Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Edit request on 22 August 2013: Categorize him as "transsexual"?

Please add Category:Transgender and transsexual military personnel to the list of categories, per the recent announcement by Manning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This was undone somehow. @Mark Arsten: can you do again? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed the "editprotected" tag because I don't support addition of it. Please revert the addition of trans-related categories. He is NOT yet a "transsexual" or "transvestite". --George Ho (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not true George. Manning was diagnosed with gender identity disorder many years ago, and this information was discussed many times during his trial. In the transcripts from 2010 (I think), Manning discussed his desire to transition. As such, with the now public declaration that he is a she, this category is clearly relevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This is just great! You want to categorize him as such because of mere identity and disorder? That would be misinterpretations of the facts and be an original research, forbidden in Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You may want to read Causes of transsexualism. Someone who was born as a man, but feels they are a woman, and then publicly comes out stating that they are a woman and want to transition, is by definition a transsexual (or transgendered) person. I don't think this is original research at all - a simple google search of "Transsexual + manning" provides lots of hits, dozens of articles have discussed the issues of Manning as a transsexual member of the military, and what rules/rights she would have as a result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in this article convinces me to change my mind, even when it is well-detailed. There were sexuality rumours of Cary Grant, yet he is not categorized as 'homosexual' by categories. I stand where I stand. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If cary Grant had come out with a public statement saying he was gay, he would certainly be in those categories. In this case, we have both: 1) Manning with a public statement saying he identifies as a woman and b) Multiple media sources who identify him as transsexual, transgendered and refer to same in the context of his military service. if that is not enough to put him in the categories, I'm not sure what is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the military won't financially endorse his change plans. And I don't think the government will either. And I don't think his insurance will cover that, as well. Probably other foundations? And how much is one hormone therapy? And surgery? --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite true - it may be a while before Manning can do those things. but perhaps you misunderstand what transsexual means (or at least, the category). It doesn't mean you've had surgery and hormone treatments and so on. You can be transsexual before you actually take any steps towards becoming your desired gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
How besides self-declaring? --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Wait what? No you cant Transsexual latterly means trans (Moves to) one sex to the other. I think you are confusing it with Transgender like I did earlier. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Well, there is "transgender and transsexual" in the same category name. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is a trans woman therefore transgender, an umbrella term that includes many gender variant people. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please... enough! This guy's in jail; identifying self as trans-woman or transgender should not prompt categorization. It sends a bad message about trans-people. There is no way that we should basically categorize him, now that he is under military custody. And even calling himself a "woman" while in jail shouldn't be a mere source to add a category. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
George, can you please tell us, very clearly, what specifically you would require in order to justify this category. I note that Manning was already in another TG cAt, this new one was simply specifying military TG, and I've see no-one disputing that other cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm torn. Policy WP:BLPCAT encourages self-identity, as well as guideline WP:EGRS#Sexuality. WP:CAT#Articles doesn't say much except use categories with caution and care. We can't expect him to win rights of receiving support from military or any other. However, sometimes I either find another policy or guideline to prove that categorization is not helpful, or ignore all rules (but I am unwilling to do so). --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what rights the military choose to accord her with regard to medical treatment for her gender identity. A transgender person is still a transgender person no matter what her surgical status is, no matter what the status of the legal paperwork process is. There are no conditions on a person's transgender status; they are transgender as soon as they say they are, no matter how far along in the process they have or haven't gotten. And at any rate, the courts have consistently found that people in prison do still have an unconditional right to receive treatment for their medical issues — we sentence people to prison, not to denial of medical treatment — and that has been found to include gender identity issues. So even if she has to fight in the courts to have her rights respected, she will win. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
How on earth does the fact that she's in jail inherently negate being transgender? Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I expect a reverse of category change if the title becomes Bradley again. --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

George, you didn't answer the question. You oppose these categories on this article, but you haven't stated clearly what would be needed to put a person justifiably in a trans- category (of which we have several). Also, categories have nothing to do with article titles except in rare cases - but no matter what title this article has now or in the future the categories should remain invariant. Categorization is based on what is 'defining', and I think there is plenty of evidence that secondary sources are referring to Manning as transgendered. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Establishing a consensus on categorization is too soon. HOwever, if you want an establishment now, that would be when he becomes a female biologically. That's it! --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Good call. That would be while she was still in the womb though. See A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones
"Female biologically" is not as simple as it seems. There are people medically diagnosed as intersex male, then re-diagnosed as intersex female twenty years later (after puberty in their 40's). More common are natural female to male changes. Wiki's policies WP:BLPCAT deal with such fraught issues rather well. Based on Manning's build, any endocrinologist would suspect a high possibility of anatomical anomalies. XX chromosomes, partial androgen insensitivity, etc etc. She's 3 SDs from the male mean in several ways, from her photos, closer to a female mean. Zoe Brain (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an interesting point, but nonetheless not that relevant to how we use the categories today. There are plenty of people in these categories who are probably, for all intents and purposes, biologically male yet which nonetheless identify as female and are in the process of transitioning. Per the definition, transgender does not require surgery or hormones. Thus I think TG categories are legitimate for Manning. Just as we don't require verification that a man is having sex with men in order to categorize him as gay, we don't require verification that a TG person has undergone surgery or hormones or other things before categorizing them as TG - we go by their own personal declarations and reliable sources, which in Manning's case we have in spades. So George, frankly, I think your "biological" requirement is not at all in line with past consensus on categorization of TG people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Move photo in uniform to somewhere below

Closing per WP:SNOW. Too early for this. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

Having the photo of her pre-transition in military uniform with American flags and so forth in the background is very much insensitive and looks like a political statement. We should rather have a politically neutral picture without all the American flags in the infobox, and that better represents her gender identity. We need to keep in mind that her country actively discriminates against transgendered and other LGBT people, so she couldn't live openly in accordance with her gender identity at the time the picture was taken. The political photo with American flag and uniform could be placed in a section on military service. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why? I am sure he at the time was very proud of that photo, and currently she may still be proud of her service, certanly there are currently many proud of her service. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it's the best picture we have of him. The only picture post-transition, as far as I know, is a grainy black and white photo that isn't very clear at all. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some users in the move request discussion have suggested that referring to Chelsea using her birth name constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. It is plausible that, according to that line of reasoning, a pre-transition photograph would similarly violate WP:BLP. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Check out Kristin Beck - if we get a better picture of Bradley-as-Chelsea, then we could put both in the lede, but I would be opposed to moving the soldier photo down. We should have the military photo, as military service is the source of Manning's notability and Manning in uniform is the image most commonly known due to the news coverage. Josh I'd also suggest you tone down the rhetoric - remember this news is only 24 hours old, and everyone is still trying to get their bearings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Kristin Beck is a bit different as being transgender is apparently her major claim to notability, while for Manning it isn't, and rather only is a minor part of his bio. Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the article states that "Manning, (December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted..." Him being an American soldier is an important part of his notability and the photo thus match the article well. Media also frequently use the title "private" when then refer to him. Our aim at Wikipedia is to tell the story about Manning as reported in reliable sources; not portray him according to his current or prior self-image. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No merit to this request. Let's keep in mind here what this person is actually notable for; he is an Army private who passed classified intel to unauthorized parties, was caught ,tried, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. This other stuff is certainly notable as well, but it is entirely secondary to being a convicted felon. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • He is notable for being widely considered a press freedom activist and human rights hero,[1] similar to the dissidents in the Soviet Union. The POV that he is a "convicted felon" is basically a fringe POV (much like the POV held by Russian nationalists that Soviet dissidents were "convicted felons"), at least in the civilized world. Very few Europeans or human rights organizations would agree with that. As such, it would only be natural to use a picture without American flags in the background and other nationalist imagery, and one that is representative of his identity. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Er, he was found guilty of a crime, thus "convicted". His crime is classified as a felony, thus "felon". "Convicted felon" is a simple, non-negotiable fact. I think a problem that is beginning to creep up here is that the anti-NSA/spying crowd is taking this gender issue on as well and mashing it up into one big anti-establishment "fight the power" message. This is becoming very wrong on very many levels. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • The fact that she is a felon is interesting, but there are many, many convicted felons who are completely unencyclopedic. Manning is not encyclopedic because she is a felon, she is encyclopedic because of the actions she took. That they are classified as felonies here is notable, but not central, to Manning's story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • That's a bit disingenuous. Manning is encyclopedic because of the entirety of what he did, from theft and dissemination of classified material upto and including the trial and conviction. It isn't an everyday occurrence that someone is convicted for violating the Espionage Act y'know. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Agreed, like I said in another section people are coming here with their own personal agendas, please I respect your opinions but take them elsewhere and focus on improvement here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet - but if we can somehow get a high-quality, free licensed image that represents Manning as she wishes to be seen with her new sexual identity, then we should feature that happily. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The picture serves it's purpose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The image does its job of depicting the article subject perfectly fine. The current image is of good quality, and is freely licensed; I don't see the benefit of changing to an image of reduced quality, or a non-free image when a free image is available. Remember that as a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be encouraging the use of free-license content (free as in both libre and gratis); use of copyrighted images limits our liberties. Wikipedia articles are not Facebook profiles where the profile image can be changed to fit the flavour of the month. Finally, there is nothing offensive or derogatory about a US flag, and I'm suspecting political implications and agendas being thrown around within this proposal. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: He (she, it) is a soldier - even if a convicted one. The US military, the US government and the United States in general must be held responsible for the conduct of their personnel/citizens. Miranda1989 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

My view on name change

Please post your comments on the move discussion in the RM above, under the appropriate date. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

In my opinion it is way to early to change this persons name from Bradley to Chelsea. First of all has there been any official name change paperwork? Are we sure this is the will of Bradley or just a ploy to get out of prison faster?. And my main point is that this person is known under the name of Bradley when all of the notable things happened to him, to look at similar case check out Thomas Quick. He has a different name now but his article is named after the name he had when the notable things occured for him to get a article. I think we are all jumping on the "crazy train" a bit too fast. I would say that we should have his name as Bradley Manning even if his name is changed to Chelsea, or atleast wait and have an consensus discussion when he officially has changed his name.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many fast moving pieces to this process. In a few weeks, when there are consistent and unconfused reports that a legal change-of-name has occurred then a name change might be appropriate. BlueSalix (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement that anyone go through a legal process to change their name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Higher order planning

In the event that the closing admin decides to move the article back, has anyone given any thought to the possibility that Wikipedia is going to be on the receiving end of one of the largest media shitstorms it's ever generated? Because the number of overtly transphobic votes (which is not all "support" votes, but which is certainly a healthy number of them) combined with the fact that the entire British press and a large swath of the American press have gone over to using Chelsea is going to make going back (when we've already been the subject of several stories about how we've moved the page) a Very Big Thing. The accusation that Wikipedia actively chose to be more transphobic is going to have some real legs. (Especially given that the precedent from past public figures who came out as trans was a swift move of their articles, and so this really would be widely seen as a step backwards.)

To be clear, I'm not saying that expected public reaction should be the determining factor. But I am saying that anybody involved in the decision-making here, particularly anybody who decides to move the article back to Bradley Manning, should be preparing themselves for a few days of being a minor celebrity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they appreciate your totally altruistic statement of concern for their well-being. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's going to be a shit storm either way. The botched process has assured of that. As it stands, at least one contributor is already making minor a celebrity of themselves through instigating the move to Chelsea Manning. The impression being given in interview is that the reason for opposing the move is because of bigotry (or "transphobia") and ignorance.
This is not good for the project. And I don't think it's fair to categorise opposition to the article title as "transphobic". I haven't seen any significant opposition to referring to Manning as Chelsea (and using female pronouns) within the article. The issue, for the most part as far as I can see it, is limited to the article title. Deciding an article titles has a unique set of criteria, within which the subject's chosen gender identify or name is of no consequence.
There is undoubtedly a section of "Bradley" !voters who are opposed to recognising transgender identity. However, there is an equally visible component of "Chelsea" !voters who see this as an opportunity for activism (see also Wikipedia:Activist). Whatever about the validity and value of their position on the subject of transgender people and identity outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the place to advance any agenda. And no-one should assume opposition to this article being at Chelsea Manning as being evidence of "transphobia". --RA () 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Which other reason do you suggest exists for insisting on referring to someone using a male given name, that they have explicitly asked not to be used and said they do not identify with? I think you will find that according to the common definition in polite society, at least in the media world outside of Wikipedia, this is probably the most common form of transphobia. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should actually, you know, read the rationales given for "support move back" votes to find out. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see very many people insisting that Manning should be referred to as Bradley or referred to as he. What the move discussion is about is asking what should the article be named - NOT Manning. The most relevant criteria for naming the article in this case are "recognizability" and "naturalness". "Bradley Manning" is currently the most recognisable and natural name for the article (see the definition of the terms "recognisable" and "natural"). Within the article Manning (the individual) should be called Chelsea (their chosen name) and referred to as her. But that is not what the discussion is about. --RA () 01:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Moving the article back to the now outdated and inaccurate name, thereby titling an article on a transgendered person in a deeply offensive manner, would indeed be a PR disaster for Wikipedia, as pointed out both because it's unacceptable in polite society in itself, and also because of all the transphobic commentary on this talk page, including comparisons of transgendered people to dogs and other animals. It would of course also be an obvious violation of the BLP policy. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What section of BLP policy are you specifically referring to? --RA () 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Christ, read the talk page, don't feel like reiterating it for the 200th time. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I've read this talk page but I haven't heard mention of the specific section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that having this article at Bradley Manning is supposed to be in violation of. Can you indicate which section of BLP policy having this article at that title violated? --RA () 00:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No, because this discussion is not about that, and because that issue has been discussed very thoroughly in other sections. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You raised the issue in this section. Go on, it will only take you a few words. Even just post the raw link to the section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that having this article at Bradley Manning would violate. No? --RA () 01:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No, because I said no. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you here to have a real discussion? you have used your "No because im right and you are wrong so there" argument more than once now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Josh, we all want to know what section you're referring to. I personally do not remember which, if any, specific sections anyone has quoted. You can even point us to a comment above that references the appropriate section. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Except it's not been a shit storm. We've talked about Chelsea Manning on the frontpage for two days now, and so far all there's been is polite applause from the media. Which is why I think undoing it risks a mess. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I stopped reading when you called people who oppose the Chelsea title "transphobic", this is not the first time I have seen users here attacking others with keep as Bradley opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Phil merely employed the mainstream, common definition of transphobia. The idea that you can insist on childishly calling someone who states her name is Chelsea, "Bradley", is really a WP:FRINGE POV and not encyclopedic at all. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually just called some support voters transphobic. The fact that there are support voters whose reasoning is explicitly opposition to the idea of trans people is a real problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"Chelsea Manning" is not Mainstream in the media is the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That's demonstrably untrue. Plenty of English language sources are using it at this point, as has been well documented. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If or when the number of sources of the article referring to the subject as Chelsea gets anywhere near the number of sources of the article referring to the subject as Bradley, then that would be an appropriate time to discuss moving the article to Chelsea Manning. Not current media stories, but existing sources of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not actually what policy says - the article naming policy notes that following a subject's renaming we should consider post-renaming sources. Hence Willis Tower despite, you know, decades of it being called the Sears Tower. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, Wikipedia has been commended, lauded for doing the decent thing, thanks to Morwen, in a timely fashion. I see no shitstorm at all over that, on the contrary. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't write for polite applause from the media. And the fact that the media are commenting on the way we are taking a lead on this question is an indicator of the problem. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and BLPs ought to be written conservatively. We are not doing our job when we lead the way on anything.
But yes, now that we've drawn attention to ourselves, and drawn "polite applause" it probably will be noticed when we roll back. But we just as we don't write for polite applause from the media, we don't revert to our usual conservatism (in terms of approach to writing, not politics) because we fear their scorn. The lesson to be learnt from this is not to rush headlong into a move like this again. Discuss first, not after. --RA () 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What I want to know is why the admin not follow WP:TITLECHANGES? This has been brought up and keeps getting brushed aside. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There are no compromises made when it comes to factual accuracy and BLP. The only source for someone's name is the person him/herself. We change it as soon as it's established to be correct. We do the same for dates of birth. Even if many media reported a wrong date of birth for someone, we would use the correct one. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. But what has this got to do with the current discussion about the title of this article? Many articles (including BLPs) are at titles that are not the names (self-chosen or otherwise) of their subject. The name of the article is the name of the article - and NOT necessarily the name of the person. --RA () 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if those who have placed so much concern toward offending this individual (presuming titling the article as Bradley Manning would truly offensive...) maintain that gusto toward every issue. When someone complains about gruesome or sexually explicit content on the Main Page. When discussing images of Muhammad in Muhammad or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Everywhere where potential for offense exists. LGBT issues are of increasing concern in the Western world and the Anglosphere, and the strength of the crusade some (not all) of those preferring the Chelsea Manning name have embarked upon seems to reflect that. Of course, when the issue is not so prominently objectionable in Western and liberal circles, we seem perfectly content invoking our policies and guidelines prohibiting censorship and permitting content that subjects may not like so long as it's appropriately verifiable. There's a reason Wikipedia policy and guidelines exist: so we can aim to make decisions neutrally without reference to our personal opinions. These remarks centered around emotional appeal are irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We do take special care with biographies of living people that we don't with other articles. And believe me, the discussions over sexually explicit content and the Muhammad article were heated and extensive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it comes down to numbers in the end. The Arabic article for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy hides the cartoons, probably under a locally achieved consensus. There are local exceptions to every rule, and there may be some here for the purpose of clarity. Shii (tock) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I am actually consistent about giving priority to self-affiliation.. Not long ago i argued Mohammed Farah should be Mo Farah because thats how the BLP self-describes. If we are getting into the business of forcefully choosing peoples names, why should we not be able to forcefeed religion onto others too? Or forcefeed a certain nutritional diet onto others? Its batshit crazy retarded. Pass a Method talk 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No one here is proposing forcing a name on the person who is subject of this article. Bradley Manning is the name used by every source more than two days old, which comprise the vast majority of the sources for the article. Wikipedia follows the sources, not the other way around. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
yes but we should stay up to date as well shouldn't we? Every source prior to 2009 says that michael jackson is alove. Does that mean we should wait until the new sources balance out the old sources before we describe MJ as dead? Absolute nonsense. Pass a Method talk 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not a good analogy. I'm unaware of any article titles that describe the living/dead status of the subject, and I would certainly think it inappropriate to edit the Michael Jackson article to refer to him as "the late Michael Jackson" in the section on his childhood.Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Forget the analogies and wikipedia policies for a second. At some point logic should trump all else. Who gets to choose the name of an adult? Should it not be that person him/herself? Its pure logic. Pass a Method talk 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We're not deciding the subject's name; we're deciding the title of the article. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If it exists, the right to decide one's own name for oneself does not imply a right to have other people use that name. And as much as I would love to get into a deep metaphysical discussion on the nature of names, this isn't the right forum. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
His parents named him Bradley. So you think parents should get precedence?Pass a Method talk 04:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You know that is not what was being said, and I think this string is getting very far off topic from "higher order planning". Wikipedia should be neutral, nobody cares who gave who what name. We care about what name is the name that is publicly and popularly associated with the subject of the article in primary and secondary sources. --Sam Bingner talk / 07:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Serious question

This is not constructive, and serves to fracture discussion further. The RM discussion is above, please make your comments there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

to all editors who support a page move to "Bradley Manning".

  • Do you think it should be okay for obese people to eat an unhealthy high-colestarol diet?
  • Do you think it should be okay to gamble all your life savings on a single roulette spin?
  • Do you think it should be okay to practise sorcery and witchcraft?
  • If your answer to the above questions was "yes" (a) please explain your logic, i.e. why the above activities should be okay/legal. (b) Why should one have the liberty to do the above, but not have the liberty to change ones name? Pass a Method talk 03:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • How would a Wikipedia article title prevent someone from changing that person's own name? Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No one is saying that Manning can't rename himself whatever he likes, but article titles are supposed to be useful to readers, and what is useful to readers is not necessarily the most up-to-date, courteous, or technically correct name of the subject. As has been pointed out above, the state of Burma would rather be called Myanmar, but enough sources still call them Burma that we only note their wishes in the content of the article. Malcolm X chose the name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz late in life, but Malcolm X is still the name by which he is famous. Cat Stevens adopted Yusuf Islam as his personal, professional, and legal name 35 years ago, but the most recognisable name is still Cat Stevens. Someone else gave the hypothetical example that if Bill Clinton announced he would much rather be called Billy Clinton, we wouldn't move the article solely to respect his personal whim. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • How I feel, or anyone else feels, about one's freedom to choose their name is irrelevant; we are trying to decide the correct course of action based on our policies and guidelines. People need to accept that sometimes their personal opinions, wishes, and preferences contradict those policies and guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • @Cal Engime Since usefulness is your criteria, don't you think acknowledging his transgeder status is useful? Pass a Method talk 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Are you interested in discussing how to make the article better? That is the purpose of talk page discussions, not to win some argument with strangers on the Internet. Before someone calls me on it, yes I know about WP:AGF but it's being stretched to the breaking point in this discussion. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few of my unsolicited thoughts on this. Manning can call him/herself whatever he/she chooses. That's not disputed. What Wikipedia uses does not necessarily have to coincide. Snoop Lion redirects to Snoop Dogg. P. Diddy redirects to Sean Combs. If George Clooney tomorrow decided his name was now "Gorthmar in Unconquerable" we'd say "hey that's great, Georgie", make a brief note of it somewhere in the article, and leave everything else as it is. If he said "I'm now "Miss Gorthmar in Unconquerable" I'd like to think we'd do the same thing, but now I'm sort of questioning what we really would do in such a case. One of the major arguments I've seen for moving the article from Bradley to Chelsea is that it's insulting to use the male name for a transsexual who identifies as female. If Wikipedia were a casual friend of Manning's that would be a great point. But we ain't in the courtesy business; we're in the fact business. The facts are the Bradley is Manning's legal name and the name Manning is most known by universally, and Manning is biologically, physically, of the male sex. We can argue about gender until the cows come home, but it's always going to be a fuzzy area in a way that sex is not. Manning can say "I am actually a female," but no third party right now is going to be able to replicate those results. All this could change, but right now it seems a little hasty to me to make these sweeping changes so quickly, and with little real information on the subject. I'm sure I'll be labelled by many as "transphobic" for saying this, but I've been called a lot of stupid shit over the years, and am unlikely to lose any sleep over it. -R. fiend (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • (@Pass a Method) How, pray tell, is your little survey able to make constructive gains for this already controversy-ridden discussion? If it is only to make a point and "win" an online fight, then do you think it was really necessary to post all of that? You are venturing on the borders of WP:NOTFORUM here; Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions aimed at improving article content, and are not general discussion areas. We are not here to find out who is morally good or bad, we are here to find a solution to our current problem, based on Wikipedia policies. I originally had a look at your little questionnaire and formed a few answers in my mind, but then realized that it would be counter-productive for me to bother replying to your questions, as it would only further bring the discussion off to an inappropriate tangent. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 06:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

"Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood"

This is currently presented as a statement of fact. It may or may not be a claim that Manning or some other person has made, but cannot have been factually established at this time. In any case, the citation given for the statement (Stamp, Scott (August 22, 2013). "Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman". today.com) makes no mention at all of any such disorder, nor of Manning's childhood. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it can be factually established, if it has been diagnosed by a competent medical professional. But you're correct that the statement should be attributed to a reliable source, and if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, should be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course it can be factually established - I said it cannot have been so at this time. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd spotted that earlier (among other similar statements). It implies that Manning was diagnosed or recognised as having a disorder as a child or since childhood. I'm not even too sure if Manning has been diagnosed or recognised has having a disorder by a relevant practitioner as an adult (though I do understand that Manning has self identified as such).
For those crying out about BLP policy, this is the kind of thing that needs sourcing per BLP policy. Can someone please provide a source for this statement, else it will need to be removed or amended. --RA () 12:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's not hard to resolve. Never forget the useful tool, "X says Y": Simply attribute what we do have.
  • According to Manning, (etc since childhood)
  • On (TV channel) on (date) Manning's lawyer/clinician/whoever, stated that (etc since childhood)
  • Manning had repeatedly referred to (lifestyle) in his past activities, and had stated to his clinician that (etc since childhood)
Three easy answers to attribution. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If you read the transcripts of the trial, several psychologists attest to Manning's diagnosis of GID/Gender dysphoria. I'm not sure if they note how far back it goes, but this is most certainly not a new thing. We could rephrase for now as suggested by FT2 - Manning claims to XXX since childhood, and army psychologists diagnosed him with GID in 200x. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. It's easy enough to say how NPOV sees the points raised by editors above. We cannot say "since childhood" if we don't have reliable sources attesting to that, for example if it is unevidenced or overly contentious to say a start date or period in his life it began "from". But as you say, we can say what Manning claims of its duration and "since when", and we can say what psychologists say. If by chance we lack a source saying authoritatively "It has been that way since childhood" (even though it seems very likely or he claims it himself), and that's an issue, then we can easily say "Manning claims that" or "3 psychiatrists testified that" and solve it that way. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning addressed as a "she"?

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

Oh yeah, no trans-phobia there at all... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY is clear on this issue, take a look. U-Mos (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Actually, yes, I can put the trans-phobic label on everyone with that opinion.
"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a man and he should not be allowed to marry another man" is unambiguously homophobic.
"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a black man and he should not be allowed to marry a white woman" is unambiguously racist.
Please explain how your argument is not unambiguously transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not share MightySaiyan's view on this, but the analogous transphobic comment to your examples would be "I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but Bradley Manning is a man and should not be able to live as a woman." That's not at all what was said, MightySaiyan was talking about Manning's legal name and his views on what that should mean for the wording on an encyclopedic article. Such inflammatory responses to that are helping no one. U-Mos (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been had UMPTEEN times on this page already. Please drop the stick, both of you. Focus on content. The article currently uses "she", and will likely continue to do so unless MOS:IDENTITY has changed. Thus, there's not much more to say here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Do we have evidence she was born as a he? Any medical assessment of genitalia and chromosomes at the moment of birth (from reputable sources, of course) ? Vexorian (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest some arguments may be better placed as suggestions for policy change

I can't speak for everyone supporting moving this page back to Bradley Manning, but my arguments for doing so are purely based on Wikipedia policies as I see them. Specifically those at Wikipedia:Article titles. It seems clear from the comments on this talk page that in transgender cases such as these, however, what might be the WP:COMMONNAME may also be considered as perpetuating prejudices, and detrimental to the personal difficulties the subject is or was going through. These are fair arguments, but they are not directly supported by policy. Might it then be an idea for those who feel strongly about the conventions that should be followed in such cases to suggest that an explicit mention of what to do in cases where a name is changed for transgender reasons be added to Wikipedia:Article titles, in the wake of the discussions here. Certainly, if policy directly dictated that articles on such subjects should be named as per the person's current chosen name as MOS:IDENTITY does for personal pronouns in the article text, there would be very little room for objection. Might a policy discussion be a way to solve this, not just for now but forever? U-Mos (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Such a discussion is happening already at the talk page of WP:AT I believe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I thought on the basis of arguments here that there wasn't one. In that case I would suggest that any arguments along the lines of it being offensive/wrong to use Bradley as the article title etc. be diverted there, as that discussion is the best place for those views to have a lasting effect of Wiki-policy. U-Mos (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Article title and lede

There's been a lot of discussion. I think we need to close this and unprotect the article so it can be updated. What's clear from all the discussions and policy is that we go with whatever the reliable sources use. If Bradley Manning is how the subject has been referred to in the vast majority of sources, that's what we would use. It will be least surprising for the reader to find an article with a title that matches what they have understood the subject to be about. The subject is notable for events that occurred while she was known as Bradley Manning. It is also verifiable that she has changed her name to Chelsea Manning. This article is about the subject and her historical importance, the vast majority of which occured while she was known as Bradley Manning.

May I suggest that the article be titled Bradley Manning, as the subject was historically known, and as their name appears in all the reports establishing her notability, but the first line of the article state that she is now known as Chelsea? As for pronouns throughout the article, if there are past tense events when she was a he, it would seem logical to use "he" and for events occuring after she declared herself to be female, then use "she".

The current lead paragraph is defective because it uses the less-well known name, and does not explain how Bradley became Chelsea. The lead should clearly state that on such a date Bradley declared that he was a she, and that her name would now be Chelsea. Something like this would be better (assuming I've got the chronology right):

Bradley Edward Manning, born December 17, 1987 (now known as Chelsea E. Manning[3][4]) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of several violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged.[1] After sentencing, Manning declared that she was transgender female, and had chosen the new name Chelsea E. Manning. She will be eligible for parole after serving one third of her sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.[5]

As for the photos, I think it makes sense to use one showing Manning in uniform, because that's what he was notable for--being in the military and leaking secret documents. Immediately below the current photo there can be a newer photo showing the Chelsea identity. Somebody clever could even form a new image by splicing the two together, one above the other.

The arguments that carry no weight are those involving original research. We do not as Wikipedia editors attempt to determine the law or say how society should deal with people. We simply follow what reliable sources say. All editors need to be tolerant and realize that this is an unusual situation, that we will probably get things wrong for a while, but eventually get them right. All editors also need to realize that this is NOT the place for advocacy of any causes, whether those are pro-human rights causes, or bigoted causes.

Can we please get the article unprotected? If you support the above summary, please say so below. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a complex and messy talk page, but the creation of a new section like this that continues old discussions only adds to the confusion. In the above, you are addressing multiple overlapping issues. I'd suggest you break up your comment and place things in the appropriate sections, e.g.
  1. the section on whether the RM should be closed early
  2. The RM, and what you think the article should be titled
  3. The section discussing the photo
  4. Create a new edit request suggesting changes to the lede.
Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If it were that obviously clear, this talk page wouldn't be the size it is - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We need to disregard the activists on both sides, and the trolls, and listen to the opinions those who don't have any stake in the outcome other than to have a concise, informative, accurate article. Jehochman Talk 21:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that this will not in fact be a decision of such obvious and elegant simplicity as to be intuitively obviously the right thing to everyone - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Easier said than done. Rather than trying to second guess other editors motivations the best one can do is to consider the arguments and facts as neutrally as possible regardless of who wrote them. Space simian (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

a modest proposal - put move discussion on sub-page?

This page is now over 1MB in size. What if we were to move the "move" discussion to a separate sub-page, and concentrate all discussion about the article title there? Then the main talk page could be used for other discussions, around pronouns, and misc edit requests, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Make the archive cycle 24 hours first, I'd say. (Also, if we mark the "date" sections "sticky", will that keep them from being archived?)
The page is relatively easy to edit if you do it by section - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting it to archive after 24 hours too, but that also seems a bit short - esp over a weekend- and may lead to much rehashing of discussions already ongoing that temporarily peter out. Even the current setting (2 days) is aggressive for now, but its probably reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think nothing whatsoever will stop the rehashing of discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ

I have gone ahead and added the round in circles template to the top of the page, PLEASE only place questions that were answered then closed there, thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a few, please take a look and change if you disagree. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion about length of page

The page is getting hard to load, so how about moving all discussion about the title and pronoun, including the RM, to Talk:Chelsea Manning/Title and pronoun? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Which would be the entire page, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps just the title discussion could be moved then. When the page is unprotected, there are going to be ordinary editing concerns, and the talk page is hard to load and navigate. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the title which is the central discussion here I have also noticed repeated discussions of MOS:IDENTITY and the pronouns debate, I feel that is the part that should be split off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit update: Oh sorry was confused, you should take the wording Title out as it implies the move discussion, - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of the things here can be manually archived, I have updated the FAQ and added answers to closed discussions that have gone in circles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to lump discussion about the article's title together with discussion about the article's content (pronouns, etc.). I get the feeling some people are confused about the two and find them hard to separate in their minds as it is. I think Knowledgekid87's suggestion (sub-page only the pronouns discussion) - because the move discussion is a headline issue for the next 7 days and so should appear on the main talk page - is better but I'm happy to see either or both sub-paged so long as it is separately. --RA () 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Let's have one sub-page devoted to pronouns, since that seems to attract a lot of attention, and move the whole move request to another sub-page. that will make things more manageable and hopefully avoid some edit conflicts, and help in grouping discussions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

let's fight about Manning's name again!

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

  • Please see the move discussion above, or read the FAQ there is no need to have the same discussions come up again and again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I get that I'm probably the last person anyone wants to hear about Manning's gender identity from, but that's the nice thing about Wikipedia - the last person you want to hear from is still someone you may have to hear from.

As a realpolitik-loving, pragmatic kinda person, my gut reaction to the issue of the name change was similar to that represented in many posts prior "Oh what, if someone wakes up one morning and decides to identify as (whatever), that's notable & verifiable?"

But upon a second or two of longer consideration, that's not the case here. Manning being trans has been a matter of discussion for years now (which is partially my fault - sorry ;x) so while the name change is sudden, the concept is not. Instead, the question of Manning identifying as female has been a consistent and unwavering detail throughout this entire affair. Certainly during the trial the preference was that references be made using the male pronoun, but that's a rather split hair - asking to be formally referred to as one thing doesn't imply that the identification has changed. It's more of a "Let's not make an issue of this just now" sorta thing.

So given the aforementioned, this isn't a case of sudden whimsy. It's a longstanding conviction by a notable subject who was under no obligation to express a firm preference at any prior point. Moreover, having your legal counsel read a prepared statement on national TV isn't quite an arbitrary expression of opinion - it's probably the firmest way you could say something short of skywriting or full page ads in The New York Times.

/Legally/ the name remains Bradley Manning. But all things considered, at this late date the legal name carries less weight than the preferred one, and unless Manning makes an additional change at some future point, can probably be deemed permanent. With musicians or performance artists electing a stage name (which I know isn't exactly fungible here, but bear with me) some amount of acceptance in circulation may be needed in order to acknowledge it; in this case the name has been imprinted onto the public consciousness just as fully, but by other means. Why quibble?

User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian. Had no idea you edited here - fascinating to have an involved person providing insight. Not to quibble further, but perhaps you'd move your !vote above to the RM section, so as not to start a new discussion here? I've been trying to centralize move comments above, this page is already a mess. But your points that this isn't a sudden change, and that this was well known, are quite helpful, as I think many !voting were perhaps not aware. I also think those critiquing the timing are rather daft, since they can't possibly know (a) what it means to be TG or (b) what it means to be arrested, detained, and on trial for several years - so judging the behavior of Manning and the timing of this announcement is unfair, I think, if you haven't really walked in her shoes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"I get that I'm probably the last person anyone wants to hear" <-- Then why do you insist on commenting here, you haven't added anything to the discussion that wasn't already mentioned. Space simian (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Gender identity made

To further complicate things an editor has gone ahead and made an essay regarding Gender identity on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it 'complicates things' particularly. Essays aren't policy, or guidelines. They are the opinions of particular contributors. We've already seen plenty of those, and one more isn't going to change anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Essays tend to uncomplicate things. Instead of posting the same long argument again and again, editors can write an essay and link to it. Jehochman Talk 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Support" comments riddled with transphobic commentary

Query over renaming of the article

Please stop creating new sections. there is an active RM discussion above, please add your thoughts there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
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 know that Manning (I won't use the forename, for reasons to become obvious) wishes to become female, but I don't think we should rename the article yet, since:

1) He has not undergone gender reassignment therapy, and it's unlikely he will do any time soon, since I read and heard that such therapy wasn't available in army facilities 2) He does not wish to be known as a female in official correspondence - see here: "I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility).

Until such time as he has officially become a female, and instructed that he be addressed as "she" in EVERYTHING he does or that involves him, I think that renaming the article "Chelsea Manning" is unwarranted, and I beg to move that the article be reverted to "Bradley Manning".

I support this contention by stating that "Chelsea Manning" does not appear in search results - one must search "Bradley Manning", at which point there is an automatic redirect to the article. Further, Wikipedia's "in the news" section states "(legally Bradley Manning)" when referring to him. --The Historian (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that today's declaration was not a legally valid change of name? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Why are you starting a new section, instead of contributing to the current discussion at Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
In the USA, legal name changes are made by the courts upon petition by the subject of the proposed name change. You can call yourself anything you want, but a legal name change (other than taking the "husband's" last name) is done by the courts (and in marriage, that's the State instead of a court.) For example, I call myself HTom, but that is not my legal name. htom (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
None of that matters to the advocate-admins who have hijacked the page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And yet look at the names of many of our articles: Thomas James Gabel, Brian Hugh Warner, and Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr., to name a few... I'm not sure where this sudden insurgence of "article name must match legal name" is coming from, but neither policy nor precedent supports it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
How many of those names were announced by a lawyer the day after their client was convicted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
How is that relevant? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
How are entertainers' stage names relevant to the whims of a convicted criminal? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
They are the names by which they wish to be known, and they are names that came quickly to my mind. Would Vincenzo D'Ambrosio, Charles Arthur Floyd, or Alvin Clarence Thomas be more convincing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Charles Arthur Floyd never referred to himself as Pretty Boy Floyd, and indeed hated that nickname, which proves the pro-Bradley side's point: Wikipedia does not respect people's choice of names in other articles, so why start now? Miraculouschaos (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It has always respected them (AFAIK) with regards to trans people; such issues are not on the same level as nicknames and are much more sensitive. As Manning is now probably the most high-profile trans person in the world, Wikipedia should be more vigilant towards these issues, not less. Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm certain that Charles Floyd was at least as emotionally upset by being called "Pretty Boy" as Manning will ever be when called "Bradley". Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you're a very good gauge for the emotions of a gangster (without gender or mental health issues) who's been dead eighty years. He's not covered by libel laws, I don't think, either. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The page should be Bradley Manning until he LEGALLY changes his name to Chelsea. The current page is inaccurate IMO. I suppose you could edit his name so that it says Bradley "Chelsea" Manning though.
I have admittedly not actively edited the project in a while, but did we pass some policy that means that convicted criminals get different treatment than other people while I wasn't looking? If not, Baseball Bugs's harping on this point seems spectacularly irrelevant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

More discussion

Early close

Let's drop this. The admin shepherding this discussion has stated it will last 7 days, so I think we should leave it at that. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

... suggested at ANI. --RA () 01:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Denied, as we are treating this process no differently from any other move request. This is hardly the most contentious discussion that Wikipedia has experienced. bd2412 T 02:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What about WP:TITLECHANGES? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
@BD2412: wonderful. I'm all for that. Let's treat this process no differently. For a start let's follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page."
That was done but it was moved again to Chelsea Manning without discussion citing unstated BLP issues. So, for a start, let's get it back to Bradley Manning and conduct this move request "no differently from any other move request". --RA () 08:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There have seem too many move requests like this, why bother having a policy when it's not used? Then again the process would just begin again with people wanting to change it to Chelsea Manning so the admin are looking at it like this is redundant? Yes it may be but keeping it the way it is without having consensus in the first place for Chelsea just kind of seems wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Now a days people flout the voluntarily imposed rules and few seem willing to stand up for them. Thus the bad editors drive out the good. User:Carolmooredc 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
To be very clear, the page was moved back and forth several times, and then move-locked prior to my volunteering to oversee the discussion. That was a decision of another administrator, and one that I do not believe I can address without a consensus; however, it would be redundant to seek consensus on a title change for the duration of a discussion seeking a title change. No matter what title the page is at for the next few days, a large contingent will be unhappy about it, but in the long run it is the outcome that matters, not the location of the page while that outcome is decided. bd2412 T 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, I think the discussion is veering in so many different (and sometimes contradictory) directions because of the fact that the page "wound up" at a title that was not the original title. As such, the move request I initiated is to revert back to the original name.. but this would simply be followed by a move request to the new name. So there are two completely different threads to the move request discussion: (1) should the article be moved back to its original title -- in the short term? and (2) what should the article eventually be called -- in the long term? I find it difficult to have a productive discussion when the debate is at such cross purposes. I believe very strongly that the article should have "wound up" at its original title so we can have one single move discussion to the new name, and so people (including myself) weren't frustrated at the fact that the page "wound up" at the new name without consensus. I don't see eye to eye with you on the idea that "in the long run it is the outcome that matters, not the location of the page while that outcome is decided"; in fact, I think moving this page to the new title has skewed the discussion by setting the new name as the de facto standard. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My reading of policy, specifically of WP:BRD and WP:RM, is that the discussion must be considered in light of the title as it was prior to any contested moves being made. bd2412 T 15:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
"...what should the article eventually be called -- in the long term?" I think this is the significant question about this whole debacle. The move to Chelsea Manning was so premature that it comes before reliable sources and readers have the opportunity to catch up with Manning's announcement. Even if the result of this RM is to return to Bradley Manning, one held in the future (even next week, if RS catch up) might be different.
But what are we to do? We can't look into our crystal balls today and second guess what sources are going to say next week. Neither can we run straight from one divisive RM in one direction to another. So just as the article now finds itself locked at Chelsea Manning when consensus is otherwise. Next week it might find itself locked at Bradley Manning when consensus is otherwise.
The more philosophically minded might also want to consider how the move here, that came ahead of a change in reliable sources, may affect how RS handle the question. Not how to write an encyclopaedia.
The best thing we can do is move the article back now and continue discussion on Bradley vs. Chelsea, as should have been done yesterday. --RA () 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Part of the reason that this is such a contentious deliberation is that proper procedure was not followed in the first instance. The solution is not to make the same error in the last instance; the solution is to right the ship by letting this discussion run its course. bd2412 T 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My argument above is (to continue your metaphor) that the ship has been put off course. The solution is not to continue off course for 7 days. We right it now by returning to our previous course. Then we discuss what our heading should be. --RA () 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed this is improper, why does this have to lag on for 7 days? When there is a move war I have seen it in the past where the admin revert it to it's pervous state per policy why is this any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
While I understand BD2412's call to not move it back during the discussion, I now think there is an argument to be made for closing this early. This isn't going to be a snow one way or the other, and there aren't many new arguments being brought forth. I think an announcement of a closing in 24 hours could be made, then shut down the discussion, make a call. Then we could say, no matter what happens, an additional RM could be put forth in two week's time, at which point there will be sufficient settlement in the media for us to determine commonNAME and other issues more clearly. For now it's muddled, and waiting another 4 days probably won't fix it - so take what we've got, close it early, and then let another RM happen in the near future.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think early close solves problems. Three of you (Obi-Wan, RA, and Knowledgekid) want the move request closed right now. However, amount of votes aren't slowing down at this time. Oh yes, arguments aren't that new, votes are humongous, and rules used to support their argument are vague... Whatever! Also, we are still awaiting more news about this... person. But closing early won't help matters. I'll find the prior version about "him", which is what I find a stable version. --George Ho (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note, I have been asked both for early closure, and to extend the discussion by extra days. I see no reason to invite controversy by deviating from our standard seven day RM discussion period. bd2412 T 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Move photo in uniform to somewhere below

Closing per WP:SNOW. Too early for this. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

Having the photo of her pre-transition in military uniform with American flags and so forth in the background is very much insensitive and looks like a political statement. We should rather have a politically neutral picture without all the American flags in the infobox, and that better represents her gender identity. We need to keep in mind that her country actively discriminates against transgendered and other LGBT people, so she couldn't live openly in accordance with her gender identity at the time the picture was taken. The political photo with American flag and uniform could be placed in a section on military service. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why? I am sure he at the time was very proud of that photo, and currently she may still be proud of her service, certanly there are currently many proud of her service. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it's the best picture we have of him. The only picture post-transition, as far as I know, is a grainy black and white photo that isn't very clear at all. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some users in the move request discussion have suggested that referring to Chelsea using her birth name constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. It is plausible that, according to that line of reasoning, a pre-transition photograph would similarly violate WP:BLP. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Check out Kristin Beck - if we get a better picture of Bradley-as-Chelsea, then we could put both in the lede, but I would be opposed to moving the soldier photo down. We should have the military photo, as military service is the source of Manning's notability and Manning in uniform is the image most commonly known due to the news coverage. Josh I'd also suggest you tone down the rhetoric - remember this news is only 24 hours old, and everyone is still trying to get their bearings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Kristin Beck is a bit different as being transgender is apparently her major claim to notability, while for Manning it isn't, and rather only is a minor part of his bio. Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the article states that "Manning, (December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted..." Him being an American soldier is an important part of his notability and the photo thus match the article well. Media also frequently use the title "private" when then refer to him. Our aim at Wikipedia is to tell the story about Manning as reported in reliable sources; not portray him according to his current or prior self-image. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No merit to this request. Let's keep in mind here what this person is actually notable for; he is an Army private who passed classified intel to unauthorized parties, was caught ,tried, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. This other stuff is certainly notable as well, but it is entirely secondary to being a convicted felon. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • He is notable for being widely considered a press freedom activist and human rights hero,[2] similar to the dissidents in the Soviet Union. The POV that he is a "convicted felon" is basically a fringe POV (much like the POV held by Russian nationalists that Soviet dissidents were "convicted felons"), at least in the civilized world. Very few Europeans or human rights organizations would agree with that. As such, it would only be natural to use a picture without American flags in the background and other nationalist imagery, and one that is representative of his identity. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Er, he was found guilty of a crime, thus "convicted". His crime is classified as a felony, thus "felon". "Convicted felon" is a simple, non-negotiable fact. I think a problem that is beginning to creep up here is that the anti-NSA/spying crowd is taking this gender issue on as well and mashing it up into one big anti-establishment "fight the power" message. This is becoming very wrong on very many levels. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • The fact that she is a felon is interesting, but there are many, many convicted felons who are completely unencyclopedic. Manning is not encyclopedic because she is a felon, she is encyclopedic because of the actions she took. That they are classified as felonies here is notable, but not central, to Manning's story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • That's a bit disingenuous. Manning is encyclopedic because of the entirety of what he did, from theft and dissemination of classified material upto and including the trial and conviction. It isn't an everyday occurrence that someone is convicted for violating the Espionage Act y'know. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Agreed, like I said in another section people are coming here with their own personal agendas, please I respect your opinions but take them elsewhere and focus on improvement here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet - but if we can somehow get a high-quality, free licensed image that represents Manning as she wishes to be seen with her new sexual identity, then we should feature that happily. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose The picture serves it's purpose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The image does its job of depicting the article subject perfectly fine. The current image is of good quality, and is freely licensed; I don't see the benefit of changing to an image of reduced quality, or a non-free image when a free image is available. Remember that as a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be encouraging the use of free-license content (free as in both libre and gratis); use of copyrighted images limits our liberties. Wikipedia articles are not Facebook profiles where the profile image can be changed to fit the flavour of the month. Finally, there is nothing offensive or derogatory about a US flag, and I'm suspecting political implications and agendas being thrown around within this proposal. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: He (she, it) is a soldier - even if a convicted one. The US military, the US government and the United States in general must be held responsible for the conduct of their personnel/citizens. Miranda1989 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Serious question

This is not constructive, and serves to fracture discussion further. The RM discussion is above, please make your comments there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

to all editors who support a page move to "Bradley Manning".

  • Do you think it should be okay for obese people to eat an unhealthy high-colestarol diet?
  • Do you think it should be okay to gamble all your life savings on a single roulette spin?
  • Do you think it should be okay to practise sorcery and witchcraft?
  • If your answer to the above questions was "yes" (a) please explain your logic, i.e. why the above activities should be okay/legal. (b) Why should one have the liberty to do the above, but not have the liberty to change ones name? Pass a Method talk 03:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • How would a Wikipedia article title prevent someone from changing that person's own name? Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No one is saying that Manning can't rename himself whatever he likes, but article titles are supposed to be useful to readers, and what is useful to readers is not necessarily the most up-to-date, courteous, or technically correct name of the subject. As has been pointed out above, the state of Burma would rather be called Myanmar, but enough sources still call them Burma that we only note their wishes in the content of the article. Malcolm X chose the name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz late in life, but Malcolm X is still the name by which he is famous. Cat Stevens adopted Yusuf Islam as his personal, professional, and legal name 35 years ago, but the most recognisable name is still Cat Stevens. Someone else gave the hypothetical example that if Bill Clinton announced he would much rather be called Billy Clinton, we wouldn't move the article solely to respect his personal whim. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • How I feel, or anyone else feels, about one's freedom to choose their name is irrelevant; we are trying to decide the correct course of action based on our policies and guidelines. People need to accept that sometimes their personal opinions, wishes, and preferences contradict those policies and guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • @Cal Engime Since usefulness is your criteria, don't you think acknowledging his transgeder status is useful? Pass a Method talk 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Are you interested in discussing how to make the article better? That is the purpose of talk page discussions, not to win some argument with strangers on the Internet. Before someone calls me on it, yes I know about WP:AGF but it's being stretched to the breaking point in this discussion. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few of my unsolicited thoughts on this. Manning can call him/herself whatever he/she chooses. That's not disputed. What Wikipedia uses does not necessarily have to coincide. Snoop Lion redirects to Snoop Dogg. P. Diddy redirects to Sean Combs. If George Clooney tomorrow decided his name was now "Gorthmar in Unconquerable" we'd say "hey that's great, Georgie", make a brief note of it somewhere in the article, and leave everything else as it is. If he said "I'm now "Miss Gorthmar in Unconquerable" I'd like to think we'd do the same thing, but now I'm sort of questioning what we really would do in such a case. One of the major arguments I've seen for moving the article from Bradley to Chelsea is that it's insulting to use the male name for a transsexual who identifies as female. If Wikipedia were a casual friend of Manning's that would be a great point. But we ain't in the courtesy business; we're in the fact business. The facts are the Bradley is Manning's legal name and the name Manning is most known by universally, and Manning is biologically, physically, of the male sex. We can argue about gender until the cows come home, but it's always going to be a fuzzy area in a way that sex is not. Manning can say "I am actually a female," but no third party right now is going to be able to replicate those results. All this could change, but right now it seems a little hasty to me to make these sweeping changes so quickly, and with little real information on the subject. I'm sure I'll be labelled by many as "transphobic" for saying this, but I've been called a lot of stupid shit over the years, and am unlikely to lose any sleep over it. -R. fiend (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • (@Pass a Method) How, pray tell, is your little survey able to make constructive gains for this already controversy-ridden discussion? If it is only to make a point and "win" an online fight, then do you think it was really necessary to post all of that? You are venturing on the borders of WP:NOTFORUM here; Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions aimed at improving article content, and are not general discussion areas. We are not here to find out who is morally good or bad, we are here to find a solution to our current problem, based on Wikipedia policies. I originally had a look at your little questionnaire and formed a few answers in my mind, but then realized that it would be counter-productive for me to bother replying to your questions, as it would only further bring the discussion off to an inappropriate tangent. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 06:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

There is no requirement for a "legal" name change

This discussion has drifted off topic into legalities of when and if Manning will be discharged, which is crystal ball territory. Let's focus on the current content, not on what may happen to Manning in the future.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
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 wish to address a misconception that is rampant on this page. There is absolutely no requirement that a person in the United States must go through any legal process or court of law in order to change their name. Common law name changes are recognized in 46 states, so long as they are not done for a fraudulent purpose.[3] There is no serious claim, much less any actual evidence, that Manning's name change is done for any fraudulent purpose. She is still the same legal person, subject to the same legal strictures, and there is no deception involved.

Therefore, the numerous cries on this page that we not move the article until there is some sort of "legal name change" are completely meritless. Manning is not obligated to go through any legal process to change her name, and may never do so. She has changed her name by holding out her name to be Chelsea, and so far as American law is concerned, that can be the end of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

An interesting question. I don't know, but I would guess that since Manning remains in the US Army, common law of various states may not apply. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is what a spokesperson for the prison says: "Leavenworth spokesman George Marcec said later Thursday that if Manning wants to go by Chelsea in prison, a name change would have to be approved in court and then a petition submitted with the Army to change its records." AP/NPR.
That doesn't conflict with what I said. What the prison thinks and what the Army thinks are immaterial. She might be "Bradley Manning" to the prison, but the prison doesn't define who she is. As the UCLA Law Review article notes, a legal process is often required for government agencies to reflect a name change, but that does not prohibit someone from changing their name via common law for all purposes except those government agencies.
In essence, anyone may hold themselves out under any name they choose, so long as that name is consistently used and not applied in an effort to deceive (for example, evade legal process or escape debts.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"except those government agencies" - it seems to me that this is the point in Manning's case, that she is not a civilian, but is a member of the US Army, and thus subject to their regulations, whatever they may be. Being in the service restricts all kinds of common law freedoms that might apply to civilians. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, the point is that the government agency does not define her life. Even as a member of the Army, the government agency does not define her life. The government agency may call her whatever it wants. That does not change her right to define her name and to hold herself out as Chelsea Manning. The Army does not have the power to control her sexual identity. The Army might have the power to punish her for her expressions of that identity, but it does not have the power to tell her who she is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Every army in every nation has the power to not only tell you but give you direct orders. As Manning is still a serving soldier in a military prison, they are the ones who call the shots.Foofbun (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing the point again. Gender identity is self-identification and a matter of conscience. If Manning chooses not to answer to the name "Bradley," the military might be able to punish her all they want, but they cannot force her to use a name she no longer recognizes. If she chooses to accept the punishment rather than submit to those demands, there is nothing further the military can do.
  • Moreover, this presupposes that Wikipedia cares what the Army thinks Manning's name is, as opposed to caring what name Manning identifies as. Wikipedia has never recognized any army as having the power to define a person's name over that person's expressed identification and wishes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"the government agency does not define her life" That's true. But it was you who first brought up legal status, and common law. All I've said is that there's a strong possibility that common law may not apply in Manning's case with regard to legal status. Certainly she has the basic human right to self-define her gender, and change her name to however she identifies herself. But in a real sense this self-identification has validity only in a legal context, whether by common law or otherwise. Again, I don't know whether she may have the freedom to be accepted anywhere in the United States under her change of name, simply because I would guess that her position as a member of the US Army may override and negate that desired self-identification in any legal sense whatsoever. I think we may be at a point where our terms of discussion need to be defined, so that we're not simply talking past each other with differing definitions. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You would need to supply the evidence that the Army has ever successfully asserted that it may exert control over the name of one of its members. Moreover, even that does not mean that the Army gets to define Manning's name for any purposes other than the Army's. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof is right. The presumption under English common law systems, which include the United States, is that no legal process is needed to change one's name. "It is accepted that somebody by repute can bear a name at will" - Greenway-Stanley v Patterson, [1977] 2 All ER 663 at 670. And see [4]. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof, according to the LA Times, the Army has stated that they will address Manning as Bradley until he legally changes the name to Chelsea. Second, as a serving soldier, what's Manning going to do? Sue? That won't work - serving soldiers are not allowed to sue the military under Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (torts) and Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983) (constitutional violations), not even on transgender issues. @Sam Blacketer - America only uses English common law up to 1776, after which it is American common law. A 1977 English court case would certainly not be binding on a U.S. court. GregJackP Boomer! 13:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think your comment reflects misunderstandings and lack of consideration. First of all, who gives a hoot what the Army says Manning's first name is? Why is the Army the Supreme Arbiter of Identity? Whether or not the Army recognizes the new Manning shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether we do. And to the point about it to being a "legal" name change, the armchair legal advice you dispense is misguided. Both of those cases you cited only involve suits for damages by currently serving soldiers, but Ms Manning was discharged, and plus any suit she files about the Army's failure to accommodate her gender dysphoria would at a minimum also ask for inunctive relief in addition to any damages. It would be kind of fun, in a horrifying way, if the army was completely exempt from being held accountable for violating people's constitutional rights, but that's not the case. Second, I don't think there is such a thing as "'American' common law." Though I agree an English court's decision can't be binding, the definition of "common law" is the pre-existing law we inherited from from the Brits back in the 1700s. So an English court discussing name changes at common law is perfectly persuasive authority in a state that retains the common law right to use your own name. You can read more about the way American states adopted British common law here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute . AgnosticAphid talk 15:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, you're misreading what I wrote. NorthBySouth asked for evidence where the Army asserted that it can control the name used and I provided a link. That has no bearing on what we use in our articles. Second, Manning is not discharged until the sentence is completed, for legal reasons. See R.C.M. 1113(D). Were Manning to get into trouble while at Leavenworth, the fact that s/he is not yet discharged allows the military to exercise further and continuing court-martial jurisdiction. Without a status as a still serving member, the military does not have the legal authority to incarcerate Manning. So the cases cited are directly on point since Manning is not dishonorably discharged until the period of confinement is complete. It also protects the military from lawsuits by military prisoners under both Feres and Chappell.

As to "American" common law, there are 50 different "common" law jurisdictions in the U.S. Each state (with the exception of Louisiana) and the federal system use "common" law in that they follow the decisions of prior courts. I don't doubt that an English case can be persuasive authority, but it is much more likely that the court will use federal common law. And before you bring up the Erie Doctrine (there is no federal common law), SCOTUS has recognized that there is in fact, federal common law, abet limited. See Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2535, 180 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2011). And the English case cited is so dissimilar that I doubt that it would be considered by a federal court.

BTW, for legal information, always check sources other than Wikipedia - there is way too much wrong in some of our legal articles. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the dishonorable discharge: in keeping with 10 USC § 871(c), execution of the discharge is temporarily stayed pending an automatic appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) where the dishonorable discharge will be reviewed along with the prison term. Hypothetically, that decision could then be appealed under discretionary review to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). During this process, however, Manning will remain a Private/E-1 incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth and will be what AR 190-47 Chapter 3-1 calls a "sentenced prisoner" after the convening authority approves the confinement portion of Manning's sentence. Later, after review of the dishonorable discharge is complete by the ACCA (and the CAAF, potentially), the dishonorable discharge will be executed and Manning will become what AR 190-47 calls a "discharged prisoner" (not discharged from prison, but discharged from the military). At that time, instead of being an incarcerated Private/E-1, Manning will become a discharged former soldier who continues to be incarcerated at a military prison until completion of the confinement sentence. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The Army Reg is all well and good, but R.C.M. 1113(D) goes into detail about when the discharge occurs, or executes, and in cases of confinement, the discharge does not execute until the period of confinement is completed. It expressly states that a punitive discharge is executed when: "(1) The accused has received a sentence of no confinement or has completed all confinement;(2) The accused has been placed on excess or appellate leave; and,(3) The appropriate official has certified that the accused's case is final." See also AR 635-200, a soldier's enlistment is involuntarily extended until he complete confinement, at which point the punitive discharge will be executed. The provisions you are talking about don't apply in the case of a dishonorable discharge and are designed for normal discharges that would occur during the confinement period. GregJackP Boomer! 01:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
R.C.M. 1113(D) speaks to self-executing punishments and was not added to the Manual for Courts-Martial until 2008 (see App. 21 page A21-94 of the 2012 edition). Please turn your attention instead to reading R.C.M. 1113(C). As soon as the appellate process described above is completed, the commanding general exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over Manning has the power to order the dishonorable discharge be executed while Manning is still confined. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that, but it still doesn't change the interpretation. A finding of guilt and sentence by a court-martial creates a self-executing order. The interpretation was covered by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which said: "If convicted and sentenced to either confinement only, or confinement and forfeiture only, a soldier who is confined awaiting trial will be discharged on the adjusted ETS. The adjusted ETS date will be computed by adding to the date of release from confinement. . . ." Smith v. Vanderbush, 47 M.J. 56, 62-63 (C.A.A.F. 1997). The court was quoting directly from AR 635-200, noting that a service member was not discharged until the completion of the confinement. The self-executing section was added to drop the requirement that the GCMCA had to cut a separate order assigning the soldier to USDB, to include any punitive discharge. What the requirements that you are focusing on do is to prevent a punitive discharge prior to the case making its way through the appellate process and becoming final, especially when the sentence of confinement is short (or non-existant). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Your quote from AR 635-200 (paragraph 1-31) is for when a soldier is convicted and sentenced to either confinement only, or confinement and forfeiture only. In such a case, the soldier's ETS will be extended during the time they are confined. Manning, however, was not sentenced to either confinement only, or confinement and forfeiture only. The sentence was confinement, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a punitive discharge. You've pointed out that R.C.M. 1113(C) does not allow a punitive discharge to be executed until a case has made its way all the way through the appellate process, especially when the sentence of confinement is short. That's correct (and I addressed that in my first post above). But R.C.M. 1113(C) also clearly empowers the GCMCA to execute a punitive discharge after the appellate process is complete and after reviewing the advice of his or her SJA. Manning's sentence is long. When the appellate process is complete, what's to stop the general officer who exercises general court-martial jurisdiction over Manning from ordering that the dishonorable discharge be executed? R.C.M. 1113(D) certainly does not stop him. R.C.M. 1113(D) says that if a convening authority has approved the discharge (but did not order it executed), the punishment may be self-executing under certain conditions. As soon as the appellate process is complete, R.C.M. 1113(C) gives that general officer the power to make Manning a discharged ex-soldier who still has plenty of time to serve. Not being a soldier anymore does not mean that the military does not have the power to continue to keep Manning confined and subject to prison rules. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am also talking about normal practice. When a service member is sentenced to long periods of confinement with forfeiture of all pay and allowances, he's not getting paid by the government for the period of incarceration. If the service member misbehaves, they don't have to take him before a U.S. Magistrate or District Judge, they court-martial them (again). They don't have to worry about lawsuits. It is to the government's advantage to not issue the discharge until the period of confinement ends. As an example, see United States v. Savage, 72 M.J. 560 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2013), where a USDB prisoner was charged, with others, for mutiny in relation to actions taken by him and others at the USDB. I'm sorry, but Manning will likely not be discharged until his confinement has been completed. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is duly noted and we can respectfully disagree on that point; Leavenworth handles "discharged prisoners" (AR 190-47) just fine. At the very least and for the sake of other readers, we've cleared up any misunderstanding here about case law, federal code, the Manual for Courts-Martial, or Army Regulations; a service member sitting in a military prison can be discharged from the military long before his or her sentence is complete. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ill concede that I countered your armchair lawyering with sme of my own and it may well be that he's not officially discharged. Nonetheless, I highly doubt the ACLU would be talking about suing the army under the 8th amendment for not providing hormones if this issue is as open and shut as you claim. W/r/t the subject of this discussion, the point is that in 46 states including MO there is no legal requirement to "officially" change your name before your name change is actually official, and there's no reason I see that we should defer to the government's naming decisions of its prisoners. AgnosticAphid talk 22:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The ACLU has sued a number of times for active duty soldiers, and normally lose. And again, I did not say that Wikipedia should depend on what the Army says his name is. I really wish that you would read what I wrote. I'll repeat it here: That has no bearing on what we use in our articles. None. GregJackP Boomer! 01:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Sourcing

470 Google news hits for "Chelsea Manning", many RSes - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that many of those sources refer to Manning, first and foremost, as Bradley. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I haven't been through the list. But many do use "Chelsea", "she", "her", and it's accelerating. So apart from the original BLP and MOS:IDENTITY considerations supporting the present title (and as noted above, other pages note that titles are included in rules concerning article text), by the end of the seven days I strongly suspect the press will actually substantially support it as well (though in this context, that's basically a bonus) - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
We should be guided by Wiki policy on WP:BLP and WP:Article Titles, not Google hits. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
References allow for an argument under WP:COMMONNAME. LFaraone 20:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, definitely. However, it's a concern expressed by many people above. That's why I say "basically a bonus", not the meat of the reason - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean the original BLP considerations that you still have not seen fit to explain? Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I've explained them ad nauseam. At this point, I don't think it's unfair to say "go through the history, thanks" - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
@Miraculouschaos: Oh, just give it up. David is not going to ever explain how he felt the title Bradley Manning constituted a BLP violation. At this point, I don't think it's unfair to say he just moved the article according to his wishes and used BLP as a smokescreen for the wheel-warring action. -- tariqabjotu 21:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's above in the section "Wheel warring", on this very page. You don't like the answer, but your repeated claim that I haven't given an answer has been answered by me multiple times. At this point this is a prima facie case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop claiming I haven't answered when the answer's right there - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
In Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5#Wheel warring?, your only mention of "BLP" is when you said I wouldn't have reverted the move except for BLP considerations. That's you just saying that you felt the Bradley Manning title was a BLP violation, something one could easily discern from the edit summary you used during the move. That does not, however, explain how or why you felt the Bradley Manning title was a BLP violation. I really don't know how I can be any clearer. The reason people keep bringing this up is because, no, you have truly, never answered this question (at least not on this talk page, nor, apparently, anywhere else). -- tariqabjotu 06:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

My view on name change

Please post your comments on the move discussion in the RM above, under the appropriate date. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
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.

In my opinion it is way to early to change this persons name from Bradley to Chelsea. First of all has there been any official name change paperwork? Are we sure this is the will of Bradley or just a ploy to get out of prison faster?. And my main point is that this person is known under the name of Bradley when all of the notable things happened to him, to look at similar case check out Thomas Quick. He has a different name now but his article is named after the name he had when the notable things occured for him to get a article. I think we are all jumping on the "crazy train" a bit too fast. I would say that we should have his name as Bradley Manning even if his name is changed to Chelsea, or atleast wait and have an consensus discussion when he officially has changed his name.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many fast moving pieces to this process. In a few weeks, when there are consistent and unconfused reports that a legal change-of-name has occurred then a name change might be appropriate. BlueSalix (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement that anyone go through a legal process to change their name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Hat note (edit request)

File:Chelsea Manning Wikipedia mobile app.png
Chelsea Manning article viewed in the Wikipedia mobile app on Samsung Galaxy S4, running Android 4.2.2

I put through this edit to the page hat note, then noticed the page protection level, and have self-reverted to repost here.

It's a high profile current event BLP, with a very unfamiliar title. The hat states it's "about Chelsea Manning", and there is a high risk that someone (especially on a mobile device) who looked up Bradley Manning will find a page about someone called "Chelsea Manning", a hatnote "This article is about Chelsea Manning" - and without a mention in the hat of a prior name, the perception will be "incorrect link" and failure to find the article or even realize the name change.

To mitigate this, the above edit added "(birth name Bradley Manning)" to the hat, and nothing more. Traditionally the hat disambiguates. Here it helps to say "you are at the right place" if someone arrives at Chelsea Manning.

While his statement (as quoted) asks to be referred to by his female name, the intro gives his immensely better known birth name, and I think the reality of the situation of unfamiliar readers means noting it in the hat will help our readers to not be confused on reaching it.

So I'd like to ask for consensus if people will agree to allow that edit, in the hatnote only. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(To be clear, this isn't about "correct"/"incorrect" naming, which is discussed in other sections. This is about helping readers whatever the title. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC))
I don't think this is necessary. I just looked it up on my phone by typing in "wiki bradley manning" - the Google page that comes up includes both names, and the first line of the article with both names is visible. (Samsung Galaxy SIII, Android, in Firefox) - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi FT, I'd appreciate it if you would wait for an uninvolved admin to decide whether the edit needs to be made, as well as waiting for consensus from others. There have been too many admins editing through protection today, so I think everyone else needs to lead by example. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I self-reverted almost immediately when I realized, before posting this (see 1st line of above and page history). You must have not realized this. Nice to see you round anyhow SV! FT2 (Talk | email) 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across as snippy; it's just frustration at watching people edit through protection, and I misunderstood your post to mean you were going to make the edit yourself. But anyway, nice to see you too. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *Support. I think this edit is helpful. My phone is BlackBerry and on the first screen I see the title, the hat note and the infobox. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked this out on my phone, also. When I Google the subject in the browser (Chrome, for what it's worth), I see the Google blurb, "Chelsea E. Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was...", which I think clears up some confusion. However, in the Wikipedia mobile app, I see the image to the right, which has no mention of her birth name.

The (born...) was reverted as the article was protected. This section is a request for consensus to put it in as you describe it. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Er, I'm confused... "(born...)" is still showing in Google results, and is the current wording of the first sentence of the lead section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Read again - this isn't about the lead. It's about the hat/dab note that is the first thing readers see. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Right. I provided the screenshot to demonstrate that "Bradley Manning" is not immediately visible when using the mobile app. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Use "Pvt Manning". Serves the purpose and should be entirely non-controversial. (edit conflict)me_and 23:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Definitely don't use "Pvt". If the title is required (and I'm not sure it is) then use "Private". Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • support Very good point - the name Bradley should be more prominent esp for mobile users.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. I've readded FT2's wording to the hatnote. If there is a consensus to tweak this wording after further discussion, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this hatnote addition still needed? We have Bradley Manning in the first sentence, and now thanks to later edits it is also in the lead-image caption and the infobox. If any of those can be seen when accessing the article with cell phones, we can remove the hatnote; otherwise we're repeating the birth name four times at the top of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood"

This is currently presented as a statement of fact. It may or may not be a claim that Manning or some other person has made, but cannot have been factually established at this time. In any case, the citation given for the statement (Stamp, Scott (August 22, 2013). "Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman". today.com) makes no mention at all of any such disorder, nor of Manning's childhood. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it can be factually established, if it has been diagnosed by a competent medical professional. But you're correct that the statement should be attributed to a reliable source, and if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, should be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course it can be factually established - I said it cannot have been so at this time. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd spotted that earlier (among other similar statements). It implies that Manning was diagnosed or recognised as having a disorder as a child or since childhood. I'm not even too sure if Manning has been diagnosed or recognised has having a disorder by a relevant practitioner as an adult (though I do understand that Manning has self identified as such).
For those crying out about BLP policy, this is the kind of thing that needs sourcing per BLP policy. Can someone please provide a source for this statement, else it will need to be removed or amended. --RA () 12:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's not hard to resolve. Never forget the useful tool, "X says Y": Simply attribute what we do have.
  • According to Manning, (etc since childhood)
  • On (TV channel) on (date) Manning's lawyer/clinician/whoever, stated that (etc since childhood)
  • Manning had repeatedly referred to (lifestyle) in his past activities, and had stated to his clinician that (etc since childhood)
Three easy answers to attribution. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If you read the transcripts of the trial, several psychologists attest to Manning's diagnosis of GID/Gender dysphoria. I'm not sure if they note how far back it goes, but this is most certainly not a new thing. We could rephrase for now as suggested by FT2 - Manning claims to XXX since childhood, and army psychologists diagnosed him with GID in 200x. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. It's easy enough to say how NPOV sees the points raised by editors above. We cannot say "since childhood" if we don't have reliable sources attesting to that, for example if it is unevidenced or overly contentious to say a start date or period in his life it began "from". But as you say, we can say what Manning claims of its duration and "since when", and we can say what psychologists say. If by chance we lack a source saying authoritatively "It has been that way since childhood" (even though it seems very likely or he claims it himself), and that's an issue, then we can easily say "Manning claims that" or "3 psychiatrists testified that" and solve it that way. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest some arguments may be better placed as suggestions for policy change

I can't speak for everyone supporting moving this page back to Bradley Manning, but my arguments for doing so are purely based on Wikipedia policies as I see them. Specifically those at Wikipedia:Article titles. It seems clear from the comments on this talk page that in transgender cases such as these, however, what might be the WP:COMMONNAME may also be considered as perpetuating prejudices, and detrimental to the personal difficulties the subject is or was going through. These are fair arguments, but they are not directly supported by policy. Might it then be an idea for those who feel strongly about the conventions that should be followed in such cases to suggest that an explicit mention of what to do in cases where a name is changed for transgender reasons be added to Wikipedia:Article titles, in the wake of the discussions here. Certainly, if policy directly dictated that articles on such subjects should be named as per the person's current chosen name as MOS:IDENTITY does for personal pronouns in the article text, there would be very little room for objection. Might a policy discussion be a way to solve this, not just for now but forever? U-Mos (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Such a discussion is happening already at the talk page of WP:AT I believe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I thought on the basis of arguments here that there wasn't one. In that case I would suggest that any arguments along the lines of it being offensive/wrong to use Bradley as the article title etc. be diverted there, as that discussion is the best place for those views to have a lasting effect of Wiki-policy. U-Mos (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Article title and lede

There's been a lot of discussion. I think we need to close this and unprotect the article so it can be updated. What's clear from all the discussions and policy is that we go with whatever the reliable sources use. If Bradley Manning is how the subject has been referred to in the vast majority of sources, that's what we would use. It will be least surprising for the reader to find an article with a title that matches what they have understood the subject to be about. The subject is notable for events that occurred while she was known as Bradley Manning. It is also verifiable that she has changed her name to Chelsea Manning. This article is about the subject and her historical importance, the vast majority of which occured while she was known as Bradley Manning.

May I suggest that the article be titled Bradley Manning, as the subject was historically known, and as their name appears in all the reports establishing her notability, but the first line of the article state that she is now known as Chelsea? As for pronouns throughout the article, if there are past tense events when she was a he, it would seem logical to use "he" and for events occuring after she declared herself to be female, then use "she".

The current lead paragraph is defective because it uses the less-well known name, and does not explain how Bradley became Chelsea. The lead should clearly state that on such a date Bradley declared that he was a she, and that her name would now be Chelsea. Something like this would be better (assuming I've got the chronology right):

Bradley Edward Manning, born December 17, 1987 (now known as Chelsea E. Manning[3][4]) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of several violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged.[1] After sentencing, Manning declared that she was transgender female, and had chosen the new name Chelsea E. Manning. She will be eligible for parole after serving one third of her sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.[5]

As for the photos, I think it makes sense to use one showing Manning in uniform, because that's what he was notable for--being in the military and leaking secret documents. Immediately below the current photo there can be a newer photo showing the Chelsea identity. Somebody clever could even form a new image by splicing the two together, one above the other.

The arguments that carry no weight are those involving original research. We do not as Wikipedia editors attempt to determine the law or say how society should deal with people. We simply follow what reliable sources say. All editors need to be tolerant and realize that this is an unusual situation, that we will probably get things wrong for a while, but eventually get them right. All editors also need to realize that this is NOT the place for advocacy of any causes, whether those are pro-human rights causes, or bigoted causes.

Can we please get the article unprotected? If you support the above summary, please say so below. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a complex and messy talk page, but the creation of a new section like this that continues old discussions only adds to the confusion. In the above, you are addressing multiple overlapping issues. I'd suggest you break up your comment and place things in the appropriate sections, e.g.
  1. the section on whether the RM should be closed early
  2. The RM, and what you think the article should be titled
  3. The section discussing the photo
  4. Create a new edit request suggesting changes to the lede.
Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If it were that obviously clear, this talk page wouldn't be the size it is - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We need to disregard the activists on both sides, and the trolls, and listen to the opinions those who don't have any stake in the outcome other than to have a concise, informative, accurate article. Jehochman Talk 21:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that this will not in fact be a decision of such obvious and elegant simplicity as to be intuitively obviously the right thing to everyone - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Easier said than done. Rather than trying to second guess other editors motivations the best one can do is to consider the arguments and facts as neutrally as possible regardless of who wrote them. Space simian (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

a modest proposal - put move discussion on sub-page?

This page is now over 1MB in size. What if we were to move the "move" discussion to a separate sub-page, and concentrate all discussion about the article title there? Then the main talk page could be used for other discussions, around pronouns, and misc edit requests, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Make the archive cycle 24 hours first, I'd say. (Also, if we mark the "date" sections "sticky", will that keep them from being archived?)
The page is relatively easy to edit if you do it by section - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting it to archive after 24 hours too, but that also seems a bit short - esp over a weekend- and may lead to much rehashing of discussions already ongoing that temporarily peter out. Even the current setting (2 days) is aggressive for now, but its probably reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think nothing whatsoever will stop the rehashing of discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

NPR Guidance

Might be useful once the article is editable again: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/23/214941331/npr-issues-new-guidance-on-mannings-gender-identity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A great example of the thoughtful discussion that is happening at newsrooms - and further evidence that WP jumped the gun a bit. I think it's quite possible in time, Chelsea will become the more common name, but it may be yet a bit early. We will have to see.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is the guidance of NPR, versus anyone else's, important? We should be taking a broad look at how various news organizations and reliable sources are dealing with it. Already, for example, I'm seeing that some of the blog posts linked by Sue imploring the world to embrace Manning's new name have gone unheeded by the publications they write for. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a relevant discussion point considering how many editors - including you - have raised media usage as an issue - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
My question was why usage by NPR, as opposed to any other media source, is important. A general review of sources is fine, and probably in order, but I don't understand why NPR's is especially important. -- tariqabjotu 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
NPR is funded by the same US government that brought Manning before a court to serve 35 years in jail. They're probably not the source most concerned with the private's dignity and self-determination. Shrigley (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
that's a rather silly assertion - so what? Did you read what npr decided to do? They decided first to stick with Bradley, then after internal and external debate, changed their minds. But the fact NPR receives govt funding and thus is biased is ridiculous. Finally to TA's point, I don't think more choice should determine ours, nor that npr should be weighed more than cnn or nytimes, but the article itself is interesting as it shows that they flip-flopped - so this wasn't a no brainer decision.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note that NPR's guidance is directed to their staff for writing news stories, not encyclopedia articles. Whereas Wikipedia's guidance is directed towards our editors and is in the policy section WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." It is possible that over time the name Chelsea will be the most commonly used in reliable sources. If that happens we should consider having the article's title Chelsea Manning, but for now the article title should be Bradley Manning per Wikipedia policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
And WP:BLP. Her gender identity is female and her name is Chelsea. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I saw on Twitter that New York Times will also start using Chelsea/female pronoums. So with that, I may switch may vote above to support of the current version as I am one of those who have insisted we should follow reliable sources per WP:Commonname. Iselilja (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at this article on Buzz feed which gives our example as a reason to admonish the New York Times ("Unfortunately, others have failed to follow suit."). We must ask ourselves how much we are creating the change you are suggesting we follow. This is not how an encyclopaedia is supposed to work. --RA () 19:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
NPR has changed its mind. Its Managing Editor for Standards and Practice Stu Seidel has issued this guidance: "We are fond of saying that our style and language use is always open to challenge and subject to change. We also believe that a healthy newsroom is open to debate and reflection. In the past day, we have been challenged by listeners and readers and by colleagues at our member stations and in our newsroom, raising a chorus of views, including requests to rethink, backed up by arguments that make good sense. We have been persuaded. Going forward, on first reference, please use "Chelsea Manning." For the near term, we should make clear that we are talking about the person who gained public notice as "Bradley Manning." (The need for that clarification will, undoubtedly, diminish as the name Chelsea Manning becomes better known – and as Private Manning fades from routine public prominence.) On the pronoun front, the best solution is the simplest: If we're going to use a new name for a transgender person, we should change pronouns as appropriate. In this case, we should refer to Manning as a "she."" Sue Gardner (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh whoops sorry -- just saw I am late here :-) I had been skimming, and thought this section header was referring to NPR's *original* decision to call Chelsea Manning Bradley Manning. Carry on :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not clear what the problem is

I just read this article about the gender issue, as pointed out in that article, Wikipedia has managed to avoid problems by making the right choice at the right moment while some major news media failed to do that. Jimbo has said on his talk page that you can't always religiously follow WP:V to make this sort of editorial judgements, you always have to be prepared to WP:IAR and see if that leads to a better outcome. Count Iblis (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The right choice at the right time is your opinion, Wikipedia does not make the news, it follows reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, how is this improving the encyclopedia? We have made waves in the media and have taken a WP:POV stance to a right now heated debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy WP:IAR states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How does having the title Chelsea Manning instead of the title Bradley Manning improve Wikipedia? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
But equally how does reverting the article to Bradley improve wikipedia? At least calling Manning Chelsea conforms to BLP and NPOV policies, we arent here to show our disapproval or any other "feeling/belief". Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
If you read the move discussion above numerous times it has been said that there is nothing in WP:BLP that prevents this from being called "Bradley Manning". As for NPOV, it is also NPOV to call this Chelsea so we have two NPOV names I feel it best we go by the common name which is "Bradley" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
we arent here to show our disapproval or any other "feeling/belief". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Many of the opposition remarks are about approving Manning's action, as if it is our job to approve and accept name changes. As noted by the many counterexamples across Wikipedia (e.g. Lily Allen, Cat Stevens, and Malcolm X), your understanding of BLP applicability here is counter to the general community's. -- tariqabjotu 17:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It improves Wikipedia when we are respectful toward our subjects, and it diminishes the project when we are not. If you don't value dealing respectfully with our BLP subjects, you obviously won't see any benefit in us doing so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Either choice could have been made, Bradley would always have led to more ongoing discussions about moving to Chelsea, but then one should have made some agreement making it possible to edit the page pending the outcome of these discussions leading to a possible move in the future. But once the choice for Chelsea was made, unless one seriously believes (based on what reliable sources are writing) that Manning could well reverse her decision and call himself "Bradley" again, continuing to discuss the move is unproductive. You're then arguing about the move not having done "by the book" instead of arguing about some real factual issue, something that IAR is meant to prevent. Count Iblis (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For me, the major problem is that "Wikipedia" didn't make the decision - right or wrong. One editor took it upon themselves to move the article without discussion. A few reverts ensued and then one of the movers of the article to Chelsea Manning locked the article at that title (so that only administrators could move it, which we won't in order to avoid a wheel war).
Now we must wait for 7 days for the discussion above to run its course before it will be moved back to Bradley Manning (because the initial move to Chelsea Manning had no consensus and there is no consensus to keep it there). In the mean time, the media has picked up on it and the instigator of the move to Chelsea Manning has given a newspaper interview on the matter in which they say "there's a background of transphobia to a lot of this". So, our dirty lenin gets washed in public and good faith contributors get discredited in the same breath. Wonderful.
This, by the way, is aside to the question of referring to Manning as "Chelsea" or referring to Manning as "she" in articles, about which there looks to be broad consensus that that's appropriate (see MOS:IDENTITY). The issue only relate to the article's title (see WP:TITLES). --RA () 16:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You are repeating a particularly virulent myth—namely, that the article was moved without discussion. A discussion did precede the move. You may wish to argue that it didn't go on long enough to establish consensus, but please do not perpetuate the demonstrably false claim that it didn't happen at all. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We have a move button to allow editors to move articles without necessarily seeking consensus, if you want to change that this isnt the place to do so, its a policy issue. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a similar debate on the french-language wikipedia (where Manning is still known, so far, as "Bradley"). Putting aside the fact that Manning became internationally known as "Bradley", shouldn't we just wait for this person to officially change gender (legally, that is ?). I have no issue with transsexuals whatsoever, but deciding that a person has switched genders just because he has said so - and the minute he says so - seems a bit awkward to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That is an arguemnt for changing the she/her back to he/him not one to change the name back to Bradley but really this he/she is an issue about all transgender ppl not about Manning and so should be discussed elsewhere and without reference to Manning. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That is an argument for both issues, actually. I find it awkward to say that "she" did something when she was still a "he", and it seems even more awkard to do so when that person is, technically and legally, still a man. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jean-Jacques Georges. The trouble is, there is no rule that can be used to determine when somebody has officially switched genders. That is why so many organizations have decided to accept the person's word: that a person's gender is what they say it is. To elaborate --- here are some points at which someone's gender might be thought to be, or have been, determined: i) when a doctor "assigns" them a gender at birth; ii) when a doctor decides their gender has changed, for example due to an accident; iii) when the person determines themselves what they believe their gender to be; iv) when the person announces publicly what they believe their gender to be; v) when they begin living publicly as the gender they say they are, for example by choosing to dress in a manner consistent with how that gender typically dresses; vi) when they begin using a name consistent with their gender identity; vii) when they legally change their name to one consistent with their gender identity; viii) when they have their gender changed on one or more of the following: birth certificate, driver’s license, passport, other ID; ix) when they begin or complete hormone therapy; x) when they begin or complete laser hair removal or electrolysis; or xi) when they begin or complete surgical procedures on for example their genitals, face, Adam’s apple, chest or vocal cords. That's just a partial list of potential points at which it might be said someone has established their gender as they believe it to be. This is complicated by the fact that most transgendered people never undertake *all* these steps, and that of those undertaken, the order will vary widely depending on the person's circumstances and preferences. This is why many organizations have chosen to accept that a person's gender is what they say it is: because it's fundamentally respectful of that person, and there is no other way to make the determination that is always and obviously better. Sue Gardner (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand that, and I have no doubt that this is a rather complicated matter (in real life and in Manning's inner self). Yet I still find it unfortunate to use she in the narrative when we refer to actions that were undertaken when Manning was stil known as Bradley and was still considered as a he. Using she after his gender change (or at least wish to changer genders) became known might not be a problem, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but this an example of the general case where you have false information that is accepted as the truth and then one finds out later that things are not as we thought they were. So, this falls in the same category as Brontosaurus, Pluto, Piltdown Man, etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think Count Iblis is correct. The idea is that Manning is and always was female: she was wrongly believed to have been male. (Including likely for some period by herself, due to gender assignment at birth and societal expectations.) The announcement does not mark the moment at which she decided to *become* a woman: the announcement marks the moment at which she requested that she be referred to publicly in a manner consistent with her internal gender identity. And so, it makes sense to make the pronouns "she" going all the way back. (Two disclaimers: 1) I don't know what's going on inside Manning's head any more than anyone else who's been paying attention to her story, but according to gender-related research and memoirs I've read, this is how these things are typically understood. And 2) What I wrote implies that gender identity is always fixed: that although some people may be confused about their gender, especially when young, they have a fixed internal gender regardless, that may or many not be consistent with their externally-assigned one. I don't know that that's actually true for everyone. But I do think it's what Manning is saying is true in her case.) Sue Gardner (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
@SqueakBox and Psychonaut: Yes, we do have a move button. However, it is standard practice, as noted at WP:RMT, to revert moves if they are undiscussed and controversial, as this one was. For someone to continue to move the page subverts the process. -- tariqabjotu 17:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We have procedures for this. If a move is contested, it is reverted and a move discussion takes place. In this case, the move was contested but warred back to Chelsea Manning (and locked there) without a move discussion. See Wikipedia:Requested moves. --RA () 17:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
but warred back to Chelsea Manning (and locked there) And warred back even after the lock... -- tariqabjotu 17:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
At this point im just going with it, I was pushing this viewpoint as well as it was wrong but nobody seems willing at this point to follow through with proper procedures. Hopefully this can be avoided more in the future as it would have prevented Wikipedia from becoming spotlighted in the media for pushing a POV view first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Get over it. I too believe that proper procedure was not followed, but to avoid wheel war and in the judgement of our neutral closer, the title should remain where it is. A few more days won't hurt. I really don't think complaining will help either, so while I'm sympathetic to the points above by RA and TA and others, it's basically water under the bridge at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have accepted the fact that I do not think that anything will be done about it but that does not mean it is right. Wikipedia should not be taking stands in the news on heated debates as we are supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I've stated elsewhere that if I was uninvolved and had volunteered to close this discussion, I wouldn't move the article back until this RM had run it course. Further wheel warring is not what's needed. It's important that procedure be (finally) followed and the community have the fullness of their say. The quiet lesson of seeing process being followed at last is important.
But I'm not uninvolved and I won't be closing this discussion so I'm free to take a slightly different position and emphasise a slightly different message. The approach I'm taking is to make sure that when discussion has run its course that people will leave here with one thing ringing in their ears: Next time we discuss. Next time, if you get reverted, you discuss.
This thread pointed to the praise that Wikipedia has received for its decision and asked what the problem was. The problem is that Wikipedia didn't make the decision. Two admins took it upon themselves to decide what was best for this article. And one (going by her blog posts) is very proud for having done so.
Taking a long term view of this article, it doesn't matter if it is at the title Chelsea Manning for a week. And I wouldn't lose any sleep if it was at that title permanently. But taking a long term view of the project (Wikipedia), no-one should be allowed to leave here thinking the actions of Morwen and David Gerard are examples of how we do business. --RA () 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
RA, I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that (a) it's already been said and (b) This page is not perhaps the best place to continue, as it seems like we're asking for the page to be moved back, which just isn't going to happen I'm afraid. But I agree with you on the rest - I was horrified to read that wikipedia was given kudos for being AHEAD of major news media - that is just wrong in so many ways, and could lead to citogenesis, among other problems... As a side note, though, Jimbo has some thoughtful words on this over at his talk, the jist of which is, sometimes we do need to make an editorial call, and since there will be confusion in RS for some time, we may need to IAR and keep it at Chelsea. This hasn't yet convinced me, but it's worth reading and considering his point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It bears repeating though. I've said long ago (at the very start of the move request, in fact) and multiple times after that that I have no expectation for the article to be moved back to Bradley Manning during the course of the move request. However, there needs to be some clarity, especially if the final decision is to keep the article at Chelsea Manning, that the actions that led to where we are now, with a move request for returning the article back to the status quo (rather than from status quo) were questionable. Unfortunately, should the article maintain its current position, Morwen and David Gerard, and many of those preferring Chelsea Manning, are no doubt going to take that as proof-positive that they did the right thing. In fact, that's quite clear already, given Morwen's congratulatory blog posts and interviews and given David's unwillingness to explain how the previous title constitutes a BLP violation. (As you'll see, David has repeatedly argued that he's explained that already, although, of course, a simple search of this talk page shows that no such explanation has ever been given.) I'm interested to see if/how the closers address this issue, especially if the article ends up at Chelsea Manning. -- tariqabjotu 21:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
...should the article maintain its current position, Morwen and David Gerard, and many of those preferring Chelsea Manning, are no doubt going to take that as proof-positive that they did the right thing. That's a worrying thing for me too. Their actions needs to be addressed separately from the move request. --RA () 22:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I just make the point here that at no point have I participated in an edit war during this. A check of my contributions will reveal that my actions to consisted of

  • moving it, after a brief discussion on the talk
  • some copyedits to change pronouns
  • noting that it had been moved back by another user and asking why
  • after having received a message from that other user saying Sorry. [...] Feel free to change back!" I did so.
  • and then later, rollbacking a botched copy and paste move

That does not constitute "being warred back". Please strike that from the record. (And also incidentally, none of this was an admin action). Morwen (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you moved too quickly and with too much excitement on a issue you should have been able to anticipate would be controversial. You got reverted and that could have been an opportunity for you to steady your pulse, but you tore in again. You should have had greater sense and your instinct should have been to instigate an RM IMO. But your action, however ill advised, was not warring. The revert clearly indicating that the move was contested and undiscussed came after your second move. Another admin reverted that.
I've looked through the conversation above and I do not see where it is said you engaged in warring so I cannot strike any comment. --RA () 00:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
@Rannpháirtí anaithnid: I believe she's referring to the part where you say In this case, the move was contested but warred back to Chelsea Manning (and locked there) without a move discussion. She probably interpreted that (as I did) as meaning the article was move-protected after it was warred back to Chelsea Manning, which would imply that Morwen -- the only person who moved the article before the protection -- was move-warring. -- tariqabjotu 07:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. My second move came after the person who moved it back had apologised and told me it was OK to revert them. That's not an edit war. Morwen (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's something Morwen would have to ask David Gerard about. Cls14 reverted her through a mis-understanding and gave his blessing for her to revert back. So she didn't "war" with anyone. I think her actions were ill-advised, excited and impulsive. I don't appreciate her press correspondences that cast aspersions on contributors here that followed. I think those are things she needs to reflect upon. But I don't doubt the good faith and best intentions of Morwen's move, however ill-advised.
I think David needs to answer questions about why he move locked the article and then undid an administrative action to place the article back at Chelsea Manning after the move was contested. He cites BLP policy but doesn't explain what section of BLP policy having the article at Bradley Manning violates. Or how it justifies wheel warring. --RA () 13:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Sue Gardner made a good explanation of one prong of the BLP concerns [5]. I'm going to see if I can come up with something broader by the end of the WP:RM period. (I've been a bit quiet yesterday and today because of migraines, unfortunately - can you believe I was supposed to be having a quiet weekend de-stressing and putting together garden furniture? No, really.) Morwen (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think David has answered this repeatedly, on this very page, including answering you personally, and as such your repeated assertions to the contrary appear to be a prima facie case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not liking the answer doesn't mean it didn't happen - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
@David Gerard: You most certainly have not; why do you think people keep asking you? As I said in response to your last IDIDNTHEARTHAT mention, it looks like you've just repeatedly invoked BLP, not stated why you felt the Bradley Manning title constituted a violation of the policy. If you believe you have already answered this point, how about you go locate where you have, then copy and paste that here? -- tariqabjotu 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
David, I've looked through every comment you posted to this talk page, including those in the archive. You've said that you have BLP concerns with the Bradley Manning title. And you have said that you have explained what those concerns are - even "ad nauseum".
Now, I don't want you to cause any more nausea but I cannot find one instance on this talk page where you have explained what those concerns are. Maybe your explanation got lost somewhere. Could you please post a diff to where you have explained why you believe having this article at the title Bradly Manning is a violation of BLP policy. I'd be particularly grateful if you could state the specific section of BLP policy you believe the Bradley Manning title violates. Thanks, --RA () 16:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This has been a repeated argument with some people here, they cite WP:BLP as the issue but when it comes to explaining why they fall short with a response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
@Rannpháirtí anaithnid: Agree completely. -- tariqabjotu 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Because claiming the wording of MOS:IDENTITY doesn't include titles comes across as wikilawyering to avoid the spirit of WP:BLP. Because gratuitously misgendering people is gratuitously offensive, and that violates WP:BLP. That was the reasoning. But I eagerly await the next round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because the fundamental problem is that you don't agree, so no amount of explanation as to the reasoning will be considered comprensible or sufficient.
(I'm beginning to see why it took Bertrand Russell a whole book to prove that 1+1=2 - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC))
Because gratuitously misgendering people is gratuitously offensive, and that violates WP:BLP. Thanks for that explanation. I'm not going to comment on its validity at this time but — to clear up accusations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT — could you please post a diff of when you previously posted that explanation on this talk page, as you say you have done? Thanks, --RA () 17:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't raise that precise fractal detail before (I wouldn't think a pretty darn simple and straightforward BLP action should be expected to require an undergraduate 101-level course in transgender issues posted in the edit summary box), but it was certainly a component of the rationale, - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. But you did previously explain why you believed having the article at Bradley Manning was a violation of BLP policy, as you say you have? Could you please post a diff to where you previously explained why you believe having this article at that title was a violation of BLP policy? Thanks, --RA () 21:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY as has routinely been applied to transgender article subjects before, and yes I have, and you can dredge my edit history as well as I can. It might even still be on this page. At this stage this feels like a Gish gallop, where requests are quickly fired off that are lots of work to answer. I've answered your question, and there isn't an implicit need for me to then produce a diff saying the precise version of it you just thought of - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
We have reliable sources calling this person Bradley Manning, it is not up for Wikipedia to take a POV stance in a heated debate as I have said before. As for the spirit of WP:BLP what you said has no merit and is more of a personal opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
But we don't copy verbatim what is in the reliable sources, what we do is we read the information present in the reliable sources and the we apply our policies in order to present that information in an appropriate way. It can then happen that while the reliable sources make the editorial judgement to use "Bradley" for the name, that we end up using "Chelsea", based on the information that is in these very same sources. What is relevant for us w.r.t. what name to use is that Manning has decided to call herself "Chelsea" based on her gender identity issue that she has been dealing with. Once this is solidly established from multiple reliable sources, we have to use our own BLP policies for our own editorial decisions. Count Iblis (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Titling the article "Bradley" would itself be a POV stance. So if there is no truly NPOV solution at all, then we have to look at the other evidence to determine which solution gets the closest to NPOV.
Firstly, gender dysphoria is medically recognized as being a real thing, with real causes and real symptoms, for which the only recognized treatment that exists is for the person to change their external presentation to match the internal identity. So whether you personally understand the phenomenon or not, NPOV requires us to accept that those things are true.
Secondly, it is not possible to impose additional conditions on recognition of a transgender person's chosen identity and name. You will never have any way of being able to properly verify in reliable sources whether the person has met those conditions or not — you do not have a right to access her medical records to determine when she's had enough surgery to meet your standards, and you certainly do not have a right to walk up to her in person and demand to see for yourself whether she still has a penis or not. You do not have a right to access her legal records to see whether her legal name change has gone through or not. So whether you personally understand it or not, NPOV requires us to accept that simply cannot impose extra conditions for which we will never have any way of being able to properly verify whether she's met them or not.
Finally, the reason the dreaded word "transphobia" keeps coming up on this page is that it is an inherently transphobic act to call a transgender person anything but her chosen name once she's announced that. You can believe you have a million non-transphobic reasons for doing it, but it still is a transphobic thing to do. And since WP:BLP requires us to write our articles from a perspective of respect for the subject, we simply cannot write about her from a transphobic perspective. Which means that while we obviously have to acknowledge the existence of her former name, we simply cannot give it priority over her chosen name in any way whatsoever — because doing so is an act of transphobia in and of itself.
So for all of those reasons, the only option that satisfies NPOV, or BLP, is to use her chosen name, and that includes as the page's title. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, you'll see that under Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5#Wheel warring?, I said BLP violations are generally exempt from [the wheel-warring] policy, and although one of our interpretations (that having the article title at Bradley Manning is or is not a BLP violation) would ultimately reach consensus, I don't think either of them are unreasonable. So, it isn't about me disagreeing with your impression that the Bradley title was a BLP violation (which, of course, I do), but rather you explaining why you felt it was one.
Putting aside the fact that you have not communicated the point you presented here ad nauseum (and most certainly not at Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5#Wheel warring?), what you just said now is obviously simply a personal opinion, not a demonstration of how BLP could be construed as vindicating you from wheel-warring. Sometimes I wonder if people actually read BLP before invoking it; contrary to popular belief, it's not "Don't put anything in biographies of living persons that the subject may not want." That this is the best explanation you can provide after having been given three days to do so speaks volumes. Of course, I'm not going to press you on this further, as it's sufficiently clear why you really performed the move, and requesting you to expound on the alleged clear violation in the Bradley Manning name is fruitless. I'll see how this is addressed, to the extent that it hasn't already been, in the closing statement. -- tariqabjotu 17:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I just spent 2 hours reading BLP, and a multitude of links spawned from that page. It seems to me that those citing "BLP" violations for Manning are saying the use of "Bradley" is offensive. Be that as it may, is the use "contentious"? Even if it were, the use of "Bradley" is extremely well sourced in the media, which alleviates any "contention" issues. Furthermore, the style guideline for gender identity is a mess; While the desire to respect a subjects wishes about how they are engendered may be hunky dory, it only serves to muddy the waters when reading an article like this. The style, when used should require that the person being discussed desires to be misgendered. This is even more important for people that regender themselves after being well known.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason why I feel that WP:BLP says nothing about this case is that if we were to respect this person's desire for a name change when the media is using the other how far does it go? Where is the cutoff? Throwing a what if here but if the person was known for murdering lets say 20 children do we respect that person;s wishes if he wants to be known as a saint? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
No, this is covered in WP:BLP - that would be a clearly notable negative detail. But gratuitous (avoidable, easy not to do, achieves nothing to do) misgendering is a bad thing, and I knew it was a bad thing, so it behooved me to act on it from BLP concerns. Wikipedia gains nothing from the gratuitous misgendering and the subject loses, hence it seemed obvious - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
When there is a recognized and legitimate medical condition in which a person who has murdered 20 children can actually be a saint inside, for which the only treatment that even exists is for the person to live as and be recognized as a saint, then maybe that'll be a valid and useful comparison to the recognized and legitimate medical condition of gender dysphoria. Until that day arrives, however, your hypothetical child murdering saint has no bearing on or relevance to the matter at hand. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Like with all Slippery slopes, the answer is to be polite when the request is reasonable (e.g. naming a transperson as they wish) and not proceeding down the slope into the unreasonable (e.g. an infanticidal maniac that would rather you didn't mention their indiscretions) Chris Smowton (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Time for formal mediation?

The discussion of the last 3 days has gone a bit over 2 000 comment edits and a 1MB long talk page, and just figuring out the different positions or established arguments for and against each position is almost impossible. Moving this to a formal mediation would put some structure into the discussion, focus the issue down to specific questions, and put a third party to lead the discussion. Belorn (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, don't you, that User:BD2412, has volunteered to close the move discussion at the end of the discussion period? See User:BD2412/sandbox2 - the situation seems to be well in hand. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I did not know. Out of the 2000 - 2500 edits, I only been able to go through a subset to get a general feel. Thanks for pointing out the sandbox. Belorn (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's right at the top of the move discussion: #Administrative notes. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Given that people have used the media to bring attention to this issue;and given one person warned that anyone who moved the article back (or assumedly any admin who ruled it should be moved back) would become a "minor celebrity" (and even be outed if they use a handle?), I hope that anyone volunteering to be the mediator will be aware of this issue and discourage bringing media attention to the issue for partisan reasons, whatever that partisanship might be. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ

I have gone ahead and added the round in circles template to the top of the page, PLEASE only place questions that were answered then closed there, thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a few, please take a look and change if you disagree. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion about length of page

The page is getting hard to load, so how about moving all discussion about the title and pronoun, including the RM, to Talk:Chelsea Manning/Title and pronoun? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Which would be the entire page, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps just the title discussion could be moved then. When the page is unprotected, there are going to be ordinary editing concerns, and the talk page is hard to load and navigate. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the title which is the central discussion here I have also noticed repeated discussions of MOS:IDENTITY and the pronouns debate, I feel that is the part that should be split off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit update: Oh sorry was confused, you should take the wording Title out as it implies the move discussion, - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of the things here can be manually archived, I have updated the FAQ and added answers to closed discussions that have gone in circles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate to lump discussion about the article's title together with discussion about the article's content (pronouns, etc.). I get the feeling some people are confused about the two and find them hard to separate in their minds as it is. I think Knowledgekid87's suggestion (sub-page only the pronouns discussion) - because the move discussion is a headline issue for the next 7 days and so should appear on the main talk page - is better but I'm happy to see either or both sub-paged so long as it is separately. --RA () 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Let's have one sub-page devoted to pronouns, since that seems to attract a lot of attention, and move the whole move request to another sub-page. that will make things more manageable and hopefully avoid some edit conflicts, and help in grouping discussions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning and Adrian Lamo => Lamo's approach to FBI [correction]


Hello,

Although it has been frequently misreported that my initial contact and subsequent collaboration in the instant case was /w FBI, this is not factually correct - I believe Al Jazeera most prominently circulated this error.

My initial contact and subsequent collaboration with the investigation, formal and informal, was with the US Army. My first contact was with Army Counterintelligence and subsequently /w USACIDC.

Because this was predominantly an Army/DoD concern in the beginning, contacting FBI did not seem appropriate. FBI had representatives at many relevant meetings, but so did State Dept. and other government agencies.

In order to avoid having my history /w FBI overshadow or color the initial investigation, I requested FBI find agents who had not been involved with or proximate to my 2003/2004 case, and I initially asked them to recuse themselves until I was comfortable that this request had been honored.

Given FBI's National Security Branch's legitimate & ongoing interest in the case I did not object to their subsequent presence or subsequent involvement of other government agencies, but USACIDC remained my formal and continuing liaison /w the exception of testimony scheduling & related issues which were handled by JAG.

A suggested citation for the basic underlying facts of this clarification is http://gizmodo.com/5591905/wikileaks-critic-adrian-lamo-defends-manning-decision.

I offer this as a factual correction only, not to bolster any interagency turf kerfuffles - FBI maintained and maintains a substantial & meaningful involvement in other angles of the instant case, just not this one.

Comments in this space inconsistent /w BLP discussion guidelines will not be answered. Thank you for your understanding.


User:Adrian/zap2.js 19:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you suggest the text be amended? I've added an edit request template to this section because the article is currently locked. --RA () 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
/s/FBI/military authorities might be the best way to put it. Also with the clarification that I did not contact the FBI, but rather asked Webster and Uber to contact Army CI & CID, respectively, on my behalf. Given the exigent circumstances, I wanted to avoid having who I was overshadow what I was reporting as much as possible; it seemed like the prudent way to accomplish that.
I assume the FBI was subsequently contacted by somebody at the Army or DoD, in the longstanding tradition of agents & agencies everywhere of scaring up as many other people and entities as possible to share blame with when disaster strikes.
User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Using the Gizmodo source above, would the following be the smallest possible change that would reflect your chain of events:

"...Lamo contacted the FBImilitary authorities shortly after the first chat on May 21; ... Lamo met with FBI and Army investigators on May 25 in California, and showed them the chat logs..."

--RA () 22:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Something like that would work, although it might bear clarifying that pretty much every USG agency with an interest in the matter was represented at some point or another, though the FBI was among the most frequent attendees. Thanks for giving it thought. :)
User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If there are not objections to making the change above, I (or anyone else willing to do it) will go ahead and make it. Any objections? --RA () 01:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think a better source is needed. The cited Gizmodo article is based on an interview with Adrian Lamo himself and that makes his claim self sourced which is less than ideal. Space simian (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You can always just say "In an interview with Lamo, he stated that xxx" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading the above thread and finding a source cite to the Army Times substantiating that the initial contact was with Army Counterintelligence, I made this edit in an effort to remedy the concern. Within the constraint of the sourcing, how accurate is it now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)