is enough to make him/her a woman is debatable, both here and in the wider world. As such, the category should be gender-neutral to avoid taking a POV side. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I still have yet to see a DSM declaration that Manning is transgender. Self-diagnosis in a press release that everyone points to is inadequate for conditions that are medically recognized. The army psychiatrist did not classify Manning as transgender. Secondly, the army would be the authoritative source for this category. If Manning self-identifies as a General in the army, we wouldn't add that as a category. Gender is not immaterial to army service as it determines MOS and barracks. Manning is eligible for male MOS' and lives in male housing units and wears the male uniform. If Manning self-identified as a Heisman trophy winner, he wouldn't get the cat because the controlling body that counts membership would say "no." --98.165.103.145 (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A report of self-diagnosis is unacceptable for a condition noted for being self-diagnosed? Ummm, I see a bit of a problem with that logic. The rest of your tirade is addressed by MOS:IDENTITY. Dolescum (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can everyone please stop the edit warring over this category? This behavior made the original RM discussion into a disaster. Talk it out and find a consensus instead so we can start finding some semblance of civility on this article. NewAccount4Me (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it is better, for now, to use the gender-neutral category. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a lot of drama over a simple category. This isn't a rush, we don't have some big BLP emergency, so I'd ask all of you to relax and STOP the edit warring. NorthBySouth especially, I feel like you've reverted this category at least 3 or 4 times already. That's enough. Its addition is controversial, as such we should discuss first and come to consensus before adding again.

The application of a category is based on WP:DEFINING. I think as of now, we aren't there yet in our reliable sources. We certainly have enough RS to place Manning as a Transgender military personnel, and of course as a US army soldier, but we don't have sources saying "Manning is a woman who served in the army for 5 years before xxx" - they are mostly eschewing use of that term. As such, I think we should leave this category off for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Per WP:3RR edit warring is not productive here, we found a neutral category to leave in, lets end this discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Allow me to channel my inner Stan Marsh: "This is fucking retarded." Carrite (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No kidding. I requested full protection - and don't care which version is protected, but going over 3RR over a category is insane. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 2 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.

Is Wikipedia's mission to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist?

Title is wrong.

Should read 'Chelsea Manning'. Criffer (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see #Requested move at the top of this article. This has been debated extensively, and the consensus is that it should be Bradley, not Chelsea. — Richard BB 09:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the move was noted as "no consensus" - please don't misstate this - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. Wasn't intentional! — Richard BB 10:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of consensus, title is wrong.2001:420:40FF:FFE0:F911:C3F8:4284:EA63 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's debatable. — Richard BB 11:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"I am Chelsea Manning" - Chelsea Manning. How is that debatable? 2001:420:40FF:FFE0:F911:C3F8:4284:EA63 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Because, as shown in the vast debates above (and here), there are a lot of different interpretations of policy. She may call herself Chelsea, but the question is how Wikipedia should refer to her. Unfortunately, however, there is a 30-day wait until the next debate about this may begin. — Richard BB 11:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be too easy don't you know? The editors that flooded this talk page have brought massively good arguments such as how wikipedia users would get ultra confused about the move. Apparently wikipedia's mission is to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist. Or how about the rationalizations about how MOS:IDENTITY shouldn't apply to page titles! woo!. Then come the SEO experts, treating Chelsea Manning as just another visibility optimization challenge. Soon enough they will succeed in changing MOS:IDENTITY Vexorian (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia is trying to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist is absurd. If that were the case, the article wouldn't even mention the fact that she is trans. — Richard BB 11:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The title is inconsequential to Manning's name. If Manning were better known as The Grand Poobah, then that is what the title would be. Or that's my interpretation on how things went down. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Title is inconsequential to Manning's gender and current identity as well. It's just the name the person is most known as, much as is the case with Cat Stevens (aka Yusef Islam, the name he has identified with since 1979!). I'm not sure why a person being sent to prison for 35 years is being held up as the beacon for transgenderism; this individual is surrounded by controversy and it's no wonder that this has embroiled such bitter debate. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If people think Manning is a traitor/criminal they should put that to one side when contributing to wikipedia articles on her, otherwise its wikipedia that gets damaged, and the same for those who think she is a heroine, otherwise it becomes very difficult to fulfill our neutrality policy. We most of us having feelings on Manning's wikileaks endeavors, its the putting them to one side that is so critical. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This also should go for people who have personal feelings related to gender identity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The undisputed fact is that Manning is a convicted felon. Manning is not a traitor, as that normally requires a conviction for treason, which has not happened. Both of these facts are critical to editing the article, as editors must always focus on the truth as documented by verifiable, reliable sources. That's what we do, and the crimes, trial, and conviction are what makes Manning notable. Anything else, including gender identity or the editor's opinion that Manning is a whistleblower/traitor, are secondary, incidental factors. Do we address them? Sure, making sure that we appropriately source the information in accordance with BLP. As things change we put them in the article, but until the vast majority of the published sources are about something besides the leaked material, that's where the weight of the article must be. As SqueakBox said, we have to put aside our own feelings in order to use the facts as reported by the sources. We cannot let the article become a soapbox for transgender issues, or for that matter, anything other than the facts. The project is not well-served by anything less. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

While what you are saying is correct, Knowledgekid, I had been responding to Floydian. At least the naming/pronouning dispute is about transgender issues, it isnt about espionage issues. In real life I have very mixed feelings about transgender people but wikipedia is not the place for them and I believe as wikipedia editors interested in neutrality and in writing a great encyclopedia that we should support the view that Manning is a woman called Chelsea regardless of our personal beliefs on transgender. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hatting this section

A discussion about whether it's appropriate or helpful to hat/unhat this section is here: User_talk:Knowledgekid87#Unexplained_revert.2Fre-hatting_of_explained_unhatting. --B2C 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now per policy the next move discussion to change this title will happen in October, saying that the title is wrong until you are blue in the face and why you feel you are right or wrong is not going to help anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So ignore the folks saying the title is wrong instead of edit warring over a hat. NE Ent 19:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If the only comment in this section was the first JDLI one, that would justify hatting the section. But by the time it was hatted it already included the substantive exchange between Vexorian (talk · contribs) and Richard BB (talk · contribs). The hatting, and re-hatting, was unjustified. At least no reasonable justification was provided. The initial JDLI claim applied only to the first comment, not the rest of it.

Knowledgekid seems to think any discussion about the title is now off limits. That's not true. --B2C 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not saying anything of the sort, it is known by now that some editors here do not approve of the current title I just don't see any reason why the debate about it needs to continue here and what purpose it is all for. What results do you expect out of it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this all really necessary??

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.

---

If a person wants to be treated the female, adopts a female name, dresses like a woman and more importantly, psychologically and emotionally sees herself as a woman, so she IS A WOMAN and deserves to be treated like one!

Why create a huge page just to discuss something HERSELF, Chelsea Manning, has made so clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.249.171 (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As has been stated above, it all comes down to how we should represent her. Wikipedia has various guidelines regarding how articles are named, and so it doesn't always come down to how she wants to be seen. Besides, the point is moot as this debate cannot happen again for another 30 days. — Richard BB 11:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because we decide how to treat people. If we want to be racist, we sure should make wikipedia racist too! Woah, we are so great people! Vexorian (talk)

This has nothing to do with treatment, it's to do with how we follow our existing guidelines. Even though I'm in favour of her being called Chelsea, many people made the valid point that it was moved without consensus. — Richard BB 13:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment A quote I once heard that I believe is attributed to Abraham Lincoln is, "If you call a dogs tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Still only 4. Just because you call it a leg, doesn't make it so."JOJ ^Hutton<
• Comment 1. Attributed by whom? Are you spreading myths about Lincoln? 2. I'm hoping you mean that simply saying a trans woman is a man, doesn't make them a man. Otherwise it sounds like you're comparing trans people to dogs and that might be seen as hateful or derogatory to some."Elaqueate (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a battleground. Take the Lincoln quote for what is worth and don't create drama where none exists. JOJ ^Hutton 00:23, 3 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.

lead revision

As Manning is most notable for the espionage she committed, the emphasis on the lead should be that; while her self identification as female is important, it should only be briefly mentioned in the lead. NE Ent 13:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

While we appreciate the bold action, please note that there is a long, thorough debate on how to deal with this matter occurring on this talkpage. Please refrain from taking unilateral action when consensus is being found. The lede is structured as it is to make it easier for readers to understand the different names and pronouns being used, as well. It's a readability and consensus issue. NewAccount4Me (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is, per WP:LEAD, The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If specific explanation of pronouns is required, that is more appropriately done via hatnote. NE Ent 15:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I see it as a readability issue in general, but have no problems with a consensus saying otherwise. I do think we need a consensus before the change is made or we are going to have a 40,000 word rehashed argument in this section within the next 2-3 hours. NewAccount4Me (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a common sense and non-advocacy issue. Manning is primarily known for the espionage conviction, the transgender issue is secondary and should not be given that much prominence in the lead. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that transgender shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence as a prime descriptor of Mannning. It's not what they got known for; which is the wikileak-case of course. Iselilja (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The transgender issue should be mentioned in the first sentence. Manning is now likely the most notable transgender person in the world and there is no evidence that now she is solely notable for the espionage conviction, unless of course ppl can find reliable sources to back up their opinions. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Had she not been convicted of 20 felonies, no one would have cared about the transgender issues. GregJackP Boomer! 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the past, it seems safe to say people (readers and editors) care about the transgender issues now. They are notable and have been discussed prominently in media.Elaqueate (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, the same could be said for Gary Glitter and his pedophile convictions but the reality is that because of the espionage issue Chelsea IS a highly notable transgender person, the proof of which is that we are here discussing her wikipedia article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree that she is a highly notable transgender. What I am saying is that the criminal acts are more significant. I don't have a problem with transgender being in the lead, but it should be explanitory, as McPhail notes below. The lead should summarize the article, and the majority of the article is about the crimes, the prosecution, and conviction. The transgender issue should not predominate in the lead. GregJackP Boomer! 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My rationale for adding the word "transgender" in the first sentence was that this makes it immediately clear why both female and male names are supplied for Manning. The current wording leaves this a mystery. McPhail (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Politically I'd support omitting the transgender bit from the lead - the difference between the birth name and the current name should be something the mythical "average reader" should be able to figure out (and if they can't, they can always read on - it's the lead of an encyclopaedia article, not a stand-alone brief). In practical terms, although the transgender issue has attracted a lot of attention recently, it's unlikely to continue to do so unless the HRT fight heats up (and then the story still is likely to be US military policy, not the fact that Manning is transgender. I'd link the phrase "self-identified as female" to trans woman and leave it at that. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's agreed upon that her coming out should be mentioned in the lead by inclusion of one sentence, then that sentence could use a little expansion, it's kind of vague. What about saying: After being sentenced, Manning released a statement announcing she is a female and requested that she be referred to as Chelsea, - or something along those lines. On another note, I found this at CNN - Famous transgender and transsexual people-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Mostly  Done (shunned the passive voice). NE Ent 18:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see the benefit of the change to the lead, and it isn't well-written.

  The lead said: "Manning was raised as a boy, but in a statement issued the day after sentencing identified herself as female and said she had felt female since childhood. She introduced herself as Chelsea and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy."

  That was changed to: "After sentencing, Manning stated she is a female and requested that she be referred to as Chelsea."

  When I reverted the change, I was reverted with the edit summary: "Nah, you don't just get to do that without participating in current discussion ..." So here I am. In what way is the change an improvement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEAD, The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The primary emphasis should be on the espionage; the transgender aspect, while important, should only be mentioned in the lead and expounded further later in the article. NE Ent 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• The primary topic of the lead is indeed the leaks and charges, but the first paragraph is not the totality of the lead. We need to explain upfront why and when she became Chelsea, and the previous version was clearer. I don't mind tightening it (in fact, I'd have done that myself but assumed I'd be reverted), but I don't think there's a need to change it completely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the older wording sounds better: "Manning was raised as a boy, [... etc ...] expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." The new wording, "Manning stated she is a female", switches between the past and the present tense in the space of three words describing an event (the making of a statement) that occurred in the past; that doesn't seem like good style. If we're trying to make the lead more concise/brief, I'd suggest something like "After sentencing, Manning introduced herself as Chelsea and stated that she was female." or "...stated that she was a woman." or (incorporating a link to Gender identity disorder) "...stated that she had felt female since childhood." -sche (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If we want it to be a shorter single sentence, I'd prefer something like: "Manning was raised as a boy, but in a statement issued the day after sentencing said she had felt female since childhood, asked to be known as Chelsea, and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think sche's "After sentencing, Manning introduced herself as Chelsea and stated she was a woman" is good. That it was the day after and the therapy stuff is notable for inclusion but are details which don't need to be in the lead sentence. NE Ent 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not keen on "stated," because it's one of those over-used words, and the way it's written suggests that this was sudden, so I think it's important to add that she has felt that way since childhood. The thing is, if we shorten this too much, someone else will come along and lengthen it. Someone else lengthened what was there, which is why several of you now want to shorten it. To get stability we have to include the issues we can anticipate lots of people will want to see included, but do it as succinctly as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could tighten up the following three paragraphs in the lead into two and make the fourth lead paragraph address the transgender content? NE Ent 00:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be keen on that, because the rest of the lead deals with the key issues; it makes no sense to tighten the key issues to include the most recent. In addition, the transgender announcement needs to be at the top to explain Chelsea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The first words, "Chelsea born Bradley," if it doesn't fully connect all the dots, certainly provides pretty powerful hint to readers. Explaining the context in which she became notable -- conviction for espionage -- should be the thrust of the first paragraph. The fact that she is transgender isn't what makes her notable -- I'm sure we don't have articles on all 700,000 transgender folks in the US. NE Ent 02:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

References

The first two sentences explain the notability. I've changed the third to: "In a statement issued the day after sentencing, Manning said she had felt female since childhood, asked to be known as Chelsea, and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." Is that okay with you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -sche (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's where we started. NE Ent 02:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could compact it slightly to "The day after sentencing, Manning said she had felt female since childhood, asked to be known as Chelsea, and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." (Possibly with a better verb than "said".) That would make it the shortest sentence in the first paragraph, and the second-shortest sentence in the first two paragraphs. -sche (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It isn't where you started. You started with: "Manning was raised as a boy, but in a statement issued the day after sentencing identified herself as female and said she had felt female since childhood. She introduced herself as Chelsea, asked that feminine pronouns be used, and stated she would undergo hormone replacement therapy." [10] So it is now quite a bit shorter and is one sentence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeking input on policy

Hi everyone, a preparatory discussion regarding article title policy is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Preparation for another discussion: Article titles for transgender people. This is among the policies, if not the policy, that most affects what we should call this article. We are currently laying out the terms of the debate (which points we should discuss) before embarking on the actual discussion. Given that many people who have posted on this page are passionate about this topic, and given that we have a somewhat limited set of contributors so far, it would be great to get some additional voices in the mix. Whether you think the policy should be changed or should stay as is, you are welcome to contribute.

I ask that you please do not respond to this post but rather post on that page with your thoughts. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I Violate a Stupid Policy to prevent a violation of a human right

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.

---

It is a violation of a human right to strip Chelsea's requests and needs and rights from her regardless if she is in prison or not and forced against her right in her true gender identity. What is this ? the 20th century ? How much progress and what have people learned. Chelsea is in an awkward situation and help and treatment is slim, could not people have the respect and decency to respect her requests. She has exposed the non-transparency and dirty workings of governments on this planet, and this is the thanks you can give her, putting the cherry on the top as gender discrimination ? Seriously people, please feel, understand and think, and stop running on automatic like policy parrots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanainternational (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia that makes changes in a calm, deliberate manner, based on standards such as notability, consensus, and utilizing reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a social organization with a mission to right the wrongs of society. You don't just get to skip the process and where the process has been properly followed, the article was changed in as many places as possible in order to reflect her requests. The other issues, such as whether gender identity issues are given proper consideration by wider society or whether or not she did a noble thing with the revealing of certain governmental data are not germane to this discussion. In addition, this is not a forum for general complaints, so if you have a complaint with a particular person, please take it up with them directly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt that anything posted on Wikipedia would ever violate someone's "human rights", loosely defined. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the article being named "Bradley Manning" is somehow a violation of someone's human rights is one of the most laughable things I've seen in this debate. — Richard BB 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Two Kinds of Pork" and "Richard BB", may I draw your attention to Wikipedia's article on the right to sexuality, including "legal recognition of preferred gender of transgender persons", occuring in a number of international human rights institutions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. So whilst the issue may still be up for debate, I would advise you to forestall your laughter for a moment - it seems the original poster may have made a good and valuable point. Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to deny me a good belly rumble? But seriously, I fail to see how something posted on a website could deny anyone their "rights". Especially since we just parrot previously published material.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

While I am very likely to vote in favor of a move to Chelsea Manning in 30 days when it will inevitably come up again, legal recognition and a title of a Wikipedia page are very different things. We have policies to strive to be accommodating when possible, but from a legal standpoint, Wikipedia could title the page Chelsea Manning, Bradley Manning, Cheldly Manning, Peyton Manning, Chelsea Clinton, or Lars, Grand Plenipotentiary of the Oatmeal Gnomes.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:53, 2 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.

Granai video

There's an interesting discrepancy between the sources regarding when Manning passed the video of the May 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan (also called the Garani airstrike) to WikiLeaks. This was the video that was never published, because apparently Daniel Domscheit-Berg took it with him when he left WikiLeaks, and said he had destroyed it. Manning indicated during the Lamo chat on 22 May 2010 that she had passed this video to WikiLeaks, though she gave no date ("bradass87" is Manning; "he" is Assange):

(2:15:57 PM) bradass87: they also caught wind that he had a video… of the Gharani airstrike in afghanistan, which he has, but hasn’t decrypted yet… [11]

In January 2013 Manning wrote a statement for the court, listing what she had passed to WikiLeaks and when. On p. 33 she says that she gave them the Granai video in late March 2010.

However, WikiLeaks tweeted on 8 January 2010 that it had obtained "encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians," and linked to a story about the Granai airstrike. See Twitter, 8 January 2010: "Have encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians http://bit.ly/wlafghan2 we need super computer time http://ljsf.org/". (The first link is on WP's blacklist, hence the nowiki. It leads to Noah Shachtman, "Afghan Airstrike Video Goes Down the Memory Hole", Wired, 23 June 2009.)

There's some discussion by Alexa O'Brien of the legal arguments here that might explain the discrepancy, but it's not clear to me what she's saying. If anyone here is familiar with the sequence of events, can you shed light on this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever anyone says about Manning, that is one helluva handle name he chose. lol.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The truth can't be impossible

"Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g. use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child.)"

Oceania is at war with East Asia, Oceania has always been at war with East Asia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston S Smith (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Snoop Dogg article currently contains the sentence "As a teenager, Snoop Dogg frequently ran into trouble with the law." even though no one exactly named "Snoop Dogg" existed at the time. If someone says the equivalent of, "Chelsea Manning (raised as a boy named Bradley) is good at tennis. She started when she was ten.", readers will understand everything they need to know from the context. It is not impossible to explain complex truths or histories.Elaqueate (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A name differs from pronouns though. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong policy

Hello,

Not really an active wikipedia editor, but I really feel that referring to him as Chelsea Manning and using the 'she' pronoun damages the integrity of wikipedia. While he identifies as a female, I think that by wikipedia identifying him as his chosen gender rather than his actual gender it makes them appear as if they are more interested in supporting transgender politics then giving fair and impartial presentation of the news. I believe the policy on this is wrong, and I suggest a change.

Regards,