Talk:Chelsea Manning

Shouldn't Article Title Change to "Bradley Manning" Based on Logic of FAQ #4? *See Above*

K, I'm throwing up a Good Faith / Not-Trolling flag right from the get go cause I am generally confused by this.

"Articles are titled based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Article titles, and are usually the name the subject is most commonly known by, which is not necessarily their legal name."

A google english search of "bradley manning" yields 1.5 million hits. The same search of "chelsea manning" yields 1 million hits.

Based on the logic above, shouldn't the article be changed to Bradley as it is the common name by which they are most commonly, broadly known? You could call them Chelsea within the article, but it violates the common enclycopedic principle of FAQ 4# to have the article called Chelsea, as the majority of people interested in this article would not know of this (it took me a few minutes to realize Chelsea was not a misdirect vandalism or something). The first sentenance can be something like Bradley Manning (changed to Chelsea) etc and the rest of the article be Chelsea and she. But it's jarring as hell to search bradley manning, see a man's picture, see Chelsea, see she's everywhere, trying to figure out the vandalism, realize it's not one, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.211.11 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a good example of what I'm advocating. The NYT, referring to them as bradley in the header title but the first article stating Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning within the article. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/bradley_e_manning/index.html?8qa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.211.11 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not the New York Times, and Google hit numbers of those magnitudes are basically meaningless. We went over all this twice. Please stop flogging the dead horse. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

the discussion of the title of this article consumed multiple archives and megabytes and even an arbcom case and many news articles about wikipedia's various titling dramas. So while you are entitled to your opinion, there isn t much point in discussing this further. In perhaps 6 months or a year another formal move request could be put forward and again launched into a huge debate but absent that I see no point. Please read the old move discussions and notice that your argument, and many others like it, was put forward by dozens of editors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I understand and agree with the original post. I think it's important to note objections by editors who were not present for any of those past discussions. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What?...So we can circle round this again and again every time someone has an objection to a transperson and their lifestyle? Google search results aren't a great measure by which to judge this; As it obviously includes a lot of pre-announcement material. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The debate isn't going to go away, because closing it as it is doesn't close the issue. Bradley Manning remains male, he hasn't changed his body, and he isn't commonly known as a woman, or as a transwoman. Every person who comes to wikipedia looking for information about Manning is going to instead wonder "who is Chelsea Manning?" Any picture of him clearly depicts a man. The confusion is never going to go away so long as the article is titled Chelsea Manning, and editors will continue to try to fix the article so that it makes more sense, probably for a very long time.Walterego (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A trans woman is a woman. And that's what Chelsea is, and her surgical status is none of your business. This matter's been settled here, and it was a long and painful process. So let it lie, already. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A transwoman is obviously not a woman. Manning's "surgical status" is common knowledge, he doesn't have a surgical status because he hasn't doesn't anything about it. He's a man with a mental disorder. The matter hasn't been settled as the continuing debate amply proves. Walterego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That is the conservative point of view but her mental instability has not been proven to be true per the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• This little exchange above is why we put in place this guidance during the move request: "Do not share your opinion on whether or not Manning is really a woman, or needs to have surgery, hormone treatment, or a legal name change to become one. This is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex." at discussion guidelines. It's a pointless argument to have on wikipedia, Alex will never convince Walter, and Walter will never convince Alex, and the question is fundamentally flawed because we don't have an agreed upon societal definition of the term "woman" - this dynamic, fluid, and is being negotiated as we speak. As such, I suggest that all assertions that "Manning is truly a WOMAN" or "Manning isn't really a WOMAN" be banned from this page, there's no point and no-one can win that argument.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ben, let's assume good faith here - asking a question about the subject is something different than putting it up for discussion again. IP, if you're interested in the underlying discussion, you could take a look at the move request that moved the article here. As others have said, it's megabytes long, and not as streamlined as one would like (though as streamlined - or even more - than could be expected), but it could give you more insight in how the sausage was made. The amount of effort to finding this compromise is something few are willing to go through again if nothing has significantly changed. But you're always free to ask how things became as they are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The talk page on this article is just going to go round and round in circles till Chelsea is able to take a proper photograph of herself as a woman. Till then, people who are unfamiliar with transpeople are going to be confused.

P.S."How the sausage was made"?...haven't heard that phrase before, but apparently it's a thing! You learn something new every day I suppose --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is, unless we can make the caption of the picture and the lede even clearer, but I for one wouldn't know how. That's unfortunate, but the only thing we can do is keep explaining it.
About the P.S. it's a quote from Bismark, famously(?) applied to Wikipedia by Jimbo Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably not Bismark. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the OP's comment about using the most common name for the title, an argument for the title Chelsea Manning was that it was the most common name for Manning that was used in news articles after a week or two following Manning's announcement about being Chelsea. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says "An exception to this (the "most commonly used in sources" rule) is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise."; so, considering that her name-change was gender-related, it is my understanding that in this case it doesn't matter what sources say, does it not? --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At the time of the discussion on this article MOS:IDENTITY didn't say that yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if that exception in the guideline MOS:IDENTITY applies to article titles, since it would contradict the policy WP:Article titles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So that being the case what would hold more weight? Policies do at times contradict others but not all policies are weighed equal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like an invitation to abstractly consider policies. Isn't there a current consensus that this talk page is not a general forum about policies? __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It Is true by the way, for example WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy and one of the five pillars so being neutral would take importance. As for not a forum this section is talking about MOS:IDENTITY which has been debated here and something that impacts the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As the current consensus about the article title considers it in multiple agreement with the policies spoken of here, (ArticleTitles, NPOV, MOS, etc.) then continuing a debate on which policy should be more considered seems pretty abstract at this point, and on this talk page. Of course the title should be generally in line with policies; you haven't offered any new evidence, or argument not considered, that there's a fresh policy conflict here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Re "Of course the title should be generally in line with policies; you haven't offered any new evidence, or argument not considered, that there's a fresh policy conflict here." — It might help if you gave diffs of the messages from the old discussions that you are referring to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your request doesn't seem to make any sense, Bob. You want me to give diffs regarding my assertion that KnowledgeKid87 hasn't shown there's a fresh policy conflict here? Or that article titles should generally be in line with policies? Or that the last move request closed with a consensus for the present title, after a long discussion referencing the policies discussed here and more? Is there a brand new policy conflict or development not already heavily discussed and considered that would indicate a need for change? __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Bob is asking for Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request. Or are you looking for something else? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful link Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request. (I note that it is in Q2 of the FAQ at the top of this page.) As the closers' statement of 23:25, 8 October 2013 indicates, the last change in article title from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning was based on WP:COMMONNAME, not MOS:IDENTITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes I remember now, MOS:IDENTITY was not a factor in the final move outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There are broad issues at stake here with Manning. Like our own article says: “Reaction to Manning's request by the news media was split, with some using the new name and pronouns, and others continuing to use the old.” Until someone has a sex-change operation, U.S. police have a common-sense approach when arresting street prostitutes in drag who announce that they are females and insist that they should be taken to the female wing of the local jail. The police merely ask “Do you have a penis?” The arrestees tend to pause, deflate a little, look down at the road, and admit “Yes.” And so it goes at federal lockups like Leavenworth: Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth. He has all his ‘junk.’ Deciding which pronoun to use should be be based more upon common sense to avoid "!" brain-interrupts when reading the article. The reality (truly) is Manning wrote that he would like all correspondence sent to him in prison to refer to him as “him”; the only “female” thing about him is that's the way he thinks of himself. Wikipedia shouldn’t be exploited as a vehicle to help promote the transgendered community’s agenda to better be respected and accepted to the point that Wikipedia’s articles read awkwardly and defy logic. Our own guidelines suggest rewording constructs such as He gave birth to his first child for obvious reasons: prose that calls attention to itself is poor prose. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's incredibly offensive to think that a person's simple desire to be accepted by their fellow humans, for whatever reason, is a concept that is sometimes talked about in such scathing tone. Even biological sex isn't as binary as you put it here! Chelsea Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth as this was her identity when the charges were brought against her, it wasn't an issue like it might have been with an "out" transgender woman being brought in. All the legal proceedings are against a "Bradley Manning" for the sake of consistency, nothing else. --Connelly90 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Connelly90, I think you are far too quick to pull out the ol’ “I’m soooo very offended” gambit. Nothing I wrote above had squat to do with “accepting (or not) a fellow human being.” As our own article says on Manning, the rest of the print world is split as to which pronoun to use when referring to him (her). Why is the decision not an easy one? Because as we all trip on our shoelaces trying to be as “inclusive” and inoffensive as possible, editors end up with awkward constructs on Wikipedia like He gave birth to his first child in favor—according to Wikipedia's guidelines—of the rather ambiguous He became a parent for the first time, which holds open the possibility that maybe "he" adopted a child.

Note also that since facts still matter, even when someone professes to “taking great offense at something,” it’s worthwhile pointing out that you are just flat wrong when you write Chelsea Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth as this was her identity when the charges were brought against her. The gender an individual believes himself to be at any time during legal proceedings has absolutely nothing to do with decisions regarding incarceration. Even if Manning had self identified as a female and dressed the part at the start of legal proceedings, Manning would have been incarcerated in the men's wing. Why? Because “she” has a penis. (There we go with another “!” brain-interrupt due to awkward prose that calls attention to itself.) That's the practice with all U.S. penal institutions—federal and state. Can you imagine the security problems in prisons if wardens threw women equipped with penises into a population of women who were born women?

Please don't try to make this an issue about “taking offense” and “holding the banner for inclusivity.” As I wrote the first time, it’s all about communicating encyclopedically. My point the first time around was simply that prose that calls attention to itself is poor prose. That's still my point. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The nature of Ms Manning's genitals is none of our damn business. Can we please stop re-fighting this? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Anon IP user, what set of private parts Ms. Manning currently has is of absolutely no relevance to the issue and continual references to them will not convince anyone that your position is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your solemn pronouncements, where you pretend to speak on behalf of every other wikipedian on this planet do not make your desire become true. I didn't weigh in here pretending I would convince people like you, or even to effect change in this particular article. I weighed in here because it’s about influencing others: the very many silent wikipedians who have common sense, aren’t nearly so animated on issues, and will eventually weigh in at other, future RfCs. The prison officials have Manning locked up with all the other men because they exercise common sense. Our tripping over our shoelaces to be as inoffensive as possible has resulted in encyclopedic prose that draws attention to itself and looks absurd. But that’s Wikipedia, where really dumb things occur—sometimes for years—before it eventually corrects itself. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Canadian officials today sent a British woman, travelling on a passport which stated her gender as female, to a men's prison without trial because they applied what they thought was common sense. I suggest to you that the 'common sense' of an authority which is acting against someone for reasons unrelated to their gender might not be a reliable source at all. Indeed, it represents a highly biased perspective. I'm astonished that anyone thinks the US military or prisons services can possibly be regarded as reliable or neutral in this matter. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not for one second confused by the wording of this article, but you (IP) are clearly very bothered by this concept. If we are to endeavour to write the article by WP's own guidelines, then we should consider only what Chelsea wants with regards to pronouns etc (MOS:IDENTITY) not what the police force or justice system of a single nation decides, and Chelsea made it very clear what she wants in her announcement. If you wish to discuss your issues with trans people, then this isn't the place to do so. --Connelly90 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith! For the record, as a social worker I do believe transgenderism is a severe and self destructive mental illness, mostly because in my long career I often see it strongly associated with horrible abuses (physical, emotional, sexual) and rarely do I see well adjusted, stable people from safe backgrounds develop this condition, much as stable safe backgrounds rarely produce self-mutilators, eating disorders, suicidal or homicidal ideation, drug addictions or psychoses. Moreover, I do feel, as a scientist, that a persons gender is real, not a construct, and has real world consequences, as the jailers assigning Manning to the male cell block will tell you, and to place a persons feelings above reality does a disservice to the encloypedic mission. Think about it, what would happen to Wikipedia's credibility if Manning declared themselves a man again tomorrow, or androgyneous, what if they invented their own gender? Wouldn't it be better to ground your encloypedia in concrete, absolute and immutable fact, one imprevious to the opinions of the subject or its editors? Sounds like good encloypedic work to me!

But hey, none of that was present in my OP, i raised a valid point without bias and you, the guardian of human rights, responded with ad hominim based on preconceived and, btw, not widely shared opinions :D and you wonder why wikipedia has trouble getting new editors. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.233.250 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2014‎

There are many reason for our new editor retention problem. Refusing to go against our own manual of style is not, I suspect, one of them. Novusuna ^talk 02:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, yes, you did address the ad hominim in your response. Oh wait, you didn't, you completely ignored it but congradulations on your enclyopedic stewardship (with a rapier wit to boot!) :D— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.233.250 (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2014‎

If you (IP) do indeed work in the field you claim you do, then I doubt you would have issue with understanding a transpersons position regarding gender, and that it's definitely not a "fixed" Male/Female thing, but more of a spectrum. --Connelly90 07:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal claims of expertise aren't a valid source. In this case, I also don't find them to be a credible source. This IP poster has basically made a bunch of sweeping generalisations about trans people on the basis of this claimed expertise, generalisations that are at odds with my experience and are in any case entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. I think at this point (to continue overusing an overused metaphor) the horse is not merely dead, but has been tanned, flayed, and ground to dust. Does anyone have anything constructive to say about Chelsea Manning that does not involve mistrusting her report of her own gender? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This ip 184.36.233.250, by their admission, is the same editor as 66.30.86.154 and is not suggesting anything specific about the article itself and is treating the page as a general forum. I would suggest that I don't think the article is improved by engaging their general arguments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bradley" is a surname and "Chelsea" is the name of a place in London (and another in New York city). Why would either of them be regarded as gendered names?89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Convention, mainly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Culture. To me "Chelsea" means Chelsea F.C. rather than a name, but all of this is POV. --Connelly90 09:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a girl named Dagger? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I've always associated "Chelsea" as a female name. It is well-established a feminine name in the Southern U.S., since before Chelsea Clinton became prominently known. I was aware of the girl's name long before the place in London, maybe before I was a ware of the place in Manhattan. See Chelsea (name) for a list of people with the same name; they're all women. Not sure why the gender association of the name was brought up. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal Name

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

---

Manning stated her legal name is "Bradley E. Manning" so I suggest we change the intro of the article to:

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (legally Bradley E. Manning; born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)

--71.59.58.63 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that she has changed her legal name yet again? If so, please provide a citation for this which post-dates her legally effective announcement that her name is now Chelsea. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

She says "I can recive checks and and money orders payable to my current legal name without any titles, "Bradley E. Manning"."--71.59.58.63 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I think this would be a useful reference should the article ever be expanded to discuss the legal or administrative issues surrounding the use of her names. However, I don't believe this information needs to go in the first sentence of the article—I can't think of any other biographical articles for subjects who are or have been known by multiple names where we make a point of pronouncing one of them as "legal". —Psychonaut (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Farrokh Bulsara, Phillip Jack Brooks, David Robert Jones...etc etc are not listed by their "legal name". Should we change them too? Chelsea Manning is now her name, and it should be used in all instances; except the outstanding court cases that were brought up post-announcement, for the sake of consistency, as the complaints were raised against "Bradley Manning". A "legally known as..." part is a bit disrespectful in my opinion; like saying "sure, you identify as a woman, but we don't agree with that". As if her new female name is some kind of nickname. --Connelly90 12:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• not needed in lede Most ledes don't necessarily mention the subject's current "legal" name, and we already mention that she was born Bradley in the lede. If there is a section later on in the article that goes into detail based on RS around the use of Manning's legal name for correspondence/legal issues, it could be noted there that Bradley remains the legal name, but I don't think this is needed in the lede.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Unnecessary for lede. If added, would look like we are labouring some point. Sufficient as is. --Tóraí (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This addition would be an NPOV clarification that the name "Chalsea" has not been made legal, otherwise readers may be confused between what they read in the article and the name that is used in news sources, especially those that date to before the name-preference announcement. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, this wording most certainly is POV, as it implies that "Chelsea" is not her legal name. The citation states that "Bradley Manning" is her legal name; it does not state that "Chelsea Manning" is not. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be "implying", it would be very explicit that "Chelsea" is not a legal name, because it isn't. To avoid the issue is misleading. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what about the current article you feel is misleading, and where you feel you're being misled to. The article currently states that Chelsea Manning is the subject's name. This is indisputably true insofar as it's an identifier she and others customarily use to refer to herself. The article does not make any claim one way or another as to whether this name, or any other name by which she is or was known, does or does not have any particular legal status. Thus the reader is not currently being misled on any point of law. However, in this discussion we are contemplating the introduction of a claim about the legal status of one the subject's names which is not reliably sourced to any authority on matters of law. You furthermore freely admit that the claim is worded in such a way that it leads readers to draw conclusions about the legal status of an entirely different name. How is this proposed insertion then not misleading? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
        • By not stating the legal name, the reader is left conclude that, by de fault, the name of the article must be the legal name. You freely admit that "Chelsea" is the subject's name "insofar as it's an identifier", but an "identifier" is not a legal name. A nickname, nom de plume, alias, or any other pseudonym are all identifiers. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't think readers will make such an assumption—after all, it's standard practice in Wikipedia and most other reference works to title biographical articles by the subject's common name, irrespective (and usually being completely silent on the matter) of whether that name has any particular legal recognition. But if readers happen to make such an unwarranted assumption here, they will almost certainly arrive at the correct conclusion anyway, so no harm is done. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Except the harm done to accuracy and neutrality, which are two things that are supposed to be at the core of Wikipedia. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
              • It is both accurate and neutral to use "Chelsea Manning." As the previous discussion revealed, the common name used by the majority of reputable published sources after her announced transition is Chelsea. The majority of reputable published sources today are sensitive to gender transitions. Moreover, as was also revealed in the previous discussion, there is an incredible lack of consistency as to the very meaning of "legal name" - the states in which Manning has been resident are known to permit common-law name changes, by which a person may change their name merely through use and adoption. Her "legal name" is therefore of no particular interest to us. There is nothing defining about the word "legal" and there is nothing defining about the fact that the military refuses to recognize her gender transition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
                • "By not stating the legal name, the reader is left conclude that, by de fault, the name of the article must be the legal name." Not true. As I've stated above, we have many other articles for people which are titled something other than their "Legal Name" (Farrokh Bulsara, Phillip Jack Brooks, David Robert Jones etc) and an explanation of (Born...) is sufficient for these. What makes this case any different? A "legal name" is obviously based in a nation's law...and Wikipedia is bigger than the US --Connelly90 09:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • I think you're undermining your own point. "David Bowie" may well be the legal name, or one of several equally permissible legal names, of the man who was named "David Robert Jones" at birth. Without a reliable legal authority to cite, we can't know for sure. In any case, such information is rarely encyclopedic, but rather a trivial matter of interest only to those involved in legal proceedings. In the rare event that someone actually needs to know someone's legal name (for example, they intend to sue this person and are required to use some legally prescribed identifier for him in court documents), then they shouldn't relying on a tertiary source like Wikipedia for it. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • Bowie's "legal name" is "David Robert Jones". David Bowie is his stage name, adopted to avoid confusion with Davy Jones of The Monkees. I think Freddie Mercury might have actually legally changed his name from his birth name I'm not sure, but Phillip Jack Brooks' "legal name" is definitely not "CM Punk". But with legal names, even if we had a reliable legal authority to cite, who's definition of "legal name" do we take?. I think most states in the US don't actually require any kind of formal request for a name change (at state level anyway), and that it can be done by simply using an adopted name, whereas banks etc usually require documentation and other proof to change names on an account. The laws where I live only require 2 others to agree to your new name, sign a document (any document, napkin, toilet paper etc) which says "My old name was X, now I wish to be called Y" and that's that. --Connelly90 11:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                    • As you say yourself, common-law jursictions tend not to impose statutory requirements on name changes. In such jurisdictions there is usually no reason why any customarily used name, including a stage name, cannot also be a "legal name". It is entirely possible—probable, even—that such a jursdiction would recognize "David Bowie" as the musician's current legal name, instead of or in addition to his birth name. That is, if you decided to marry him, or sue him, or employ him, then no court there is going to charge you or him with fraud, or rule the contract/lawsuit invalid, soley because his name appears as "David Bowie" and not "David Robert Jones" on the filed documents. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
                      • Good point; nobody is going to be worried about fraud if Bowie appears in court as "David Bowie"! Just further helps this case, that "legal names" are not as set-in-stone as they're made out to be. --Connelly90 10:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - We're not lawyers, we're not here to make legal declarations. This is an attempt to revive the dead horse. Please stop already. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support The additional information, if true, would be germane, encyclopedic, and more informative. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But (and I am rather tired of repeating this) there is no uniquely defined entity 'legal name' in the context of Anglo-American common law. People are, at law, called by the names they customarily use. The issue is not whether Chelsea Manning has used another name - of course she has - but whether it is being given undue prominence if we label it her 'legal name'. There is no foundation for this claim, and it's tending in the direction of WP:UNDUE to boot. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per AlexTiefling, "legal name" is a construct of law which varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even within the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Disrespectful to add "legally known as...", as it implies her being transgendered is in someway "not real". Also, laws change throughout the world, and Wikipedia isn't confined to the US. --Connelly90 08:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose of course This doesn't change anything. We already knew this. This could be referenced up the wazoo and it still doesn't change things because we didn't change this article title due to any legal name to begin with because article titles may not be that of a legal name. Moving on.....dead horse is now a greasy spot. Nothing left to beat.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The construct "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)" is standard for Wikipedia articles. Why change it for this one? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Miscellany does not belong in the lede. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary and the suggestion reads as an attempt to assert control over Manning's identity. Happeningfish (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and give it a rest. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Doing this would give too much undue weight to the lead, I would be okay with it being placed in the article body however. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue and misleading. What constitutes a 'legal name' depends on circumstances and jurisdictions - we can't assert as fact something which clearly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary. Verbose. startswithj (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2014 (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.

What the Hell?

Why are you buying into this?--76.105.96.92 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but WP:CONSENSUS disagrees with you. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This editor (76.105.96.92) has pretty blatantly vandalized based on this issue in the very recent past. In fact, many of the recent long threads seem to be provoked by single purpose IPs like 66.30.86.154 and sockpuppets like Ceroi to address topics referenced repeatedly in the FAQs and banners without bringing new information. We end up re-arguing with long discussions and good faith explanations in response to single drive-by comments from an IP with demonstrated disruptive edits. It's starting to feel like if an IP left a comment asking why we have smelly feet, we'd put it to a RfC to prove there was consensus that our feet were fine, instead of dealing with it as someone who has given the banners, FAQs, previous discussions, etc. no consideration. I don't know what a better approach would look like, but it's arguably too easy to provoke conversations most people think are tired and played out.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the collapsing of threads, it leaves the information there if a user wishes to respond, but can be ignored by most editors. That said I really think the best response is to ignore these "drive by edits", and I apologies for legitimizing this particular one by responding. I do think reverting them is much worse than ignoring them and somewhat worse than treating them like a real question, as reverting them gives them what they crave most, conflict and attention. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the usual best practice, and I can't say I can improve on it myself. I thought I'd point the last half-dozen threads out so that people see the similarities before the next time someone drops a "Men just can't be women, I say."-type comment. And I think it would be equally unproductive in the end to respond to every stray "Republicans are all evil" comment on the Republican Party page as it would be to respond to every "Save all babies" comment on the Abortion page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Revert -> no attention, no conflict. Works well on other articles that attract trolling. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO to err on the save side, a quick note like CombatWombat did, linking to the actual discussion too, and not going in to it any further is the best approach. Anyone is free to learn how we got to this situtation, but we don't want to go over it again and again. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please alter the FAQ slightly

Please alter question #4 so that it will be clear that no one will take it as meaning that the article should be at Bradley Manning. Georgia guy (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that wording is fine. Why don't you propose new wording. CombatWombat42 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think theres nothing wrong with the wording either (there's also another note below the FAQ dealing with self-identification etc) if you want to change it, propose new wording and I'll happily join a discussion. --Connelly90 13:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

Please change 'David Finke' in the third point from the 93rd reference to 'David Finkel', as this is the correct spelling of the name of the author who wrote 'The Good Soldiers'. Source: http://us.macmillan.com/author/davidfinkel 145.107.24.238 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2014

Chelsea Manning → Manning (U.S. Army) – Simply using the surname avoids issues about past rank/demoted rank & given/taken first name. 71.59.58.63 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Oppose. "Manning" by itself is also a verb (see wikt:manning, which is the present participle of "man", with meanings including "To supply with staff or crew" and "To take up position in order to operate something". Therefore, "Manning (U.S. Army)" appears to refer to the U.S. Army's practices with respect to supplying personnel to positions, or having people take up positions to operate equipment. bd2412 T 12:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. How many Mannings have there been involved in the US Army? From this one to others. This proposal ambiguates rather than disambiguates, for no benefit. I also don't see anyone saying they're confused about rank at the moment, so this is a solution to a problem that doesn't seem to exist.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Given that the United States has over 1.4 Million active military personnel, there are no doubt 100s of people who could fit the title "Manning (U.S. Army)". "Chelsea Manning" is perfectly fine, and is the most appropriate title for this article. The current title doesn't deal with any kind of rank within the army, and changing the title to this is predominantly to deny her newly adopted identity. --Connelly90 13:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: