Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 15


Better reference for war logs leak

The 2nd paragraph of the lead section says Manning leaked, among other things, the Afghan War logs and Iraq War logs. I think Manning being the source of the war logs leak was long assumed, but it wasn't confirmed until Manning's admission on page 16 of his 29 January 2013 statement to the court.

The only citation currently given for the entire set of leaked materials is "Leigh and Harding 2011, pp. 194ff, 211. For Manning's referring to the documents, see Poulsen and Zetter, 6 June 2010." Well, those sources don't seem to support the portion of the claim pertaining to the war logs. The latter reference is a Wired article that makes no mention of the war logs; it only discusses the Baghdad video, the Granai video, the 2008 Army report blasting Wikileaks, and the diplomatic cables. Leigh & Harding's book likewise, as far as I can tell from skimming the relevant chapter, doesn't explicitly tie Manning to the war logs, either.

So, I feel we should modify the placement and content of the existing reference so that it doesn't apply to the war logs, and then use Manning's own statement as the reference for the war logs—i.e., change this:

The material included videos of the [[July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike]] and the 2009 [[Granai airstrike]] in Afghanistan; 250,000 [[United States diplomatic cables leak|United States diplomatic cables]]; and 500,000 army reports that came to be known as the [[Iraq War documents leak|Iraq War logs]] and [[Afghan War documents leak|Afghan War logs]].<ref name=Leigh2011p194/> Much of the material was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010.<ref name=Leigh2011p194>Leigh and Harding 2011, pp. 194ff, 211. * For Manning's referring to the documents, see [ Poulsen and Zetter, 6 June 2010].</ref>

to this:

The material included videos of the [[July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike]] and the 2009 [[Granai airstrike]] in Afghanistan; 250,000 [[United States diplomatic cables leak|United States diplomatic cables]];<ref name=Leigh2011p194/><ref>Poulsen and Zetter, 6 June 2010</ref> and 500,000 army reports that came to be known as the [[Iraq War documents leak|Iraq War logs]] and [[Afghan War documents leak|Afghan War logs]].<ref name=ProvidenceStatement>{{cite web|url= |title=Statement in Support of Providence Inquiry |date=29 January 2013}}</ref> Much of the material was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010.<ref name=Leigh2011p194>Leigh and Harding 2011, pp. 194ff, 211.</ref>

Then, in the "Granai airstrike" section, replace the first reference with <ref name=ProvidenceStatement/>.

mjb (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is everyone ok with this change? If there is no opposition in the next couple of days, I will add it to the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be keen on that because it adds unnecessary footnotes to the lead. (The article is a GA and I was hoping to get it to FA, which is why I'm concerned about style issues.) I didn't quite follow Mjb's point about the need for an additional source, but if there is a need, the sources are bundled, so an extra source can be added to the bundle. The first footnote (ref name=Leigh2011p194) can be removed because it repeats the second. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for considering the request. The placement of references is flexible, of course, but I don't see how adding a reference is unnecessary. The problem is that there currently seem to be no references which actually support the claim that Manning leaked the war logs; the ones given only deal with other leaked material. If there's a better all-encompassing source to use, let's use it, but in a BLP we shouldn't say she leaked the war logs, and provide nothing to back it up. —mjb (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The lead is adequately sourced. The rest of the sources for that point are in the body of the article; not every detail in the lead has to be sourced. See WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've added an additional source here to the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Your addition of the bullet point "For the Afghan and Iraq War logs, see Nicks 2012, p. 137." should be fine. Maybe also change "For Manning's referring to the documents" to "For Manning's referring to other documents"? Either way, thanks! —mjb (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

When Bradley becomes Chelsea

The question of transitioning from one gender to another raises some thorny questions. The day after sentencing, Manning said that she wanted to be referred to as a woman from this day forward. So what do we do with events in Manning's life before this fateful day? This quotation from a CBS report may offer food for thought:

Coombs said Manning knows there is the potential for confusion with the name change, and said Manning expects to be referred to as Bradley when it has to do with events prior to sentencing, the appeal of the court-martial and the request for a presidential pardon. Prison mail must be addressed to Bradley Manning. "There's a realization that most people know her as Bradley," Coombs said. "Chelsea is a realist and understands."


My own feeling is that we could take this as suggesting that everything before the day of the announcement belongs to Bradley, and all references from that day forward belong to Chelsea. I think this may be helpful, especially as at one stage, Bradley identified as a gay man. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it was a resignation to the state of affairs, not an encouragement to do so - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the above excerpt is evidence that the "distress" argument for keeping the new title of Chelsea Manning isn't valid. Note the part,
"There's a realization that most people know her as Bradley," Coombs said. "Chelsea is a realist and understands."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a bit ambiguous whether "expects" means "wants" or "realizes". AgnosticAphid talk 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It can be read two ways, I agree. However, I would like people to consider an analogous case where Christine Jorgensen described herself as a "frail, blond, introverted little boy who ran from fistfights and rough-and-tumble games." I think you would have to agree that Jorgensen was comfortable with having been a little boy who changed into a female. Now I know we can't apply this directly to Chelsea Manning. However, we cannot discount the possibility that when it says, " Manning expects to be referred to as Bradley when it has to do with events prior to sentencing" that Chelsea does want this to happen. Whatever else Manning might be, she is no shrinking violet, and if she wanted to be viewed as female all along she would have had no hesitation in saying so. Instead, she used a from this day forward wording in her announcement. Michael Glass (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia however already has a protocol for living people that if they state their gender identity we refer to them as their latest identity throughout their lives. This is further confirmed by Chelsea's own statement that she has felt gender dysphoric her whole life, that is she has always felt she was a woman or at least at odds with living as a male. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

New York Times flips

Just a note that the New York Times has flipped to using "Chelsea Manning" at this point. [1] The Washington Post has also started using Chelsea. As has the AP. What major media sources are left holding out? CNN is, I know. Is there anything else major that's still using "Bradley?" If not, I would point out that WP:COMMONNAME says "if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." Given a change in the majority of reliable sources, how is it that there is still a dispute here, exactly? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to where The Washington Post has started using Chelsea? I just keep getting a lot of AP wire articles. As to a few other sources, see #References to Manning in sources (among them, the BBC). You admit you don't seem to be abreast of who is using which name, so it seems odd to me that you'd conclude, absent such information, that a "majority of reliable sources" now call the subject Chelsea. I understand some people hold the AP and the New York Times to such high esteem that they'd base common name solely upon those two sources, but it's inconclusive at this point what a majority of sources are doing. -- tariqabjotu 20:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
[2] Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not The Washington Post using the name Chelsea. The way I read the title it's "[The use/request/idea of the name] Chelsea Manning puts transgender issues in the spotlight", not that the individual is. You'll see in the photo caption, the author still calls the subject Bradley Manning. In the linked photo gallery, the subject is still called Bradley Manning. This is why the sources need to be about something other than the gender identity change; it needs to be clear the source is referring to Manning as Chelsea in passing, not as an idea in reference to the gender identity change. Unfortunately, I can't find any source from the Washington Post written since August 22 that's not an AP wire story. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a more recent article, as is this, but the latter only mentions Chelsea in passing and doesn't use any pronouns. Note: I'm no AP expert, but though the first link is an AP story couldn't they have changed the pronouns and names if they wanted? Maybe the first link isn't that relevant. AgnosticAphid talk 21:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
They're both AP stories. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You know, though I supported the use of "Bradley", at the same time I acknowledge there may come a day when "Chelsea" is the name supported by a majority of reliable sources. When that day comes, the correct title for the article will be "Chelsea" per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think that day has come yet and I definitely don't think the title of article should have been changed several days ago (before the AP and NYT made the switch). Let's wait a month and reassess. NickCT (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
A month?!?!?! That's an unheard of wait for a name change like this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
re "That's an unheard of wait" - Citation needed! Can you point to other examples of name changes like this one which were enacted so quickly after the individual announced a name change? NickCT (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've done so up thread, actually, and the same set of three is covered in David Gerard and Morwen's summary of their reasoning. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Instead of citing a wall of text, why not give examples? NickCT (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
By chance, just before you wrote this I replied to you in an older section showing why WP:COMMONNAME + MOS:IDENTITY supported the current title even before the AP and NTY switch. That's not to mention BLP, which fully justified David Gerrad's bold actions. I dont see how we can possibly change from Chelsea, unless we want to tear up policy and decide things based on majority voting? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@FeydHuxtable - If you read through the conversations above you'll probably note some degree of consensus surrounding the idea that WP:COMMONNAME supports the use of "Bradley". Furthermore, as has been hashed out again and again MOS:IDENTITY isn't really intended to influence article titles. Additionally, no one has brought up a good explanation for how WP:BLP applies. NickCT (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's been stated, incorrectly: Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles.2C_headings.2C_and_sections states explicitly, "The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly in the section below on punctuation, applies to all parts of an article, including the title." - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"The guidance" in MOS:IDENT relates to the use of pronouns. If a pronoun was used in this articles title, I'd agree it should be "she" rather than "he" based on policy. There is no pronoun in this title. NickCT (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If we look at the views of experienced editor who actually wrote our guidelines, like Morwen who was one of the authors of the document in question, or SlimVirgin who is arguably the single editor most responsible for shaping content policy, they both seem to believe MOS:IDENTITY supports Chelsea. Your claim to know the guidelines intention better than they do is not convincing Im afraid. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
My claim is that I can read English and have basic reasoning skills. Please point out for me where MOS:IDENT says it deals with something other than pronouns. NickCT (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
BLP application has been explained several times already. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Sportfan5000 - Outside a few folks claiming that calling him Bradley is "sexual harrasment", I haven't seen anyone really point to which section of WP:BLP they feel is at issue. NickCT (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a whole section devoted to it at Talk:Chelsea_Manning#WP:BLP. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sportfan5000 is correct, but as NickCT's user page says he enjoys dialectics , I'll try showing how BLP applies in a way he may like. The spirit of BLP is concerned with protecting living people from suffering undue harm from changes made to their articles by uncaring anonymous accounts. Calling Chelsea by a name that misrepresents her gender and would very likely be harmful, possibly grievously so, as the poor woman seems to be already under severe mental stress. Syllogisms don't get much simpler, but if you're still not convinced, remember that recognized BLP experts right up to Jimbo have weighed in for Chelsea. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
re "uncaring anonymous accounts" - So your argument then is that everyone arguing a "support" position is uncaring and anonymous? Ok. So I think we can dismiss that.
re "misrepresents her gender and would very likely be harmful" - So I take it you think that parents who don't give their kids gender appropriate names are harming their children grievously? Right.... We can dismiss that too.
re "recognized BLP experts up to Jimbo" - Citation needed. Can you point some source that recognizes Jimbo as an expert in WP:BLP? I presume you have eyes and can read. Go look at BLP yourself and tell me which sections apply. Unfortunately, a lot of people think WP:BLP means we can't say things about people that those people might dislike. It does not say that. NickCT (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
If a child is already facing adversary for other reasons, then yes it could cause grievous psychological harm if their parents add to their troubles by giving them a name that misrepresents gender. Im not at all saying that all support voters are uncaring (Nor do I even suspect that.) Claiming I do from my description of the spirit of BLP is a logical fallacy. Some of your other questions have no concise and clear answer, but I hope you'll understand I dont want to further add to the size of this page given these basic logical misunderstandings. With reliable sources increasingly switching to Chelsea, the already weak case for the wrong name is collapsing, and it's not necessary for every last objector to be convinced. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess it's also not necessary to convince the majority of folks who have weighed in in support of "Bradley". "every last objector"? Really.... There seems to be some difficult grasping reality here. NickCT (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
@Sportfan5000 Have you actually read that section? It makes somewhat weird cliams, like this issue somehow relates to the "subject's privacy.". I see no obvious way in which the title of this article relates to Manning's privacy. Do you? Stop guessing at which policies you think might support your opinion and point to actual passages. NickCT (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This has already been covered extensively so I encourage you to read up on what others have said. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of the applicability of many of the discussions of WP:COMMONNAME from several days ago. The situation has been evolving quickly, and more and more news sources have been switching to "Chelsea." What seemed a fairly even split in the immediate aftermath has become increasingly slanted towards Chelsea over the last day or two. Some of the earlier !votes are, simply put, obsolete. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
re " increasingly slanted towards Chelsea over the last day or two" - Agreed. That does seem to be the way the tide is turning, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or month's time the WP:COMMONNAME argument clearly supports "Chelsea". That said, WP:COMMONNAME didn't support "Chelsea" 5 days ago (when this change was initially made). NickCT (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not really sure what the value of discussing where the article should be five days ago is. We can't move the article five days ago, and if COMMONNAME is now pointing towards Chelsea that matters rather more than where it pointed five days ago. I mean, if people want to take David or Morwen to the ArbCom over five days ago, I suppose they can, but that's about the only forum where the correct location of the article as of five days ago seems relevant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Phil Sandifer - Well look. You seem willing to accept that the initial move was probably bad. I may agree with you that the world seems to begun to catch up with WP's bad decision, so a move back isn't necessary, but I think the right thing to do here is acknowledge the initial mistake, move the page back to Bradley and then reassess. I still don't think we can confidently say the majority of RS have made the switch, though it might very well end up that we move to "Bradley" just for a couple weeks. NickCT (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I am terribly unpersuaded by the idea that there's some hazy fog of war here. Even if it is somewhere near an even split... we have sources that are somewhere between an even split and settled on Chelsea, a MOS that says to use Chelsea, BLP policy that says to avoid harm to the subject (which misgendering and misnaming both count as), and the past precedent in less politicized cases of prompt changes. The case for locating the article at "Bradley Manning" for any length of time seems terribly strained to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The MOS issue has been covered. It doesn't say we should use Chelsea. And no one has given a good explanation as to exactly how BLP applies. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
COMMONNAME also points back to the five criteria in the preceding section. It also says When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Even as some sources have made the switch, and -- as I said -- it's still questionable which name most sources use now, there remain issues of recognizable and naturalness (which, after all, are issues of how common a name is) with the name "Chelsea Manning". How big those issues are, whether those issues constitute "problems", is, of course, subjective, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount early supporting remarks referencing WP:COMMONNAME. -- tariqabjotu 02:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The closer, of course, will want to make a case by case judgment. Still, comments talking about lack of reliable sources using Chelsea made days ago are rapidly becoming obsolete. This surely counts for something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
At this point most of the articles are related to transgender issues and whether to use the name. The test will be a month from now when there will be little coverage. It is possible that mainstream media opposed to leaking will push Chelsea and the trans sexual issues a) for ratings and b) to downplay the government crimes issues and marginalize Manning's actions. Given that in various email forums and facebook groups I'm on that for years have touted activism for Manning's cause there was an immediate and almost total drop off in commentary following the announcement, it is not surprising that they've renamed the effort Private Manning Support Group. It's not that people are anti-trans, but that the newer issue takes a lot of study for many people to comprehend and feel connected to. And there's another war or two coming, so I already see major Manning supporter groups changing their focus to those issues. We'll see if the LGBT community, which tends to have a lot of pro-military supporters, is willing to take up the slack on the whistleblowing issue at all. In other words, time will tell Wikipedia wise. If WP:RS (not matter how biased) show the historical importance of whistleblowing is just a footnote to Chelsea's transexuality, so be it. User:Carolmooredc 12:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed , I suggest that all the votes requesting renaming the article because of WP:COMMONNAME should be reinterpreted as disagree, given that WP:COMMONNAME now points towards Chelsea Manning. Vexorian (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd second that call, and I'd think that's a factor in the last three days of voting being 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the Chelsea article title, a consensus that, in my view, is more determinate of what the suitable title would be than the early days being back and forth. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no. -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Something tipped the balance in favor of Chelsea during the second half of the poll; since the first half of the debate was a near even split, that means a person looking for a consensus forming will find the last three/four days more fertile ground than the first three. The posters arguing that Bradley was the more well known name had a point a week ago; now I'd venture that point has become irrelevant. The move was done the wrong way, I'd agree, but I think in hindsight it has sent the page to the correct title. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The request that "all the votes requesting renaming the article because of WP:COMMONNAME should be reinterpreted as disagree" or the suggestion that points from a week ago are "irrelevant" is extreme and self-serving. There are still a number of sources, some listed in this thread (the BBC, the Independent, CNN, Reuters) that use the name Chelsea. You have no right to argue that all common name arguments be not just discounted, but taken as acceding to the Chelsea Manning name just because some people are satisfied with the AP and the New York Times' approach. Also, those supporting Chelsea Manning have not outnumbered those supporting Bradley Manning by 2:1 on any day (see User:Tariqabjotu/RM). And it is absurd to suggest that the will of the one-sixth of all participants that have commented since August 27 should decide the outcome of the RM. It seems apparent that more important than straight vote-counting are the arguments of those commenting, and I trust the team deciding the outcome will do that. If you feel confident with the strength of your arguments, you shouldn't have to resort to such extreme suggestions to get your adversaries' positions discounted. -- tariqabjotu 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The closing admins should certainly take the shifting in favor of Chelsea to heart in their deliberations, as they should take policies such as BLP and NPOV and the IDENTITY guideline to heart, it should not be a number counting game. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As they should take into account all policies and guidelines mentioned by participants. There's no reason to campaign here. -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the balance has tipped in favor of Chelsea yet but I think it is a safe bet that it will eventually. Consequently I don't think the commonname argument can be discounted unless !voters have changed the !vote themselves. --Space simian (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Now the Most Famous Transgender Inmate in America

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

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

At the present time you'd have a hard job demonstrating she isn't the highest profile trans* person in the world. How this plays out long term we can't yet know, but it wouldn't surprise me if she remains in the top 10 for a long while. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Which one article provides more excuses to push a political agenda to the foreground rather than reflect what the person is best known for? User:Carolmooredc 12:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. A person can be notable for many things and the trans issues simply are making everyone take pause while some on the religious right go apoplectic because OMG someone is changing their gender identity. Luckily the rest of the world is moving away from those tired views and Wikipedia can simply focus on what reliable sources bring forward. i think she is a major trans celebrity and newsrooms will soon be educating the world on more what it weans to transition and the legal hurdles one faces. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay a "major trans celebrity"? Come on now enough of the personal opinions already. Also what you are saying is WP:CRYSTAL anyways, Manning was more notable as Bradley this is proven by the fact that books have been written about him, as well as the majority of sources that followed the trial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the snide remarks and these aren't just my opinions these are how the rest of the world is moving progressively forward. Gay marriage means that Chelsea can marry the man or woman she chooses, this was simply not true even a few years ago. Chelsea is a transwoman and of course a celebrity, the article points out she is the most famous transgender inmate. Your disagreement is with Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Again they are more of your personal opinions, come to think of it what does this have to do with improving the article if anything? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Your lack of apology is noted. Again facts are not the same as my opinions although my opinions are rooted in factual evidence. As for the article I think we should reflect that when Chelsea came out s a transwoman she became a highly visible member of the trans community and the most famous transgender inmate in the U.S. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I follow what the sources state and i have little doubt that more will write on her influence in shaping mainstream US ideas on what transgenderism is. I do disagree, of course, that a good article would discuss this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
(sorry about the earlier ec) Some are already writing about her, Michael Silverman, Executive Director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund said this; "...Manning may not be the best figure to be the one to help educate the public on trans issues."[3]. Kristin Beck, a former Navy Seal who came out as transgender in June, issued a blistering statement against Manning; [4]Susan Estrich was also highly critical of Manning;[5]. Brynn Tannehill, Director of Advocacy at SPART*A said; “If you’re wondering if she’s being embraced as a hero in the military trans community, she is absolutely not.”[6]. Time will tell if she was a positive or negative influence.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one detailing the connection:


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

Lede too long?

The lede is one paragraph too long. Per WP:LEAD, amount of paragraphs must be no more than four. Perhaps details might not be mentioned elsewhere besides lede. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is an ironclad rule; the Hillary Rodham Clinton article has a five paragraph lead, despite repeated objections on this basis, because everyone there seems to think that each of the paragraphs deals with a particular and distinct part of her life. And the rule doesn't say that the "amount of paragraphs must be no more than four," it says "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs." I personally think that here too each paragraph deals with a distinct and important issue. YMMV. AgnosticAphid talk 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If all of the information currently in the lead is to be retained, then I agree that each paragraph is distinct enough to remain separate. However, I don't think that the fifth paragraph is important enough to be in the lead; I think JohnValeron was right to move it. -sche (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The lead should briefly summarize the response to the leaked material and sentence, which is what the final paragraph does. We currently have five paragraphs because the transgender announcement is a separate one. When things die down, that might be incorporated into one of the other paragraphs, or it might not given that it's quite distinct from the other issues. But this is not the right time to make that kind of editorial decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It passed GA with basically the same lead and the reviewer didn't seem to think it was a big deal. Consensus does appear to be fine with it. If it were to go for FA it would probably have to be incorporated into 4.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Other-language wikis

I find it fascinating to see how other-language Wikipedias are dealing with this issue. While I realize this won't be relevant as a deciding factor for the naming of this article, I invite you, if you speak any other languages or can use Google Translate, to peruse the talk pages of this page on other wikis. It's interesting to see which ones have made the switch and which haven't, and what their rationales are. In many cases, the discussion has been almost as vigorous as ours has. Moncrief (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too Moncrief (because people were talking on Facebook and mailing lists about the German, French and I think Swedish discussions) -- and yes, people are saying all the discussions are unusually vigorous. I think that's partly due to Manning being, in general, a famous and controversial figure -- but much more, I think it's specifically tied to the transgender aspect.
Reading this page, it's felt to me like there are two simultaneous overlapping conversations happening here (with many of the same editors involved in both): one narrowly focused on article titles and existing policies, and another about how transgender people are portrayed on WP, in general. And there seems to be very little consensus on the latter, with expressed views ranging from ones that seem to me to be well-researched and thoughtful, versus those that seem more impulsive and not visibly informed by any expertise or research (like the "what if I woke up and wanted to be a dog" stuff).
Now that we know this is a contentious area and one where there's a policy gap, I wonder if it's worth interested people doing some sustained thinking and talking and policy development on trans issues. Or, someone should point me towards policy if it exists and I just don't know about it :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well WP:BLP is the overarching policy, but the MOS:IDENTITY guidance is afaik the only specific thing we have. There is also a WP:Gender identity essay that has relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Since Swedish Wikipedia was mentioned: they moved fairly quickly to Chelsea with the following motivation by user:Riggwelter: "Yes, I had some doubt, but I choose to do it since many other language versions already had made the move. But it is quite possible it was premature" (as translated by me). Swedish media subsequently unanimously declared they would be using Chelsea so it was much more clear-cut. I do not know what is normal for Swedish Wikipedia, but their discussion was nothing compared to this. --Space simian (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Inexplicably the convicted Army private is now referred to as "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" at the start of the article, but the cited Today News article only mentions "Chelsea E. Manning" at the end of the public statement by the private. Where did "Elizabeth" come from? It could as well be Edwina, Ellen, or Elaine. Source? Amythewillowprincess (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page archives, [7] - it may have missed being added while the page was locked - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
While the article was locked, I added the name Elizabeth with a source following an edit request. Following my edit, doubts about the reliability of the sources using the name "Elizabeth" were expressed. I removed the name a short time later as nobody was able to identify where the three (iirc) sources (TheNation which David Gerard cites above, Voice of Russia, and something from Ireland I can't remember the name of off the top of my head) got the name from. Certainly it didn't appear in any statement made by Manning or her lawyer. I'm not awake enough to check for new sources now, but unless it can be ultimately cited to either of those two people or someone equally as close to Manning as her lawyer I'd recommend removing it from the article. Pinging @SlimVirgin: who hunted for sources on that occasion. See Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5#Middle initial. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth was confirmed by the lawyer and the support network a few days after the initial announcement: "PVT Manning ... announced that she would like to begin to be known publicly by the name of Chelsea Elizabeth Manning ..." The source is in the footnote after the name. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent comments from Chelsea Manning on gender identity

Chelsea Manning is now apparently subjected to indoctrination(!!!) and has made some new comments on her gender identity, according to her lawyer David Coombs, who says:

"I also told her about how most responsible media have elected to respect her wishes and refer to her by her new name. Chelsea was very happy to hear of these developments. She requested that I relay how grateful that she is for everyone's understanding and continued support."[8]

Josh Gorand (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is both relevant and requires an incredibly POV "indoctrination" to be thrown around.Cam94509 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
To expand on what I'm saying, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across here, and just because the lawyer says "told her about how most responsible media" doesn't mean that "most responsible media" isn't described somewhere in the conversation between the two. This is public spin, but I highly doubt it is private indoctrination. Cam94509 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Er, if you had read the source at all, you would have noticed that US American prisons subject her to "indoctrination", in itself rather shocking and more reminiscent of North Korea than a western country. The main point was her response to the media using the name Chelsea, this was obviously what she intended, unlike what others have claimed. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you're right. (Why didn't you quote that, as well! I got confused as to what you meant! Nah, my bad. Kidding. Sorry) Uh... Can we get an explanation on what the heck the guardian means by "indoctrination?" Cam94509 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that this amounts to WP:SOAPBOXING - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Indoctrination was a quote from the lawyer. I'm not sure if that's the official term, but it didn't come from the guardian.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Several media have reported that "she goes through the indoctrination process at Fort Leavenworth", whatever that means, but it sounds very sinister and thus noteworthy. Definitely not a normal way to treat a prisoner in most western countries. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a standard procedure new inmates go through after sentencing. In civilian prisons, it's name varies but is commonly referred to as "reception and diagnostics", or "classification". In military prisons, it's called indoctrination, there's nothing sinister about it, just standard operating procedures. She will undergo medical and dental examinations, testing, psychological evaluations and be assigned a custody level. You're also given a book which outlines procedures with the varying details associated with being incarcerated: ie, such as meal times, rec times, rules associated with visiting, filing grievances, expected behavior and conduct, etc. In civilian prisons you are given information about PREA, but I'm not sure if military prisoners receive that pamphlet, if not, they should. Nothing to worry about Josh, she went through military indoctrination when she enlisted. The article said it was only for 3 weeks, which is shorter than most civilian prisons.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a another story with a little more detail, The indoctrination process lasts approximately three weeks and is designed to give a new inmate information on the facility and the opportunities available within the USDB.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"Indoctrination" is a military terminology that is similar to "orientation" in today's civilian American English. Newly enlisted soldiers and officer candidates all go through indoctrination, to learn basic military protocols such as military courtesy. Amythewillowprincess (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic: how to handle disputes over civility

Well, I guess even the section title here noted that this is off-topic. I remind everyone that this talk page IS NOT A FORUM, nor is it a general help desk.
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.

How are we supposed to handle these disputes, beyond contacting the other editor and trying to find a resolution? If someone else could step in, it might help, but the regular third-party procedure is apparently limited to content disputes and not simple civility disputes [of course several of the content disputes also involve civility disputes]. (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    • what do I do if someone keeps lying about me to win arguments?

Hello IP 173. There are different ways to address civility issues (of some severity), for instance ANI. Right now there is also a so-called request for arbitration case opened. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Either seems over-the-top for this, and the arbitration is a separate case, and I don't think I can participate in it. Shouldn't there be some middle ground between contacting the other editor and going to administrators? (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There are some informtaion and suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Space simian (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

it makes the most sense for the title be "Bradley Manning" well the actual page text refers to her as Chelsea, does any one actually agree with that?

1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


Please read the result of the Requested move, this has also gone to ARBCOM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why are we using the wrong name for her? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please back away from the horse. It died a while ago. Beatings of it (and re-re-re-re-rehashings of this subject) should not resume for 1 month, per the three-admin panel which closed the extremely lengthy move request which resulted in Wikipedia "using the wrong name for her". -sche (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion closed, please carry on here as you wish.

The formal move discussion is closed and pending review by the three-admin panel; anyone who wishes to keep discussing the matter is free to do so, just not within the parameters of the closed discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the comment I was writing as the section was moved:
NickCT, no one is suggesting removing Bradley from the Chelsea BLP, which would be the equivalent to the "criminal" suggestion that you have made. I am also not suggesting avoiding objective decision making, I was critical of abstract decision making which omits consideration of the individuals involved. Chelsea is a living person as are our transgendered editors. Considering individuals effected by decision is not inconsistent with objectivity. As for tall editors, you are minimising or dismissing the suffering of misunderstood and marginalised individuals subject to prejudice and ridicule. Being careful with gay BLPs in part in recognition of the difficulties faced by gay editors, or of transgendered BLPs, or of Islamic BLPs, strikes me as reasonable and appropriate. We should pay special attention because treating marginalised editors with respect and dignity encourages ongoing editing (on a pragmatic level) and represents our values as a community (on the level of principle). I believe in tolerance, mutual respect, decency, etc, and I hope that my actions towards others reflect my values and those of the WP community. EdChem (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@EdChem - re "misunderstood and marginalised individuals subject to prejudice and ridicule" - Look. This statement is clearly driven out of sentiment and POV, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what WP is about. I'd be happy to agree with you that "transphobia" (or whatever the heck we want to call it) and persecution exists; regardless of that, your or my feelings about how the trans community is treated are completely irrelevant to, and should be completely independent from, what goes on to WP. WP is not a forum to highlight or correct a transphobic society. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments make it obvious you want to treat it as such. NickCT (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the statement EdChem is making. EdChem is not advocating that wikipedia be used as a vehicle of propaganda, rather, I think the assertion is that enforcing policies in an unnecessarily discriminatory manner is a mistake, and that WP:IAR should be used if policies are going to behave that way. The assertion that seems to be being made is that failing to use WP:IAR in cases like this is a violation of "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility" from WP:5. EdChem, have I adequately explained what you meant, or am I totally off base here?Cam94509 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nick, yout post is directed towards me as a person rather than towards my argument, it is an example of playing the man rather than the ball, and it suggests to me that addressing my argument is difficult. If you want to argue that I do not understand WP, that I am motivated by sentiment and POV, and that my feelings about treatment of transgendered individuals (rather than policy and WP practice) are leading me to soapboxing, then I invite you to review my contributions. Present some evidence that my editing of WP demonstrates POV, sentimenet, and a lack of understanding of WP. As Cam notes, I am not advocating propaganda. I will attempt to restate my views with explicit links to policy, in the hope that readers and other editors may better comprehend that my position is based in policy and the RS evidence of the transgender community.

1. BLP (a policy supported by Foundation declaration) mandates careful editing in relation to living people. It relates not only to article subjects but also to editors. Fact supported by reliable sources must be included in the article but the presentation of fact must be done with awareness of the mandates of BLP.

2. RS (a policy included within NPOV in the 5 pillars) include substantial notable material on Chelsea when she was known as Bradley and that needs to be included. Chelsea's transition does not alter the relevance of these materials for the biography, nor the requirement for a neutral presentation.

3. RS on the experience of transgendered individuals have reached scientific consensus that these individuals typically suffer while their gender and anatomy are inconsistent, that they struggle with gender identity for a long time prior to publicly begining transition, and that refusals to respect or recognise their gender are harmful. These facts are relevant to considering how to present BLPs. MOS:IDENTITY reflects this in its discussion of pronouns, and the same reasoning is applicable to the article title.

4. Guidelines like COMMONNAME provide useful guidance but do not control the outcome of every move discussion. In this case, there is an argument for Bradley based on sources (though it is weakening) but that argument is subordinate to the BLP issue to not deliberately and knowingly disrespect the experience of transgendered individuals including Chelsea. We have a pillar (IAR) which mandates that the "principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception." My feelings on the transgendered community and about transphobia are indeed irrelevant; however, RS evidence on the harm to transgendered individuals of refusing to recognise their gender is relevant per BLP.

5. As Cam94509 notes, the civility pillar is also a relevant consideration as discrimination against one individual in a marginalised community harms others in the community (including those in our editing community). This pillar embodies the principle that prejudice towards fellow editors is unacceptable as it is inconsistent with the values of the WP community. Abstract decision making that looks only at literal wordings of policy / guidelines and does not give due consideration to the individuals involved, to our guiding principles and values, and to the 'big picture', is poor decision making. Policy enforcement should not occur in a vacuum, and in this case the context includes RS on transgenderism, a transgendered individual BLP subject, other transgendered editors (also living people), and a community built on mutual respect.

Nick, I accept that many other editors may disagree with my views and policy interpretation, but I would appreciate you acknowledging that my position is based in principle and policy and not advocacy inconsistent with the WP ethos. EdChem (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So out of curiosity, when you said "misunderstood and marginalized individuals subject to prejudice and ridicule", would you say that was policy driven argument or a sentiment driven argument?
I agree with your interpretation of a number of the policies you've cited, but simply repeating rules isn't enough. You've got to show how the rules actually apply to the case. Sure BLP "mandates careful editing in relation to living people.", but how does that apply to the title of this article?
As has been mentioned a number of times, it's really really obvious how WP:COMMONNAME applies. Not so clear how people are trying to apply WP:BLP or MOS:ident. NickCT (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Nick, that transgendered individuals are misunderstood, experience marginalisation, are subject to prejudice, and experience ridicule are all observations of fact supportable with reliable sources. My belief that such individuals should be treated with sensitivity reflects policy stated in BLP and CIV (when considering fellow editors), both of which flow from the 5 pillars. My comment may have been expressed in terms that were more emotive than detached and dispassionate, but they remained based in policy.

It is abundantly clear how BLP applies so long as the IAR pillar's direction that "principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording" is considered. Titling an article on a transgendered individual with a name s/he has chosen to transition away from is clearly disrespecting the individual, denying his or her experience of a disconnect between gender and anatomy, and needlessly harmful. Avoiding causing needless harm to living people sits squarely within the auspices of the BLP policy. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And here is the comment I made to user:Space simian which I was writing at the same time as BD2412 was declaring no further discussion allowed, and which was reverted by Tariqabjotu. EdChem (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be hypocritical not to, but I don't expect WP to agree since most editors seems to rely more on gut feelings (or admin power) than rational arguments and established policy. --Space simian (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Policy was clear on this, as mentioned several times: policy on how to choose page title is to pick the name for which something is most well known. The WP:BLP argument is wrong: BLP stress the importances of being fair and exercise extra care to make sure any controversial claims are notable and supported by reliable sources (i.e. "true") considering the harm libelous/slanderous material can cause. MOS:IDENTITY is recently added guideline, while wise, it doesn't say anything about title, actually it defers that question to WP:TITLE. That said, policy can be wrong and may need to be updated but there can be little (rational) doubt as to what policy dictated at the time of the move.

Whether you support their cause or not Wikipedia was hijacked by activists, evident among other things by wheel warring ignoring WP:BRD and repeated soapboxing in media. This damages Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia and that is what is most unfortunate. I suppose many administrators decided to turn a blind eye to the misconduct here because they sympathize with the plight of transgender persons (like I do, I should probably add) and are afraid of being labeled transphobic or otherwise bullied, but it might also have been in their interest to take focus away from Manning's whistle-blowing, perhaps it was a bit of both.

Wikipedia surrendering to activism isn't new, it's been going on for years, what is sad is that for the most part it is taking place in less visible places and motivated by less noble causes, often nothing but self serving corporate propaganda. Since everyone is fine with willfully ignoring both policy and standard procedure whenever it suits their interests, it will continue to be up to serious editors to fend for themselves as best they can. --Space simian (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:SOAP, WP:POVPUSH, WP:POINT, and WP:TITLECHANGES the whole thing was wrong. Wikipedia should have Stayed out of it If we had and the reliable sources switched to using Chelsea then we would have moved the page anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Those links are apt in that they support the pointedly offensive position that Chelsea is not allowed to speak her own truth about her gender identity, that she is not allowed to be respected as a living person, and that everyone who does not follow a radically conservative understanding of what gender is remains villainous. I'm glad Wikipedia is on the right side of history on this one. I see no reason to prolong the entrenched cultural warfare being espoused on this matter. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Space simian, it is true that BLP dictates we avoid causing unnecessary harm to individuals. It is true that refusing to recognise the transition of a transgendered individual by using a pre-transition name is harmful to that individual and to others in the transgendered community. Why does it not follow that titling the article at Chelsea's pre-transition name is inconsistent with BLP? EdChem (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just curious but when does the transition take place? is it right after the person declares that they want a female name? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Case by case basis but as a general rule whenever the person decides it's time to live as they understand themselves in a new light. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, transition is a process that occurs over time rather than an event at an identifiable point. Chelsea would have gone through an awareness of something feeling wrong, a recognition and acceptance of her gender, a decision to begin adopting characteristics of her gender, disclosing to close friends and family, seeking help / support, public disclosure, maybe reassignment surgery... The point at which WP should reflect the transition is an easier question, that is the point at which RS provide a verified public declaration. Chelsea has been transitioning for a long time and has reached the point of public disclosure and seeking to live openly as the woman she is, and I believe BLP dictates we respect her declaration. EdChem (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia titles does not reflect a persons actual name, it's not used to address the subject nor indicate this is what Wikipedia think others should call them, it is simply the name for which someone has been best known. We cannot change the unfortunate fact that Chelsea has become best known as Bradley. The article content itself indicate that Wikipedia respect her new name and her gender by using both per MOS:IDENTITY. Taken together I do not see how anyone can say we do not want to recognize the transition. I can see how one could mistakenly think so, which is why I in the end agree that policy should be changed so as to minimize the risk of offending/hurting someone. WP:BLP doesn't say we should minimize harm, plenty of BLPs can be said to cause harm, it is accepted if the information is considered notable and can be supported by reliable sources. --Space simian (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, so, can you cut the personal attacks out, say, as of 23:41, 29 August 2013? Thanks! Wikipedia wasn't "Hijacked by activists", it was just edited by people who 1) disagreed with you, and 2) were operating per numerous previous decisions that had been made in past. Cam94509 (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with them, but not how they went about getting it done. --Space simian (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Lt. Col. (formerly James)/Jennifer N. Pritzker

Why is there so much indignation here about Manning being referred to with her chosen name/ gender identity and associated pronouns, but no one objected at all to Pritzker's article being titled and given pronouns per Pritzker's considerable news coverage (real estate tycoon, billionare, museum founder) prior to Pritzker's recent gender change announcement? It would seem inconsistent if Wikipedia winds up with one gender in the Manning article and another in the Pritzker article when our sages finish pondering the RM comments. Edison (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC

Depends on the reliable sources used, Bradley is known more for the wikileaks crime than for a gender change. Collectivity there are more sources that have used Bradley than Chelsea I think this helps establish notability for a given name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Most likely because of a number of reasons: (1) There weren't thousands of eyes on the page during the subject's coming out as trans. When all of this rigamarole happened, the Manning article was being featured on the front page of Wikipedia. (2) There was no article about Pritzker on Wikipedia prior to her coming out, it was created *after* she hit the news. There was no immediate need to discuss a page move, since the page didn't exist. Even though there wasn't a whole lot of interest in the article, the article's creator was still unsure under which name to start it after the news came out (see the talk page). (3) There were no controversial logistical or bureaucratic actions taken with the Pritzker article, unlike with the Manning article, where moves were made and the page was protected outside of the established processes and policies of Wikipedia. Had the RM discussion taken place at the Bradley talkpage, rather than the Chelsea talkpage, I guarantee the discussion would have gone very differently.
At the end of the day, us Wikipedians should establish a policy to deal with people coming out as trans and how to deal with that to stymie such issues in the future. The actions of many editors and admins in this particular case demonstrate pretty strongly that existing policies are not sufficient. NewAccount4Me (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that a formal policy really should be established for people coming out as trans as it regards to title changes here on Wikipedia (because this is a total mess), I think that it's worth noting that I don't think without a VERY explicit policy on this we weren't going to get anything other than a mess. (Look at the pronoun discussion, because there's not much that is more explicit than MOS:IDENTITY as it relates to pronouns.) Honestly, insofar as Wikipedia is supposed to be ruled by consensus, highly controversial discussions will always break down, because they're basically impossible to build anything resembling a "consensus" on, especially when they are also high interest (like this one!). I don't think the admin action actually mattered here: This was destined to be a disaster since the minute one. Cam94509 (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Anytime something contentious is approached on Wikipedia, there is going to be a mess. Be it Israel-Palestine, identity politics, 9/11 articles, etc there are a million things on Wikipedia that turn into battlegrounds even when we explicitly try to limit battles. The difference is that in the cases I listed, most of the battles are either occurring within the confines of established policy or are just railing against an unmovable policy looking for a content-based exception, as opposed to occurring within a policy-free vacuum. For one example, 9/11 truthers can argue on a talkpage all day long, but WP:UNDUE will always be there, trumping most of their points.
The Manning situation is especially messy because we have people battling about content as well as procedure/policy. Since there really isn't a good policy to follow (unless MOS: IDENTITY or WP:BLP are substantially changed to explicitly encompass this type of situation), Wikipedia devolved into the kind of bueracracy-free shitstorm you see in most corners of the internet. I'd agree that this situation would always have been messy, but I believe it never would have neared this magnitude had an explicit policy existed about trans individuals existed and existing policies on page moves been followed. Instead of what we have now, we would have had a bunch of non-admin editors and IPs raging about content (on either side), a few admins caught up in the content fray, and a mostly cool-headed cadre of admins and experienced editors there to contain the drama and guide everyone through procedures established from policy. NewAccount4Me (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There are clear policies but they were ignored, that is what triggered this circus. If one doesn't agree with the existing policies they should be changed, that would have been the right way to do this. --Space simian (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, there were clear policies to keep the name at Bradley. Good to see we have consensus on that at least! :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't have consensus in the slightest, nor does the precedent at ALL favor using Bradley. Cam94509 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the smiley. The point is, BOTH sides have argued there are clear policy-based reasons for their title. So, someone claiming "There are clear policies" obviously hasn't read the discussion above. Ultimately, one side will be unhappy with the result, but c'est la vie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Part of the problem seems to be those [whatever]s are not so well known by many and those familiar with them didn't spot the less than utterly specific overworded phrasing could cause disagreement. But I think it's pretty clear the original move had supporting precedent from other such cases where the main cause of delay tended to be uncertainty over the subject's new given name rather than a lot of the issues raised here. Have a look at the talkpage archives for Chaz Bono, probably the previous highest profile case of a subject transitioning after they already had a Wikipedia article, and whose article was moved upon the announcement. There was a large reaction on the talkpage and some unpleasant things said (some of which have been deleted from the edit history) but there wasn't a mega RM or huge discussion on the current level and a lot of the focus was instead on pronouns in the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I didn't miss the smiley, I just misinterpreted it. (Smilies aren't typically used to denote sarcasm or wit in most of the places I frequent, and I'm sort of new here in terms of actually participating here, I'm something of a long term lurker.) Cam94509 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Then may I suggest you lack the experience of previous conflicts on WP and might therefore not see how certain interpretations of policy might affect them in a rather unfortunate way. Also, while I can only speculate on the outcome, had someone not decided to force the issue I think the move discussion here would have gone quite differently and the title might have been a different one today. --Space simian (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact some people interpret policy incorrectly doesn't mean there isn't any. :) --Space simian (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
In part I also believe this discussion has been colored by peoples feelings about Manning's whistle-blowing, i.e. some people do not want to do her any favors and therefore insist on using male pronoun etc. Other than that I think User:NewAccount4Me and User:Knowledgekid87 is spot on. --Space simian (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Pritzker legally changed her name. Manning has not. Manning can call him himself the Easter Bunny if he wished but it doesn't change anything. Manning will be housed in a male facility. Mail addressed to "Chelsea Manning" will be returned by the Army. Future court documents drafted by Manning will have "Bradley Manning" on them. Manning made a statement to the press. His next court filing will contradict all that as he will refer to himself as "Bradley Manning". He will not be given any transgender surgery or drugs while housed in the all male prison. --DHeyward (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All of that is either incorrect or irrelevant (and frequently both). As has been explained many times on here, legal name is not relevant for our purposes and the comments about calling herself "Easter Bunny" shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues involved - trans* people don't change their names on a whim. What the US Army or the US Court or Prison systems choose to refer to her as is not relevant because they are not writing an encyclopaedic biography of her, just as we are not prosecuting her or housing her in a detention facility, etc. The facility she will be housed in was all male simply because it did not house any females, as Chelsea Manning is female and being held there it is by definition no longer an all male facility. How Manning will refer to herself at the next court filing is yet to be determined, but it will still have no bearing on her gender or how we should title this article. If you had actually read the relevant articles, or the relevant previous discussions on this page, you would have already learned that publicly living as your real gender (rather than the incorrect one you were raised as) is in almost all cases a prerequisite before any sort of surgery will be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an opinion, not widely held, that Manning can become female just by declaring it. The prison is still all-male. (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"It's an opinion, not widely held, that Manning can become female just by declaring it." Actually, no nobody says that. What people say is that someone is more likely than not to have been female their whole life if they declare they are female. You might want to do some reading on trans issues before you make further statements like these. Moreover, this "opinion" is widely held by the experts on the subject. (In particular, the APA has this: "Use names and pronouns that are appropriate to the person’s gender presentation and identity; if in doubt, ask." to say on page thirteen of a resource they published here ... remember, this is the APA, not some actvist group.) The prison Manning is held in is completely irrelevant. I strongly suggest anyone who is going to make a statement on this topic that has anything to do with the underlying issue of transexuality do some amount of research first, otherwise they will just make a fool of themself. Cam94509 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should use Chelsea and female pronouns in the article. I don't agree that believing yourself to be a particular sex, automatically makes you that sex. (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If you agree that we should use Chelsea and female pronouns in the article, then what is the purpose of even expressing that you "don't agree that believing yourself to be a particular sex, automatically makes you that sex"? (Given your terminology choices, I suggest you probably really really SHOULD read some literature on the subject if you're going to attempt to discuss it, as you're using all the words that someone who knew what they were talking about would avoid (you're not using the offensive ones, just the terribly unclear ones, especially the word "sex".)) Cam94509 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, cookie expired)
I said that because you said what I said was ignorant of trans stuff. I clarified that I agree with APA on the pronoun point. I said sex instead of gender because she has arguably changed gender to a trans-woman, but has not changed sex to merit the stand-alone word "woman" (or merit saying that the prison is no longer male-only), which is debatable whether that can ever be done, even with surgery and hormone therapy. Debating this is pointless anyway, as it has little to do with the title and I already agree with the current pronoun use and the name Chelsea in the article. (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Which in turn merely reflects the opinion of the US Military Prison Service or whatever it's called. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

relevant thread at ANI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Manning#Manning_incident:_sanctions.2Factions_against_David_Gerard_and_Morwen.3F. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC) re the actions of Morwen and David Gerard in conducting this move, and what (if anything) should be done about it.

Can non-administrators post there as well?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thread is discussing a variety of actions - Tariqabjotu's actions are also now under discussion - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Tariq thread here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Manning#Discussion_about_Tariqabjotu --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Three-admin panel review?

"The formal move discussion is closed and pending review by the three-admin panel..." - User:BD2412 Where can this three-admin panel review be viewed? Surely on such a contentious matter, the development of the discussion determining the final decision should be publicly viewable. I understand that the discussion for general user input is now closed but I would like to read what these three admins are saying as they make their decision and I can see no genuine or honorable reason to keep such a discussion a secret. IFreedom1212 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think making it viewable as it develops would complicate it too much. Perhaps the emails (I think that's how it's being conducted) could be made public at the time of the announcement. I trust the admins wouldn't deliberately hide stuff if it was done this way. (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, there is no discussion to be viewed. I am waiting to hear back from one of the panel members to determine exactly how we are going to communicate about this matter. I have no objection to a public discussion, as I have noted on my talk page, but we may end up having a phone call just to be able to discuss the issues at hand more efficiently. bd2412 T 20:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your transparency. IFreedom1212 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
While I generally support open discussion, your original statement is a bit extreme. What's good for the goose might be good for the gander. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert Tariqabjotu please

Can somebody revert Tariqabjotu here please? I believe the revert is POV since there are other threads which also deserve attention. I dont want to break the 3-revert limit. Pass a Method talk 20:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You can link to the section you believe deserves attention under his comment or even start a section yourself. (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have. Because Tariqabjotu's actions are also now under discussion - specifically, reverting against page move protection, after Morwen had specifically invoked BLP on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources using Chelsea Manning or Bradley Manning

Hi folks, I'd like to assemble a list of sources that are using Chelsea Manning (CM) as the primary name in the last week or so and which are using Bradley Manning (BM). Also, a few seem to be dodging and going with Private Manning, so might be good to list those too.

I'd also like to gather all statements from news agencies that make it clear what their plans are with respect to using Chelsea or Bradley. I know a lot of stuff is in the NYT section Talk:Chelsea_Manning#New_York_Times_flips. I think we'll be seeing CM as the common name in the next few weeks, but perhaps sooner. I welcome others to fill in the sections below and edit as they see fit to make it readable. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

News agencies using Chelsea Manning:

News agencies using Bradley Manning:

Relating Primarily to Title


  • It's worth noting that the vast (vast) majority of coverage I'm finding in the last week is from the AP. Thus, I'd argue the common name is now "Chelsea". Hobit (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of the "using Bradley" sources are passing mentions in pieces that are not to do with Manning. The BBC, for example references a play "about Bradley Manning". That's not really very compelling. Unless the play has been rapidly re-written, it is of course not going to be about Chelsea Manning. Formerip (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    First, I could also make the case that some of those supporting the name Chelsea Manning are in terms of the gender identity change, and it is impossible to say whether they're using the name to refer to the subject or to refer to the idea of Chelsea Manning. But, I won't object to them, as I've made that objection clear before, and I'm perfectly happy just finding a different article from the same source if I feel the categorization of the source is wrong. Second, you're shooting yourself in the foot. The argument here is that once Manning decided to be called Chelsea and to be female, every reference to the subject, past or present, is as Chelsea and female. Unless you want to argue the play is about a once real, but now fictional, Bradley Manning, that is entirely relevant. Here is an even clearer source from the BBC if you want one. -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never argued that every reference, past and present, should be to Chelsea and female. So I don't know who it was I shot in the foot, but it wasn't me. I can only apologize. However, what I'd be interested in is what name the BBC use on the next occasion Manning is newsworthy. Anything until then is of limited importance, IMO. Formerip (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that does seem to be the common argument (look at how the article is right now, after all). And the problem you mention is the issue everywhere; because there's basically been nothing newsworthy about Manning since August 22, we're kind of stuck with oblique references and insinuations (here is another one of those from the BBC). There are many sources where I just can't find anything referencing Manning since the gender identity announcement. -- tariqabjotu 01:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The issue and hand, though, is how to title the article. The MOS guidance may need a re-think. "Chelsea" does seem to have been adopted by BBC Radio 4, although that's difficult to evidence. Sources that haven't published anything specifically about Manning since 22 August simply don't count for much. It may be an annoyance, but we'll just have to wait and see what they decide to do. Formerip (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this, which is why I don't think the article should have been moved. But good luck getting people to agree on doing that when listing sources here; you see a lot of the sources above are basically about Manning's gender identity announcement. (Also, I'm really not sure why this listing is being done; an attempt to do that was started during the move request, and no one seemed interested.) -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

False dichotomy

Amid all the continuing debate at this talk page about Bradley v. Chelsea, it's noteworthy that there are other potential article titles, and "Private Manning" makes sense to me. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recommends not using one name to the exclusion of the other in an article, but rather to use the old name when writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender.[22] We already have an article titled Colonel Sanders, and the CS Monitor just came out with this headline on August 25: "'Bradley' or 'Chelsea' – What to call Pvt. Manning?" Manning's website is called the Private Manning Support Network. It was changed to this name on Aug 26, 2013, after being previously called the Bradley Manning Support Network. So, "Private Manning" is an excellent title per NPOV and also self-identification. Per common, one way to check for commonality is to do a Google search. By that standard, "Bradley Manning" (16,000,000 hits) is much more common than "Chelsea Manning" (3,240,000 hits). I get 136,000,000 hits searching for private or pfc manning on Google. Another advantage of moving our title to "Private Manning" is that it's very informative to indicate the person is a soldier in our article title. Of course, there are other ways to do the search. For example, if I search for "private manning" OR "pfc Manning" OR "private bradley manning" OR "pfc Bradley manning" OR "private chelsea manning" OR "PFC chelsea manning" then I get 43,900,000 hits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if Wikipedia did use "Private Manning" it would only be appropriate for the duration of his sentence. After he serves his time, he will be dishonorably discharged and will no longer have a rank. Then what? Just "Manning?" IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Many BLPs have titles that can change. For example, a BLP about a woman may change once she gets married. If Wikipedia is still around when Manning is released, maybe that would be the best time to discuss whether the title should change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

what about "Chelsea (Bradley) Manning"?

MOS:IDENTITY (again! sorry.)

I started a discussion at MOS:IDENTITY that I think people here might be interested in, because unless I'm totally off-base – which is entirely possible! – it seems like it implicates the pending RM. Thanks in advance for your time. AgnosticAphid talk 02:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

hopefully this is less contentious suggestion

"This article is about the life of Chelsea Manning. For the trial, see United States v. Manning" maybe that should mention the name change?

Seeing this is what he/she was notable for I think so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert back to the stable good article version?

Is there a way this article can be reverted back to when it was a good article? Yes time has gone by but I feel that the recent events can be woven into the good version we had. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that'd lose too much pertinent info, and it'd be night impossible to get that to stick long enough to give you or us time to work the recent developments back in. May as well just do a simple search-n-replace of "she" to "he" in the current article and work from there. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see any consensus to change back to using male pronouns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Switching the pronouns is a completely different matter than switching the article title, and I don't see any pertinent demand to restore the masculine pronouns on her article. The common name argument does have enough merit to justify reverting the move, but changing the pronouns would be a clear violation of unjustifiably offending a living subject.Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Why bother? The title of the article changing has nothing to do with the content.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, sorry to disappoint, Tarc, but the RM closure doesn't support that:
MOS:IDENTITY is not expressly applicable to article titles, and is therefore not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".. The panel acknowledges that MOS:IDENTITY is applicable to pronouns as used in the article, and that the reversion of this title in no way implies that the subject should be addressed in the article by masculine pronouns. Although some may perceive this as leading to incongruity between the subject's name and the pronouns used throughout the article, such incongruity appears in numerous articles about subjects whose common name appears to differ from their gender.
As to whether this is either appropriate or satisfactory, I'm sure opinions will differ. It is however what it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont object to this as it is what reliable sources are doing anyways, kind of sad to see a good article fall though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
If we're addressing him by a masculine name, then we should certainly be addressing him by masculine pronouns. Seriously, it is about time for the political correctness to take a backseat to common sense. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
May I recommend reading the RM closure? It's pretty clear that that is NOT required, and additionally, MOS:IDENTITY is *VERY* clear that we are required to use pronouns that the subject has expressed a preference for. Cam94509 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont think this would be helpful, as I said the reliable sources are mixing hes and shes anyways so while it may sound confusing we should follow suit. Right now I see this article more stable, it has Bradley as i's title (What name he/she is more notable for) but still has the she pronoun in it per the sources as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't do that. That would make such a mess of the article. We don't need to need to follow reliable sources word for word. Cam94509 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't take instruction from red-linked usernames. I have read it through, and I place no weight on a mos:identity guideline; never have, ever will. I am expressing an opinion of how the pronoun usage should be treated, but since it is contentious I do not intend, at any time, to just willy-nilly replace them all myself. I simply think they should. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow. "Red-linked usernames." Thanks. That's... really civil. Given that you have just announced that you have no interest in putting any weight on the policies of Wikipedia, I'm not sure why you are even in the talk section here. Remember, Wikipedia is *NOT* your soapbox. Cam94509 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I do put weight on Wikipedia policies, but MOS:IDENTITY is not a Wikipedia policy. Were you somehow confused and thought that it was? Tarc (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine, no interest in following the consensus created guidelines on Wikipedia. Cam94509 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose male pronouns. there are ongoing Discussions at mos:identity which may have bearing here. I suggest we leave the pronouns as they are - local consensus here should not override broader community consensus Around mos:identity. The gender of the article title need not match, and the lede can start as 'Chelsea Manning (born Bradley)' so the reader knows right away. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's bad enough we are causing harm to a BLP let's keep the damage to a minimum. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this article is about someone who is now known as Chelsea Manning. She is a she. If you want to reject the idea of trans-people existing, I suggest you move your efforts to Conservapedia. Nothing in the RM closure supports anything but moving the article back to its previous title. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The link to compare the current and stable versions is saying there have been "402 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users". Is there a good reason to discard all that? —rybec 05:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose , and agree with Obi Wan that the very first word of the lede should continue to be "Chelsea", per WP:BLP. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are people voting here? I asked a question and it was answered. I suppose people can state their opinions after the fact *Shrugs* - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we now have the Good Article Review?

Again, I maintain that this article falls at present short of the previous GA assessment it achieved in May of this year, when it was a stable entity. As only one rationale I will give is the confusing mix of pronouns employed in the present version. One could also find fault with the instability of the article, requring convening an impartial panel of admins to move it back to Bradley Manning. the previous Good Article Review was suppressed by one editor only, as "too premature". I leave that without a comment. --Mareklug talk 05:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "suppressed", but WP:GAR states, "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate ... wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment". However, the Good Article Reassessment rules also state, "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered". Has it been more than two weeks yet? On the other hand, as long as Manning is in the current news, the article will continue to receive recentism edits and debates before it ever calms down to begin the "10-year test" cleanup. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the debate is simply too contentious at the moment to attempt any sort of level-headed review. For that matter, the content itself is undergoing changes since it has been opened up to wider editing. I'd avoid reviewing the content while the content is so in flux. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS-TW template

To those that are about to edit-war this back in, be reminded that its removal was a WP:CONSENSUS decision found here and here. If someone wishes to re-added it, consensus can be changed, but you'll need to propose it here first. Tarc (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was to leave it off until the RM was completed. The RM is completed. There is no question that Bradley Manning is a trans-woman now named Chelsea Manning, and therefore this biography is about a trans-woman. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Neither of your links remotely establishes that there is a consensus to leave off the template. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Consensus can be used when adding or removing things, because the template is under debate consensus should be reached before adding it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not how it works; it was left off because it was stridently advocating for one side of the discussion, and now that that 'side' has for the moment lost, it is doubly-inappropriate IMO. You may begin a discussion here to see of there is consensus to re-add it, but it seems a bit ill-fitting in a Bradley-named article. Editing against consensus can be considered disruptive. Time for some shuteye though, so I will let y'all have at it. Tarc (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the title, there is no debate that this article is about a living person who is now a trans-woman. Ergo, the template applies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It was left off only until the main move discussion was underway. Chelsea is a living trans woman and thats the template for BLP's of trans women. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no compelling reason to not add a template intended for use on the pages of trans women to the page of a trans woman. Cam94509 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Tarc on this page less than 2 hours ago (and note also the edit summary):

If we're addressing him by a masculine name, then we should certainly be addressing him by masculine pronouns. Seriously, it is about time for the political correctness to take a backseat to common sense. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is little point in arguing about handling of BLPs of trans women with editors who refuse to accept that Chelsea is a trans woman. EdChem (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Tarc cites community beliefs ("its removal was a WP:CONSENSUS decision") for removal of the template, rather than personal beliefs. Whether you believe the community beliefs are as Tarc has described is a matter of judgment. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
1. "Consensus" is wrong, this is a clear BLP issue, though I will not edit war over it.

2. Others have accepted the article title while respecting Chelsea by referring to her by her name and her gender, whereas Tarc is choosing to use masculine pronouns and describing respecting transgendered individuals' wishes as political correctness. Tarc's behaviour is offensive and unacceptable, IMO, though sadly also not rare on this page.

3. I believe that the close correctly reported there is no consensus, so Tarc is reflecting a belief in the community about the article title but certainly not a consensus on treatment of transgendered issues. In fact, MOS:IDENTITY is very clear on the topic of pronoun use, as the close also noted.

Tarc is usually a reasonable editor, but using masculine gendered pronouns for a trans woman is offensive. EdChem (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should use feminine pronouns when referring to Chelsea. I will not comment on Tarc's motives or character (nor do I think you wish to impugn Tarc), but I would ask all involved to use the feminine pronouns per MOS:IDENTITY, and additionally as a matter of respect for Chelsea's wishes. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither of those links shows anything remotely resembling a consensus to permanently omit the MOS-TW template. The first shows only that a very small number of people opposed having the template on the page while the RM was in progress. The second consists exclusively of a comment by me in support of adding MOS-TW, and a response by another user that the matter had already been discussed and shouldn't brought up again until after the RM ended! The RM has ended, Manning is described in reliable sources as a trans woman, this article is a biography about Manning, and MOS-TW is a template applied to the talk pages of articles that "contain material about one or more trans women". Ergo, it is appropriate that the template is on this talk page. -sche (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the links, there really wasn't a consensus to remove it. Since the subject is clearly a trans woman - whatever title the article is at - I've restored it - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired of hearing repeated bellowing of transphobia to any and all arguments against the move. We are not doing this as a way of denying her human rights, nor dignity. The argument is not one against her wishes to identify as a woman, and the article continues to document the issue; rather, the argument is that this article centres around her former identity and that the transgender issue is a blip in the radar that is only a notable event due to the high public profile of this individual as a result of the notable issues that resulted in this person having any article in the first place. In brief, not titling this article under the new identity or not writing it using the "correct" pronouns is in no way meant to discredit her preferred choice or deny her current identity. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is her biography, not just a rehashing of military events. It's offensive to use her former name when specifically asked not to. And some transphobic comments continue to flow despite hundreds of comments and discussion of why that is offensive. I'm sure I speak for everyone who notices the transphobia that it would be ideal that no transphobic comments and ideas were even expressed just as people who are attuned to racial/ethnic nuances would like to not see offensive things seen as racist. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's already noted in the template above, but for clarity, let me point out that I've nominated both {{MOS-TW}} and its sister template {{MOS-TM}} for deletion. My reasons are at the deletion discussion page. (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

More eyes on the discussion is encouraged. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The one, only article

This is getting off-topic for the page. This talk page is not a forum for complaining about the result of a recent move. If you have issues, bring them up with the closer, or bring it to move review.
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.

So here we have the one, only article on Wikipedia on a living person, that is titled using a name the subject of the biography explicitly does not identify with and has asked not to be used, blatantly ignoring MOS:IDENTITY and BLP. The one, only person, who didn't get the treatment that Kate Middleton got when her article was changed to "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" within minutes of the name change announcement. I think a WP:OFFICE action or similar enforcement of BLP-compliance by the Wikimedia Foundation will be urgently needed to stop this farce and to prevent outragous harm done to the subject of a BLP in violation of Wikipedia policy, basic human decency and various core aims of Wikipedia, and also to Wikipedia's own reputation. Conservapedia will appear moderate in comparison to a self-proclaimed encyclopedia that deliberately misgenders transgendered people, based on debates in which various people compared transgendered people to dogs without an eyebrow raised. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You really should accept and respect the outcome of the requested move discussion.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm expecting that the Wikimedia Foundation will be sorting out this mess to enforce BLP-compliance. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to accept and definitely no reason at all to respect this decision. The arguments in favor of Bradley Manning were terrible and this has only happened because of transphobia being part of WP's systemic bias. The admins limited themselves to just counting votes. They should have analyzed the arguments and be aware of the systemic bias. There is a good reason why consensus is not supposed to be a vote. It is precisely to avoid these ridiculous outcomes.Vexorian (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I share your dismay at this outcome, but getting hotly emotional and hostile about it won't provoke change. The minute an RM is again permitted, I expect it to be started. And if that one fails, another will be tried in due course. The arc of the moral universe may be long, but it bends toward justice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we can begin another move discussion, and request a move, now. The closers thoughts on how long others should wait have no force here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, there is absolutely no basis in policy for someone closing a move request deciding when a new such debate can start (many of the comments in favour of the proposed move to "Bradley" were even based on procedural grounds), they don't have any special authority. Josh Gorand (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I find it highly unlikely that all those users coming to oppose the recognition of someone's name and gender will not be there the next time either. And ultimately, it's outrageous and wrong to even have a vote here to detemine whether we accept that someone is a female named Chelsea when they have said so (and it has been widely reported), as it is purely a matter of factual accuracy and BLP, past precedent and what is considered acceptable in society at large. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the same argument that comes up every time anyone loses an argument over a biography, and it gets the same answer: Shouting "BLP" is not a trump card.
Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, rather than being an offensocracy. Current consensus is that BLP is not being violated, making the relevant policy instead be WP:CENSOR. If the foundation decides to come down from on high on this, that's their prerogative, but creating more and more parallel topics for whinging over the matter is just clutter. So you might as well try and have a good day. --erachima talk 09:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The proposed move from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning, that was just rejected by the majority of policy-based comments in the RM, does not only violate BLP, MOS:IDENTITY and NPOV, it also violates COMMONNAME, as "the media has largely accepted Bradley Manning's request that she be identified as a woman named Chelsea" and "“Chelsea” is winning."[23] Josh Gorand (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Drop the WP:STICK please. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Josh has no need of a stick, he is not the one supporting the policy violating brutalization of a transgender woman by forcing a masculine name upon her. Josh has just found a secondary source which finds the view that Manning should be called Chelsea is prevailing in the media, thus showing that even COMMONNAME alone supports moving back to the correct title. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
And the truth is, had the article gone through a move discussion and followed policy, then the consensus likely would've supported the move and we'd be at "Chelsea" by now. So blame the two administrators that FUBAR'd this whole move and caused the 'procedural supports' which tipped the scale. If they'd have followed move process, then the article would be at the right title right now and we wouldn't have to wait 30 days. This was a sensitive time, not a time for cowboy adminship.--v/r - TP 13:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to wait 30 days because there is no support in policy for that, and also because BLP overrides everything that has been going on here and the page still needs urgently to be changed to comply with BLP. Also, I see no consensus for a move from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning, which was the question discussed in the RM. The original move to Chelsea is irrelevant to this later debate, because it was consensus-based and policy-based at the time it took place, and because the RM was explicitly worded as a proposal to move from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Your BLP concerns were and still are duly noted, but a consensus of Wikipedia editors did not agree with your application of that policy to this situation. If a new RM is begun in less than the 30 days called for by the previous RM close, I'm sure someone will make a request at the appropriate board that it be shut down and the creator(s) sanctioned for disruption. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody should be sanctioned for any good faith request, even if misguided. The closing admins don't really have the mandate to preclude further discussion, nor is that really wise. The "wait 30 days" is dictum. It's pretty good advice because starting a new discussion so soon will probably generate the same result, whereas waiting a decent amount of time may allow a new understanding to develop. Jehochman Talk 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the "nobody" should be sanctioned part. Josh should be sanctioned. Every place he makes an appearance for this topic he is a god damned nuisance, and I suspect it will continue. And this has nothing to do with my position that the name should have been changed back to Bradley. In fact I suspect it probably should become Chelsea at some point. However that doesn't give Josh license to behave like a nincompoop.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Two kinds of pork needs to be sanctioned for personal attacks and name calling, as above. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So it has come to this? WP:STICK ? You won? You think this was just a silly debate team assignment for you? We are not talking about policy or style or notability. We are talking about people's humanity. Wikipedia is harassing a trans person. The editors who were so offended about this that this had to happen. (And strangely not offended about an article being called Lady Gaga) You may have won the argument thanks to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, but wikipedia lost. Vexorian (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Word. The current title deliberately misgenders, and therefore attack Chelsea Manning, which makes the article an attack page against her and against all trans people. I'm sick of this. I marked it as an attack page, but was reverted, and shouted at by another editor. I don't think Wikipedia should be promoting bigotry, but that's what it's doing. (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This page isn't here to serve the subject or to please her. She is a convicted criminal and we don't know what sort of mischief she might be up to. The subject is widely known as "Bradley Manning" because that's the identity that was in use at the time of the events that made her infamous. That she subsequently decides to announce her true gender and choose a new name should be a relatively minor thing. Is there any suggestion that gender identity issues played a role in her criminality or notoriety? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Morevoer, there is no intersection with the BLP policy here. None. It is very well sources that she was known as Bradley Manning. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"convicted criminal" is irrelevant to name and gender identity, and not factually correct nor neutral (not any more than Nelson Mandela is "a convicted criminal"). "we don't know what sort of mischief she might be up to" looks like a BLP violation and unsourced attack on the subject. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Nelson Mandela is categorized, rightly in Category:South African politicians convicted of crimes. We do not generally refer to him as "Nelson Mandela the convict" though because while factually correct, it is not a defining characteristic of his notability. In Bradley Manning's case, it is his sole defining notability marker. You have also been told many times that "convicted criminal" is factually correct, that is not debatable. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
He came to prominence solely for being convicted of political crimes and being imprisoned for a long time, he is widely known for it, owes his later fame to it, and it's certainly just as defining a characteristic as Manning similarly being convicted of a political crime. Convictions of espionage and other political convictions are the only crimes that Interpol doesn't recognise as valid reasons for issuing Interpol notices, because they are not ordinary crimes and generally recognised as being crimes only in one country (Examples: A person considered to be a traitor by Soviet authorities would be hailed as a human rights hero in the US; Carl von Ossietzky (convicted of comparable "crimes" to those of Manning, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and certainly not considered criminal in any other country than Germany). Josh Gorand (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"convicted criminal" she may well be, but it's completely orthogonal to the correct treatment of a transgender person as a transgender person. That is, trans people don't just get issues related to transgender taken seriously if you happen to think they're nice enough. This is the sort of statement that has potential to come across as much more generally offensive, and create an editing environment prejudicial to transgender editors; I urge you to reconsider your statement - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
She is notable for the crime, not for being transgender. The trans issue deserves a passing mention in the article to explain the name and pronoun change so that readers are not confused. If a trans person commits a crime as Joe, becomes notorious as Joe, and then later declares herself Josephine, everyone would know her as Joe. The article would be titled Joe, at least until a majority of published works had changed to Josephine and that identity became more notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't switch article titles based on the latest news. We wait for the weight of sources to change. As of today, more people recognize Bradley Manning than Chelsea Manning, so that should be the title of the article, Bradley Manning, the identify of the person at the time of the notable events.
To look at an opposite example, Renée Richards became notable for gender issues, and that's what the article has always been titled, never Richard Raskind who was not notable. I wish it weren't so difficult for me to communicate my point across, which seems simple to me, but is misunderstood by others: the title reflects the notable identity, not the current identity. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
To be precise, she is notable for the deed, irregardless of wether it is deemed a crime or not. Had she been acquitted at the trial, that would have made just as big headlines. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that even Fox News is now referring to Chelsea Manning, and getting their pronouns right: Lawyer to AP: Pvt. Manning willing to pay for hormone treatments if she can get them in prison. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you fully, BrownHairedGirl. LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That's an AP story. -- tariqabjotu 19:03, 31 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.

Process regarding which title to have during previous RfC

Could an administrator have decided at the beginning of this dispute, which title to have temporarily according to appropriate process, prior to the beginning of the RfC? The administrator action would be according to process, which I thought was the function of administrators, whereas the RfC would be according to content, which is the function of editors in general. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Deliberate Misgendering in the Title

this is not a forum, and this page is not the place for complaints about the move nor broader discussions of policy. If you have an urgent concern bring it to ANI or participate in the ARBCOM thread; otherwise please focus on improvements to the article content rather than re-arguing the move, which is CLOSED.
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 believe that, under the current title, should apply. (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • can you explain your reasoning?
  • I agree with you and feel the move back is a black eye for Wikipedia. However, the consensus of our editors was that the article should be named according to the most common name people would associate with the topicthere was no consensus that the article should be Chelsea Manning . While I feel that's a huge BLP problem in this case, most disagreed. With luck, we'll get to back to where it belongs in 30 days. Given that the press seems to be using CM as often or more often than BM, hopefully the common-name argument for BM will fade in that time. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
We should not have to leave an attack page in place for 30 days. Better to either move it immediately, or archive it, delete it as required, and restore it after 30 days. Anyway, my reasoning is that the title is a personal attack on Chelsea Manning, that the title is the first thing readers see, and that if the title is a personal attack, and in violation of biographies of living persons (sic), then the page is functionally an attack page. (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • have you seen that episode of south park where the teacher just repeats "drugs are bad" over and over again during an antidrug speech? I wanted you to tell me why you thought it was an attack, not to just repeat your self that you thought it was
        • "Mmkay and marijuana... well, you shouldn't use marijuana. Cause, well, Marijuana is bad mmkay?" Referring to a person by the name they identified as for the first 99.99% of their life is in no way personal nor an "attack". - Floydian τ ¢ 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
          • That's the joy of "offense" (which Tarc and I have discussed a fair bit). Yes, the person being so named can consider it an attack. If you called the trans folks I've worked with by their pre-trans name they would correct you (politely) the first time and get really pissed after that. They'd view it as an attack (and they'd probably be right). My wife gets pissed when she's called "Mrs. Bob Smith" (assuming my name is Bob Smith) rather than "Mary Smith". Is that an attack? I'd view it as such after she corrected the speaker (and her grandmother insisted on doing this even though (because?) it pissed my wife off). Heck, my divorced coworker would be pissed if you insisted on calling her by her married name (she changed it back). Or a newly married person whom others refuse to call by their married name (I've seen that too from family who think the marrage was a horrible idea).
I think those people have a legit case for being pissed if you call them by a name they don't want to be called by. Now, there are good reasons for us to use the name Bradley (it's what people expect and what older and many current sources use). Does that outweigh the BLP/attack problems? I think that's a reasonable debate. But to dismiss the notion that someone could be upset by being called by the name they've used for most of their life is a bit naive. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No. And I thought you were asking why I see this as an attack page. And that's because of the deliberate misgendering in the title, and the fact that this deliberate misgendering is the first thing readers see. Are you going to say that somehow, deliberately misgendering someone isn't an attack? (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying anything (yet). I want to know why you think it necessarily follows that misgendering someone (which I don't think this necessarily is, there's no law the name Bradley can only be applied to a man) is attacking them?
    • I don't think there was any consensus for moving the article from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning per the RM proposal, on the contrary there were a roughly equal number of supports and opposes, but a large proportion of the supports were based on rationales completely unrelated to Wikipedia policy ("If I proclamed myself to be a dog", "I don't believe in the existence of transgendered people", and stuff along those lines), and the rest were based on unconvincing arguments that showed a lacking understanding of Wikipedia policy, and especially how multiple policies have to be taken into account. The stronger rationales all agreed Chelsea Manning was the appropriate title according to BLP, NPOV, MOS:IDENTITY and COMMONNAME[24] (of these policies, BLP is course the most important, while COMMONNAME is the least important and the one most open to exceptions), as well as all past precedent on this project. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, Hobit, that there was even remotely a consensus, consensus means broad agreement and by no stretch of the imagination has that been achieved. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A consensus is indeed not the opinion voiced by the most people, but the position that most policy-based, convincing arguments support. I think there was a very clear consensus that the title needs to be Chelsea Manning and that the other title is extremely offensive, POV, BLP-violating and unencyclopedic. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
SqueakBox, I should have indicated that there was no consensous to change the name to Chelsea Manning. I've fixed that. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, that was the decision arrived at by a panel of 3 administrators, and this is what we appoint them for y'know, to make these sorts of decisions. Obviously any admin action can be subject to review, so rather than filling up thread after thread with anti-result vitriol, perhaps you should avail yourself of the proper resolution process, such as Wikipedia:Move review ? Tarc (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will eventually do that. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yup, as will an evaluation of the bullying and insult-flinging that you have brought into this process. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You are apparently talking of someone else. Maybe some of those editors who called others things like "sick, sick", "hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite", "disgusting" or "arrogant"? Be warned of WP:BOOMERANG of the threatened forum shopping. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • So if Chelsea changed genders but chose to remain known as Bradley... would the title contain deliberate misgendering in that case? Of course not! The title neither implies gender nor that the individual presently identifies by that name. - Floydian τ ¢ 1:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)
    • That's disingenuous, Bradley is very rarely a feminine name. And this case, we have exactly what the BLP has said their new name is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • If we want to go that way, a penis is very rarely a feminine body part, but I digress. The point is not which name makes sense, it's which name the individual chooses to be identified as. So, I ask again: If Chelsea announced her gender identity but chose not to change her name, would the title of the article be transphobic or a case of deliberate misgendering? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
        • What makes a man a man or a woman a woman is not the debate at all, although some posters here certainly are stuck in that mode. The living subject has clearly expressed a change in gender identity; that hat change represents how she has felt since childhood; that she wants her name used - and provided the name; and that she wishes only female pronouns to be used. We don't need to spin hypothetical possibilities, we have a real human being who is being victimized because some editors were upset with the process - likely based on some pretty unfortunate opinions about trans people, and trans women in particular. History will not look too kindly on Wikipedia editors who spouted transphobic speech and then insisted on disrespecting her. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

Can we please avoid transphobic comments, comparisons, and concern trolling here? (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: It is not the responsibility of trans people to explain why an attack on trans people is an attack. Someone can always keep asking why, whether about misgenderings or about violence or anything in-between. Someone can show up and ignore previous discussions and ask why. Anyone can get worn down by too much of that. It is the responsibility of cis and other non-trans people to do some basic research before weighing in on trans-related disputes. (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attack because the title isn't directed at Bradley Manning. It's directed at the reading public. (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Attacks dont have to be directed just to be attacks. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • in this context they do
If, for a deliberately absurd example, I were to claim that "for anyone reading this, x-y-z sacrifices children to Moloch," I think that would be an attack on x-y-z even if its "directed" at "anyone reading this," and whether or not x-y-z reads this. (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • it would be clear that wasn’t for the readers benefit because it would be a lie

I think its time people just accepted this page and moved on, it does not violate WP:BLP and is the name most commly used to refer to the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with you though there is perhaps an argument for waiting 30 days I dont believe it would be right by wikipedia to just drop this, a BLP vio is a BLP vio, a lamentable RM discussion doesnt change that. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
How many more debates do you want? We had three experienced admin handle this move request and make the call and now it is going to WP:ARBCOM after awhile you just have to go with it even if you believe it is wrong as wikipedia can not please everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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


Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. We rely on reliable sources. Most of the life of Manning is prior to Chelsea. Yet, somehow, we seem to think we can presumptively change the references those reliable sources make on WP's own interpretation and rules. For example, this is a source but there are no feminine pronouns, no mention of a new name, etc, etc. Under what ruse are we deciding to second guess the authors intent to say this source would represent Manning any differently than they did? Why are we interpreting a source that the author has not updated themselves? --DHeyward (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We have the most reliable source on this, by an infinitely immense margin - Manning herself has asked to be referred to as Chelsea, and with female pronouns. A person voicing their choices on their identity is all the "sources" you need on the matter, namaste. (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not really how an encyclopedia works. For example, Jimbo Wales insists that he is the sole founder of the Wikipedia, minimizing the role of Larry Sanger in the site's early stages, but reliable sources say otherwise. So, User:Jimbo Wales, his personal user page, lists him as "founder", while the BLP Jimmy Wales lists him as co-founder. Personal wishes are not rated very highly when sourcing a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The Jimmy Wales co-founder issue isnt a fair analogy as the problem there is finding sources that back up his claim that he was the soul founder, I should know, whereas finding sources that Manning wants to be known as Chelsea, and even that media such as the New York Times are calling her Chelsea are easy to find. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Please consider contributing to this discussion: WT:Verifiability#wp:Verifiability_and_retroactive_use_of_new_names. To summarize: imagine that we had sources saying, about some mineral foobarium, that "foobarium is soluble in H20". If we wrote, in our article on the mineral, that "foobarium is water-soluble", this would be unremarkable, even though we would (gasp!) be using a different word than our sources. We have reliable sources proving that "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" are references to the same person, just as "water" and "H2O" are references to the same liquid. Making a stylistic decision to use one or the other does not raise the verification/reliability concerns your post seems to imply it does. -sche (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you arguing that he/she are the same word with same meaning? If so, then there would be no contention and it wouldn't matter either way (H2O and water are interchangeable, is "he" and "she" interchangeable?) If they are different, and by the amount of discussion they seem to be, then we are deviating from the sources as they were used to establish fact. Manning came out as Chelsea and expressed a desire from that point forward and also wished to receive hormone therapy. However, Manning will get neither in prison and in fact he will file briefs with the court as "Bradley Manning." So when Manning refers to himself as Bradley in court papers and Chelsea in interviews, which is it? Then after we thrash about with the name, there will be a post "Chelsea" physical exam where a reliable source will confirm the male only prison barracks is where he belongs. Again, we have a reliable source to justify the "he" pronoun and Manning requesting "she." I would suggest the doctor is more reliable as this issue arises in sporting event in classifying intersexual persons for competition. Regardless of their self-identity, the Olympic physicians determination is binding and authoritative. --DHeyward (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY once more

This discussion is ongoing at MOS:IDENTITY, and this page has been notified. Closing to centralize discussion there.
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 a survey at the MOS:IDENTITY talk page, only about 50% of participants supported the current wording of that guideline, but no alternative proposal received clear support. Does this mean that the current guideline has no consensus and should be removed entirely? Please discuss there, not here. – Smyth\talk 14:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Let us go full-transphobic, If wikipedia is all about making the majority and their systemic bias happy, Why not? Vexorian (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the MOS talk page here, I believe any such change will undermine the WMF's Non Discrimination Policy's prohibition on gender discrimination, which is meant to override majority opinions on Wikipedia that conflict with it. Of course, asking the Wikipedia majority to actually read the NDP as operating to protect non-traditional expressions of gender identity is probably next to impossible. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Manning is being treated the same way as other biographies. Wikipedia names things as they are known, not how the subject wishes to be known at the moment. For example, Snoop Dogg is the title, even though Snoop now calls himself Snoop Lion. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize Snoop Lion had changed gender!?! Do you have any examples (living person with BLP changing gender publicly) that actually apply to this case? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cause. We go by consensus and reliable sources. And contrary to how you're acting by throwing out transphobic because people disagree, WP:GF is an important part of these discussions.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A very poor example, Jehochman, Snoop is still using the Dogg name too, eg his verified twitter account, we cant say the same for Chelsea. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Twitter accounts is original research. If somebody said that Manning had switched her online handles, we'd all say, "So what". Point remains that Wikipedia is going to title the article by how the person is best known. If you look at the sources currently used in the article, the vast majority refer to "Bradley Manning". Jehochman Talk 17:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually we can. Every court filing s/he authorizes will be "Pvt. Bradley Manning". Also, sources like the NY Times and Washington Post did not go back and retroactively change all their previous sources. Every article that relied on old articles for sourcing still refer to Bradley Manning and as gender as male. We now have people changing name and gender in articles that don't refer to Manning that way. The rush to change gender/name wasn't followed by the same rush to find new sources for old facts. --DHeyward (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Its not original research when it contradicts the rubbish you were saying about Snoop, I am neither adding it to an article nor am I using it to justify an afd or an RM (where original research using google is rife and including the Chelsea/Bradley RM). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The case stands reliable sources are using the name Bradley, we go by that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Nieskażona głupota—a complaint

This talk page is not the place for complaints. If you have issues with the close, discuss with the closer. Otherwise, please focus on improvements to the article vs complaining about something which is a done deal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:53, 1 September 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.

A swift, enlightened move to Chelsea Manning, but now undone in part thanks to a majority vote packed with people so ignorant they had no concept of the term identity, or so antediluvian and morally corrupt they may as well not have. Why are such people paid any attention to in the final analysis?

As for "the sources": If we came under an antisemitic dicatorship, and "the sources" started referring to Jews as Bakterien, would we rename articles to conform? A trump card "the sources" are not.

Simply unbelievable. Complaint about the move back is hereby registered. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The move back was made to Bradley without consensus and in defiance of core polices and guidelines, a sad day indeed for wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Since there was no consensus on what the name should be, it was rightly reverted to the name the article had before the dispute. The closing admins addressed the core policies and guidelines, explaining why it wasn't a violation. (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No ~policy~ could excuse a move back, just saying. (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, even worse than I thought. My point above, just to drive it home for the benefit of others (not you!), is that this is a moral issue, and morality does not depend upon consensus or WP guidelines. Incredible that so many cannot grasp this fact. LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
While I agree (now) that that article would be better at Chelsea, simply claiming moral superiority is empty of meaning. Everyone can do that for every position. It's not a good guide for community decisions. We don't go by simple majority, but even less do we go by individual moral sentiments. We go by consensus (hopefully enlightened), and that needs to be build. And to be honest, I'm a lot more offended by people being imprisoned without trial and by people being tortured by agents of a state that's supposed to be a beacon of civilisation than by large community of online volunteers needing a few days to come to the right decision about what is ultimately a label. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The original move was the one made without consensus, the administrators simply restored the name to the state it was before the non-consensus move was made. If reliable sources continue to refer to her as Chelsea Manning when talking about the actions for which she became notable, I will personally support a title change in 30 days, but support the move back to Bradley Manning (title only) right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"While I agree (now) that that article would be better at Chelsea, simply claiming moral superiority is empty of meaning."
Hi, I didn't claim moral superiority, just that this is immoral, so the rest is a straw man.

"... even less do we go by individual moral sentiments."
Right and wrong do not depend upon individual sentiments or consensus.

"I'm a lot more offended by Camp X-Ray (Guantanamo)..."
I think we all are. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that morality does not depend on consensus or WP Guidelines. But you are wrong that this is a moral issue. This is a Wikipedia issue and Wikipedia issues are, in fact, dependent on consensus and WP Guidelines, by definition. That's what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia's mission isn't to right or write the wrongs of society, but to be an encyclopedia reliably sourced and based on consensus.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it absolutely is a moral issue. Can you state clearly that you do not think it is immoral for antediluvian editors of this encyclopaedia to brand her Bradley? It is absolutely outrageous. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Moralopedia. Decisions are based on consensus, notability, and independent reliable sources.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
If you think the role of Wikipedia is to make "swift, enlightened moves," then you miss the purpose of Wikipedia. It follows reliable sources, it does not lead them. When Wikipedia takes the lead on an issue, something's gone very, very wrong. As has been said many times before, we're writing an encyclopedia, not righting one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"If you think the role of Wikipedia..."
No, I do not; I know what an encyclopaedia is. You've ignored my point about "the sources". It could be that the sources are "very, very wrong". LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a moral arbiter. Have a good day. --erachima talk 17:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There simply is no consensus, either for Chelsea or Bradley and therefore the RM admins who decided that in spite of this they were going to revert back to Bradley made a really bad call. I myself saw sources saying Manning now wanted to be known as Chelsea, and that was just reading the UK newspapers, something I do daily, so I strongly disagree that wikipedia was leading not following, it followed the sources that said she wants to be known as Chelsea now, and as someone who, like I imagine Morwen and Gerard, knows very well that our role is to build an encyclopedia and nothing else I thought changing the name was the right thing to do and that those wanting to name the article Bradley were and are pushing their own POV and making that more important than building a neutral encyclopedia, as I stated in the RM. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about Wikipedia being a "moral arbiter" or not. This is about Wikipedia not vocally enabling systematic transphobia by disrespecting the wishes of transgender people and referring to them by their dead names when they've made it perfectly clear what they would prefer to be called. We already knew nine days ago what Chelsea wanted to be called - we're now just playing silly games of acting like contempt for Chelsea's identity is a legitimate position for debate. (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a moral arbiter."
It already is, by not having the article's title as Chelsea Manning. Have a good day. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The cry of tolerance and progress: "Doing differently than I say is evil!" --erachima talk 18:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
D'abord, I've not described anything as evil. Ensuite, you're not reading what I say, but resorting to a mere straw man. Enfin, as I've said repeatedly, morality and immorality are not "what I say", are not down to consensus, are not down to "the sources", are not down to WP:RULES. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes you did. Right here: "Hi, I didn't claim moral superiority, just that this is immoral". You have also stated "this is a moral issue" and described it as a conflict between "enlightenment" and "antediluvianism".
So in light of that last statement, if you prefer, I would be willing to change the line to "Doing differently than I say is savagery!" --erachima talk 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"it is too soon to determine whether usage following the subject's announced name change represent an enduring trend, or a blip occasioned by reports in the news surrounding the name change itself." This is ridiculous. Everyone involved in this decision should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Get a fucking clue.
You should sign this with four tildes, but this, this, this, this, and more this. (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Strongly agree. The current title is an attack on Chelsea Manning, and some editors support the move precisely to attack Chelsea Manning, as we see right above. This is in violation of And the only acceptable responses are either to move it back to her actual name or speedy deletion. (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, my strongly agree was with LudicrousTripe's comment at the beginning of the section. I don't know how or why the colon got added. (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Strongly agree. It's generally agreed upon, by actual transgender people who actually have to deal with these sorts of issues in a capacity far beyond mere academic curiosity, that it's a pretty immense insult to be calling a person by what's known as their dead name - the name attached to their identity while they were presenting as a gender other than their own. There's no real analogy for it - all that can really be said is that you are, by refusing to call a transgender person by their name, essentially telling them that you have more jurisdiction over their identity than they do. Do you not see anything enormously wrong with this? (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "It's generally agreed upon, by actual transgender people" you mean exceptionally bias people? Also how do you know this particular transsexual feels that way?
this seems to have come from User:, not from Squeakbox below. (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed not from me. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, 50..., pure POV pushing by ppl who think their opinions is what counts and is the best way to build an encyclopedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I recommend assuming good faith about the intentions of other editors. There have been accusations on both sides the other side has been pushing their POV, but I think such accusations can get out of hand and distract from a substantive discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I invoked NPOV on the RM discussion and I stand by that. Some editors seem to me to be confusing their own opinions on the subject with our attempt to write an encyclopedia, if I allowed my opinions to get in the way I would probably have voted differently, ie I dont think my opinion counts, what counts is doing the right thing according to our BLP and NPOV policies, both of which, IMO, demand Chelsea, as does IDENTITY. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
LudicrousTripe, you said, "Why are such people paid any attention to in the final analysis?" I would note that the move request resolution includes the following phrase: "A comparatively small number of editors premised their opinions solely on Manning's legal or biological state. These arguments are not based on anything in Wikipedia's policies, and are contrary to numerous precedents. Such arguments were expressly discounted in this determination." Are those the kinds of arguments you are referring to as problematic, or a different type of argument? CaseyPenk (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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


I am in arbitration, so I can't make any more replies here, I think. Just FYI! LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You sure can. It's usually wise to tone it down, but it's not a requirement - and much less is full withdrawal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The best thing you can do is go back through your comments and strike anything that went over the line. Leave a friendly comment for anybody you might have offended. I don't think arbitration would be very useful now. It would be better to form a policy for how, and when, we re-name and re-pronoun people who declare a new identity. Jehochman Talk 23:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Others might be interested in the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this specific to the people named? Or to the people in the original discussion? Because after seeing so much trans-hate, I for one avoided that discussion, I suspect other editors did too, and apparently the move back was made on a practically even split. (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Asking people to participate in the ArbCom thread is ridiculous

First, because it's locked. Is it only open to the users contacted? Second, because it concerns civility, and the hate speech, and certain procedural arguments, rather than the decision to move this to the wrong name. (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I'm reading things there correctly - if you are locked out of the page you can send a statement by email. Once the case is accepted there will be new pages available for more general discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This talk page isn't for discussing drama that has now spun off of this article, then to ANI, then to ArbCom. They are dealing with possible breaches in procedure and civility by various editors on both sides of this debate. You are correct that ArbCom isn't dealing with the name, the discussion around the article title move has concluded and, I'm sure, will be reopened in 30 days. This talk page is for discussing the content of the article. An admin should close off this section of the talk page. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


It seems that the infobox title can't even stick without endless reverting back to "Chealsea", which quite obviously no longer matches the article title? I'd love to see the precedent or policy that allows for one to not mirror the other. Tarc (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

¿Por que no los dos? -- tariqabjotu 05:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLP which requires "a high degree of sensitivity" and that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered" FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you still on that? Did you read the closure of the move request? The sentiment that the name "Bradley Manning" constitutes a BLP violation did not achieve consensus. It's in the title; obviously it can go in the body. -- tariqabjotu 05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Cat Stevens at least gets a "slash" with his actual name. And FeydHuxtable, you should know better than to pitch a appeal to emotion fallacy. We've already moved the article back to his actual name, so that is a de facto ruling that WP:BLP is not violated by referring to this person by "Bradley". There should be nothing wrong with making the info box reflect the reality of what the article is named, but it seems some are hell-bent on cutting the legs out from under the Move closure as much a possible . Tarc (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The move discussion decided that "Bradley Manning" should be the article's name, not that it is Manning's name. There was no strong support for continuing to refer to Manning by his birth name and gender in the content of the article. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As per Cengime, you'll need to explain how a move discussion that decided there was no original consensus to move an article to a different title justifies your campaign to have Wikipedia ignore Manning's sexual identity within the article content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As long as this issue continues to receive attention from sensible editors, Im hopeful consensus will emerge that calling a transgendered woman by a masculine name, against her express wishes, is indeed a BLP violation, and a rather despicable one at that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there any precedent for an infobox for a person having a different title than the article? If not, it seems to me that the info box should probably have the same title as the page. (My personal objections to the pages title aside, we really should be following policy and precedent here.) If there is any precedent, however, it should probably follow that precedent. Cam94509 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Well there's already the slash example for Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens. If we go to other examples I recall from the earlier discussion, both Malcolm X and Lily Allen just have the article title. Meanwhile Titanic Thompson only has the real name. Note if we move outside personal names, Burma, Ivory Coast and actually I think pretty much every article on a country includes the countries full official name in English (or at least what the sources support as such) regardless of how it may differ from the article title (there's probably some guideline somewhere that discusses this but I can't be bothered finding it). Of course some people are bound to jump in that Chelsea Manning's official name is arguably Bradley Manning, on the other hand, since a country is sovereign, they and they alone determine what is their official name and so their official name is also their preferred name in certain contexts whereas for people, even in a case like Bill Gates, referring to him as William Henry Gates may just be seen as stuffy and for something like Bobby Jindal, it could even be seen as offensive to refuse to use a common name and instead an official name. So using the title which is generally (but not always as the previous discussion has attested there are the numerous namingconvention exemptions) the common name seems fine until we end up with cases like this where the commonname and article title is far from the preferred common name. IMO the current version of Chelsea (Bradley) Manning is fine, the alternative is to simply exclude Bradley which will be mentioned further down. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Which of these is an example of a living person having a change of identity? Although coming out LGB is similar, there really nothing quite the same as coming out as transgender. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused by your question. These examples illustrate that the infobox does not have to be the same as the article title which was the main question. I further pointed out that while the examples can be taken as clear cut evidence for the infobox not needing to be the same as the article title, we should take care reading more in to them as there are unique and differing circumstances like those you illustrated and the details of this case would support either minimising or excluding the name Bradley. BTW I normally don't like to get in to this since this whole area is already one big hotbed but it sounds like you are trying to defend Chelsea despite the confusing question. As I understand it, Chelsea has to some extent privately identified as female for a long time, and most likely considers she has been female for her entirely life. So suggesting there is a "change of identity" is potentially offensive, there's a change of name and a public notification of their correct identity, which unfortunately comes after the previous name and identity were widely noted. In the same way, someone who comes out as LGB usually isn't saying they've changed from being heterosexual to LGB, all they're saying is they are LGB. And they probably have been for their whole life.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
These illustrations are not about gender identity - a fundamental core of who a person is. The expressed intent of the person of this living BLP has said explicitly who they are and are becoming and what what pronouns they wish to be referrers as, to use anything else is to disregard their wishes and more generally disrespect all transgender people's wishes to self identity. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saying but I think the infobox is fine now, it uses both names which pretty much follows what the article does. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The infobox now reads like her full name is "Chelsea Bradley Manning" with Bradley being a middle name she doesn't use. That is factually incorrect and offensive. There is a separate parameter for the birth name, and I see no support in policy or consensus for changing Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning in the infobox. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Using Bradley as a nickname is offensive, the full birthname is in the first sentence as well as already in the info box. That's all we need for now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

How is using the name Bradley factually incorrect and offensive? That is his legal name, unless he has legally changed his name to Chelsea? BeckiGreen (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of, and separate from, what you think Manning's first name is or should be, please note that many editors have registered a desire to refer to Manning using feminine pronouns. MOS:IDENTITY, and Manning herself, have also suggested as such. You may wish to consider these perspectives if you have not already. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
According to MOS:IDENTITY, such a woman should be referred to using the gendered names and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect [her] latest expressed gender self-identification." This applies in references to any phase of her life. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

  • it's not an attack just because it might upset her — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It is an attack on trans people in general. Whether it is conscious or not, it won't change that. The fact is that wikipedia thinks Lady Gaga can pick her name, but trans women should have their dead name imposed on them.Vexorian (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not an attack because the title isn't directed at Bradley Manning and because insulting him isn't the purpose of the article. The title is directed at the reading public. Similarly, the depictions of Muhammad are not an attack on Muslims, since they weren't added for the purpose of insulting them. (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Since this came up above, I'll repeat my deliberately absurd example, I were to claim that "for anyone reading this, x-y-z sacrifices children to Moloch," I think that would be an attack on x-y-z even if its "directed" at "anyone reading this," and whether or not x-y-z reads this. (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

As I posted above: It is not the responsibility of trans people to explain why an attack on trans people is an attack. Someone can always keep asking why, whether about misgenderings or about violence or anything in-between. Someone can show up and ignore previous discussions and ask why. Anyone can get worn down by too much of that. It is the responsibility of cis and other non-trans people to do some basic research before weighing in on trans-related disputes. (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"
Please sign your posts, User: And I've offered explanations, but there's no way for anyone to keep up with all the questions asking why and how denying someone's identity is attacking them, and some things should be obvious. (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
          • you have not answered that question once on this talk page. if you have the Burdon of proof and it's hard to meet that Burdon it's kind of your problem, that’s kind of why most people think of a "Burdon" as a bad thing
If you are saying that Chelsea Manning's identity isn't real, and isn't worthy of respect, how is that not an attack on her and on all trans people? (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
              • It’s not an attack on trans people because Bradley doesn’t represent all transpeople. I’m saying her name change isn’t worthy of respect because it has no legal basis and in this context a name’s ultimate purpose should be identifying a person and I think that purpose is best served by referring to her as “Bradley”. I think that isn’t an attack on her because the primary intent isn’t to harm her — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
I think that is an attack on Chelsea Manning and on trans people in general. (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • that’s a statement not a counter argument?
Why should I offer a counter argument, when I've already made some of my arguments, here and elsewhere? How do any of your remarks add to this discussion? How am I supposed to distinguish your behaviour from deliberate obnoxious trolling? (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
                      • "Why should I offer a counter argument, when I've already made some of my arguments" because those arguments were poor and did not convince me. "elsewhere" what you said elsewhere is irrelevant unless you provide links. “How do any of your remarks add to this discussion?” I think my viewpoint is the correct one and I haven’t seen it put forward properly by someone else, I imagine everyone else thinks the same thing more or less. “How am I supposed to distinguish your behaviour from deliberate obnoxious trolling?” you can’t but it would be arrogant not to give me the benefit of the doubt
Elsewhere on this thread. I am feeling very sick, and do not need any more stress, so if there's anything that I've not answered somewhere here, do your own research. (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
                          • "Elsewhere on this thread" you’ve said nothing substantive anywhere on this thread. “I am feeling very sick, and do not need any more stress” don’t argue with people or put up with the stress. “do your own research” prove your own points!
One can dedeuce that the triumvirate determined there were no "BLP" issues, or else they would have left the article title in place. Nothing is forcing you or anyone else for that matter to wait 30 days. From what I can tell that 30 days is not enforceable as a requirement, but someone else called it a "dictum". What that means here on Wikipeida, I have no idea.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it would be appropriate to take this to Wikipedia:Move review. However, if you think the three closing admins did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI, or were unaware of significant additional information not already discussed in Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request (the points you raise here, I'm afraid, were found unconvincing), there are instructions there for opening a review of the close. Please read those pages carefully and make sure one of these two reasons applies; merely disagreeing with the outcome is not a sufficient reason to go to MR. You would probably do better to take part in the above discussion of the proposed move to "Private Manning". Whatever you do, I recommend creating an account. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the move review page and couldn't understand it. Something about closers, whatever that means. And I thought all the other discussions had been closed down. (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been to WP:MV before (see here). Basically, you just endorse or overturn the move. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Although I was and am of the opinion that following Wikipedia policies and practices, the title should be "Chelsea Manning" and not "Bradley Manning", I think that a requesting a move review of such a contentious and yet also carefully-closed move request as this one would be unlikely to have any positive effect or result. -sche (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I originally added this comment in diff, but it went missing in the shuffle of these diffs. -sche (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Look: under the circumstances, having the name of the article be "Bradley Manning" does not constitute an "attack", and referring to it as such does not help the discussion.
This is a really difficult situation, and there just plain isn't a single right answer. One of the ways to de-escalate the tension is to focus more on what the article says, and less on what its title is. (I'm reminded of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Right up there in the title, it says that her identity, and other trans people's identities, aren't worthy of respect. Respecting people shouldn't be "really difficult" either. Since the article's locked, I can only raise the issues, and may as well point out one of the biggest issues. (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The title says none of that. That's your interpretation. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Steve Summit, it is difficult, but not at all unusual. When Metta World Peace changed his name from "Ron Artest" it took a month before editors were satisfied that it was his common name, and opinions about moving the article varied. For Chad Johnson it was more contentious when he changed his name to Chad Ochocinco than when he changed it back from that name, but there was not immediate agreement that a name change, even when a legal one, constituted a new common name. It happens all the time, actually. Just usually not as explosively as this time. (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
  • Please, we need to avoid advocacy on these pages. This is a confusing situation and it will take time to get it all sorted. The massive heat generated by some folks is not helping at all. I think that there should be an RFC to sort out policy on how we deal with situations like this. It's not something that has confronted Wikipedia before. Editors need time to think it over and discuss. We don't need activists or biggots rushing in to push their personal points of view. We need rational discussion by people who have an academic interest, rather than a personal interest. Jehochman Talk 23:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
. In general, trans people are more likely to face or have faced misgendering, and are most likely to understand the interplay between deliberate misgendering, society-wide disrespect, and violence. trans people are also more likely to understand the practicalities of name changes, too for those arguing that this should wait for legal name change. I know it can be hard to contribute while dealing with trauma, and that's one reason for less interested/less activist people to study the issue elsewhere instead of asking for explanations of everything on here. (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "I don't understand why personal interest/activism would disqualify people" because they're biased. Also it's unreasonable of you to expect not to have to defend your viewpoint
Everyone is biased. I'm biased against transphobia that gets trans people beaten and killed. Also it's unreasonable of you to deny the obvious, ignore other editors when we explain and defend the obvious, and then harass us for not defending the obvious when we already have. (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
        • "Everyone is biased" some more than others though. "Also it's unreasonable of you to deny the obvious" asking someone else to prove their claim does not equate to denying it. “ other editors” no one on this talk page has explained your viewpoint but you. “obvious” I’m getting tired of your arrogance
That said, although I haven't been able to follow the entire discussion, and pretty much avoided it between moves, I think maybe it would help to hash out some principles for this kind of discussion. (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mods' reasoning that this doesn't violate BLP

I will quote from the move request resolution:

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

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

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

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

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


  • oppose any suggestion of starting a new move request before 30 days have passed. we've spent enough time and energy on this, and there are still hundreds of thousands of BLPs with potential violations in them. 30 days will allow a more careful tallying of sources and the building of a stronger case to move to Chelsea. I suggest those who want the article moved put their energy into mapping media usage and making a strong COMMONNAME argument, or at least demonstrating that Chelsea has become *as* common as Bradley - if so, then other titling considerations can come into play and COMMONNAME becomes a weaker argument for oppose.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • also oppose It is way too recent to move the article (and possibly at all). First, it is very likely that despite Manning's personal plea to be addressed as "Chelsea" from this point forward, s/he will file appeals using the name "Bradley." That's contradictory and it will be untenable to have older sources saying Bradley, then a spate of sources with Chelsea, followed again by references to Bradley in court files. Lastly, transgenderism is not in the same category as other self-identified groups especially when sexual reassignment is requested as Manning has done. It is one of the few sexuality identities that requires a diagnoses and treatment. He isn't going to show up at the pharmacy and say "My new name is Chelsea and I need hormone replacements" nor will a surgeon perform an operation simply on the patients word. He will need to be evaluated professionally. That doesn't diminish what he believes he is feeling and there are many people that are evaluated and get the treatment. There are also those that don't meet the requirements for a gender change. Personally, I doubt any psychiatrist that specializes in this area would recommend a surgery after so much stress. Because the bar is higher to receive gender reassignment treatment, simple self-identification may not be sufficient to assert such a claim. If a court ordered doctor evaluated Manning and came back with testimony that Manning was depressed, gay, and transvestite and that a physical gender change would only exacerbate the depression he blames on being transgender, what then? Do we use self-identity that conflicts with an experts opinion on treatment? the would likely deny any treament if an expert says no. This all needs resolution before the article name and pronouns are scrubbed. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
DHeyward, you continue to claim that a professional diagnosis is needed, but as has been pointed out, Manning has already had a diagnosis of gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria, by several different psychologists. But you are correct that the legal papers will continue to refer to her as Bradley. The 30-day waiting period will give us time to have a new news cycle, with new stories about Manning, and we will see whether the use of Chelsea persists, increases, or decreases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your comment earlier. I've have found no sources for the diagnosis or who made it but have heard it stated. The diagnosis by the Army psychiatrist when he was involved in a fight was "occupational problem and adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.” The Dr. referred to gender identity issues but that was not made as a formal DSM diagnosis. Manning also sometimes referred to himself as "Breanna" at that time [25]. Do you have a link to that so I can put it in perspective and we can source the DSM diagnosis in the article? The claim that is sourced to Manning appear sin the article and the only reference is the letter Manning sent to the sergeant titled "My Problem" with the picture that was released of Manning in a wig (this is in the article - and I'd also note that at the time, that was his image of "Breanna", not "Chelsea"). There is no reference to a psychologist or psychiatrist making a diagnosis, though. My concern is that the Army psychiatrist or MD that is part of the prison medical staff will not make the diagnosis and therefore not authorize the hormone treatment but possibly classify it as depression or anxiety. In essence, we will have an expert saying "no" and Mannning saying "yes". The Army, if they send him to Leavenworth will have made that determination. Where do we go when that happens? whence the wait for 30 days at least. It still also leaves the pre/post references problem because the AP and NYT, while they will refer to Manning as female in the future, will not go back redact articles they way wikipedia does. They have the ability to do it, but choose not to. --DHeyward (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we bring the arguments together?

Two centralized threads are now started: Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request to prepare a new move request and Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Preparation for another discussion: Article titles for transgender people to prepare a broader article titling discussion for transgender people. Please move future discussion on these topics to those pages. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:15, 2 September 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 am feeling very sick and can't follow through on this right now, but right now, it can be hard to keep track of the arguments scattered here and there through the threads, repeated, not repeated, and interrupted. So it might help to create sub-threads grouping several of the arguments in favor of referring to Chelsea Manning, in the title and the article, with links following, under one heading, counter-arguments and questions in another, arguments in favor of referring to her as Bradley Manning in a third, with links following, and counter-arguments and questions under a fourth heading. This should 1. Make it easier to find a given argument, 2. Make it harder to miss a given argument, 3. Make it easier for different people to address different aspects of this, address stuff the others aren't familiar with, etc., and 4. Help avoid around-and-around arguments. I am very much on one side of this dispute, but I hope this will clear things up for everyone. (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be too soon to do that or even near-impossible as this is a developing story and several discussions are taking place elsewhere. There is FAQ at the top that answers some questions and you can do an archive search of past discussions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
A search isn't any way to find substantive arguments though. I want to assume good faith, but it's really hard, with all the harassment and the calling her "Bradley" and "he." (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's hard to assume good faith when you consider following what is reported by reliable sources to be "harassment". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's offensive to call someone by their former name when asked not to. It's also offensive to disregard using a living person's stated name and gender identity when you know better. Chelsea has stated her wishes, it shows disrespect not to follow them.Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that most of these discussions should be brought to a close under WP:DEADHORSE, if only because both sides have had their say many100 times and as far as I can gather, hasn't actually helped improve much on the article since the page move. Time to let the dust settle, regroup, then come back later when everything isn't so emotionally charged. I know that's probably not a helpful suggestion as you asked whether all of the arguments should be brought together, but I cannot see that happening whilst everyone is spitting feathers. Badanagram (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I think you mean "as if you know better"?. also I totally disagree that avoiding offence is in of it's self important
If the editors here are being disrespectful so is the media; this isn't to say that referring to Chelsea as Bradley and she as he is acceptable but rather that it's widespread. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I meant that one knows when something is offensive so they shouldn't do it. Referring to Chelsea as Bradley is offensive, as is calling her "he/him/its" etc. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The editors here are not paid to foment anxiety and sell their products, we are here to neutrally report on a living person. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
When I called for civility, and suggested that editors do their own research, instead of expecting trans people and allies to offer all the explanations for them, one of the other editors started attacking me for not answering their questions, and for not making arguments which I'd made elsewhere on this page or set out to make, or for not proving points which seem obvious to me, as well as breaking up my explanations with their edits, as well as insulting and degendering Chelsea Manning. It feels like harassment from here. (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
          • do think everything is an attack? I kept asking you to explain your self because you kept making statements without explaining your reasoning, it doesn’t matter how obvious you feel your view point to be you still have the burden of proof. “as well as breaking up my explanations with their edits” I quoted you in my replies so you’d know what I was referring to. “as well as insulting and degendering Chelsea Manning” for any mods who read this, that is a lie. I called her Bradley once because I was ignorant of united states law regarding legal name changer, but that is all. “It feels like harassment from here” it feels like banging my head against a brick wall from here
I still don't know what you want me to explain, or what you think is missing from my explanations. And you broke some of my replies into incoherent bits. You inserted your reply between my reply and my signature. You inserted your reply into the middle of one of my comments. You have inserted your reply at the beginning of other users' comments. (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
              • "I still don't know what you want me to explain, or what you think is missing from my explanations" the part where you actually explain stuff instead of just stating your views. "you broke some of my replies into incoherent bits" I qouted you for clarity. "You inserted your reply into the middle of one of my comments" no I didn't, you're lying agian. "You have inserted your reply at the beginning of other users' comments" no I didn't, you're lying agian — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No, you inserted some of your comments into the middle of mine. And into other users. (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • who the hell the lies about stuff that anyone can check my just looking at a different part of the same page the lie is written on?
That's what I've been wondering. (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
For example, in "Nieskażona głupota—a complaint" above, you inserted one of your comments, unsigned, at the beginning of one of SqueakBox's comments. That may have been an honest mistake, but it confuses everything, and makes your comment look like part of theirs. In "Why should Wikipedia wait 30 days," you inserted your own comment between two lines of one my comments, splitting the two parts. It's right there. It's sometimes acceptable to insert replies between two parts of one comment, but generally, you should only do so when it doesn't break the flow of the comment and also with proper indenting so that the relationship between replies is clear. (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The detached signature seems to either have been fixed, deleted, or archived. I can't find it just yet. (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
                      • you mean when I accidentally put my reply between your comment and you signature, I corrected that about a hour ago when I noticed it?
Yes that; thanks for fixing that. (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's not ideal. I suggest starting at Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request#Supplementary_.21vote_rationale which lays out some of the main points during the original major move discussion. Then go to the top of that page and see why a 3-admin committee decided Bradley was the correct title for the next month. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest creating a sub-page here, like Talk:Bradley Manning/Move proposal 2 and start gathering evidence from media and putting together a case, rather than continuing to re-argue the move (which is frankly rather useless at this point. what's done is done). Within 30 days, you can submit it. If commonname and recognizeability of the name Chelsea has shifted and is sustained, I will be first in line to !vote to move.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Since the last discussion was moved (by me) to Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request, and since the bulk of the next discussion will likely take place in October (unless some higher body overturns the 30-day waiting period imposed in the close), I think it would make more sense to have the follow-up at Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request. If necessary, other titles can redirect there. I would also suggest the use of the traditional discussion format used for lengthy policy discussions, nominations for adminship, and other such processes, with evidence and argument presented by the proposer at the top, followed by a section for editors indicating support, a separate section for editors indicating opposition, a third section for editors indicating neutrality, and a fourth section for discussion, divided into as many subsections as are needed to address however many issues come up. bd2412 T 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Done - I created the skeleton structure. I suggest all editors wanting to contribute to the new move request join the Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request and start collaboratively preparing evidence there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

  • Hi Obi-Wan Kenobi, I was looking over your proposal and it looks great. I do question though whether we need a section for Evidence from RS on how misnaming and misgendering affect trans people. Do we really need a section to state the obvious? By including this section, I think there could be a reasonable argument made that many editors might be inclined to base their arguments solely on how misnaming and misgendering affect trans people, rather than arguments based on WP polices and guidelines concerning article title moves. I would also suggest that many RS discussing this issue are of a general nature, and don't address evidence on how misnaming and misgendering affect trans people in the military, in military prison, widespread media reporting and other variables and parameters that are unique to Manning's case. Coming out as transgender is an individual's choice and how it will affect their life is unique to that individual. I would suggest that any editor who wishes to address this issue, do so in the context of an argument that is based on WP policies and guidelines. Thoughts?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • @Sportfan5000, there is no statement at WP:BLP or at WP:TITLE to the effect that the title of an article should be changed when a notable person publicly announces (personally or through an intermediary) a change of name in association with transgender status. If such a statement existed, I believe that a majority of the editors who participated in the move request would have expressed their opinions accordingly. A proposal along these lines was initiated by CaseyPenk at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Article titles for transgender people, and was closed by Obi-Wan Kenobi pending the outcome of the requested move here. I believe that this proposal can now be reopened and revisited. I would add that I think that our policies should also consider the cases of notable persons who adopt a new name as part of a religious conversion or a similar change in circumstances. bd2412 T 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for us to discuss the terms of a future discussion on article titles before we actually initiate the discussion. This will ensure a more orderly process and avoid us having to shift gears from one proposal to another mid-stream. All are welcome to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Preparation for another discussion: Article titles for transgender people. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • @bd2412, I'm seeking which policy should change so we do follow the wishes of a notable transperson and don't get in this mess again. Allowing a clause for religious conversions is fine by me. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Category: Women in the United States Army

Issue resolved, consensus is to go with a neutral category: United States Army soldiers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Bradley Manning is not a woman, to be a woman you have to have the sex change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of the category. I also disagree with Knowledgekid87, I certainly dont think you need corrective genital surgery (or whatever its called) in order to be a transgender woman, and Manning certainly fits what a transgender woman is without surgery or hormone treatment. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the category I see just as much of an issue as if someone were to add the category: Men in the United States Army - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This trying to re-fight MOS:IDENTITY over every little issue is disruptive. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The thing is though is that MOS:IDENTITY its-self is under dispute. Why cant we respect WP:NPOV here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
What about NPOV requires actively treating Manning as a man? (And I say "actively" because "women in the US Army" is the category we use for women soldiers; simply omitting a "men" category which doesn't exist anyway doesn't make the treatment equal, due to other issues in the way the category structure depicts real-world gender biases leading to the lack of many "men" categories.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
So removing the category would imply what? Manning being a woman is contested so adding the category would be a WP:POV point to take. Not adding the category makes the article no less neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"Manning has a penis so he is a man" does not make the issue "contested." Invalid comments are typically dismissed out of hand and this instance is no different. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree the category is appropriate, but I am curious who decides what is an "invalid comment" or not? The remark there, okay I understand, but more ambiguous remarks that arn't clear cut? Who decides?--v/r - TP 23:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a comment you have in mind that "contests" Manning's gender but wouldn't be invalid? The closing admins of the move discussion specifically and explicitly ignored remarks based on her legal or physical sex. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you please stop making comments based on your own personal point of view? Believe it or not editors here are learning more about the transgendered community, not every comment you see has been done in bad faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If there's any comment of mine you have a problem with, do let me know (probably on my talk page). I'm well aware that many people here are not familiar with the research into transgender issues or with the proper way of referring to trans people. However, I'm concerned that you're confusing "made in good faith" with "equally valid," and that simply isn't right or workable. If an editor went to the article on, say, Elizabeth II and changed all references to "Queen" to "President" - because in his country the head of state is a president, so shouldn't all heads of state be called presidents? - we might accept that as an honest mistake, but not treat it as an equally valid point of view. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I struck my comment, I dont understand why you would want to be POV with the category. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"Bradley Manning is a man" (or generally, "transgender people are really their original sex") is a POV similar to how "being gay is a choice" is a POV. Some people believe both things, but they're (a) impossible to verify (in the sense that you can't definitively assess gender, as opposed to sex,) and (b) are generally considered, at least in the community concerned and increasingly in wider society, as unacceptably aggressive stances on their respective issues. It's obviously very difficult to objectively assess when a comment crosses the line of being too aggressive for legitimate debate, but I think this comment steps over that line and striking it is the right choice. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you made a similar remark below and were called on it by User:NorthBySouthBaranof using very similar reasoning, so nothing new to see here. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I partially agree with Squeak. Genitals have nothing to do with this. Chromosomes however are a different issue. I would not object to transgendered women in the army, which is more accurate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No need for a transgender women category as they can just be included like any other women. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I know plenty of women who never had a sex change. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Well indeed, in many poorer parts of the world genital reassignment surgery is not available free of charge or even at all but that does not make ppl living in these countries less women than those in richer and perhaps less conservative countries. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

See Sex_and_gender_distinction#Sex and Sex_and_gender_distinction#Gender. "Female" is used to describe sex, "woman" describes gender, at least as used by the WHO. What would you use instead to describe gender, if not man/woman? LFaraone 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Intrestesting reads. I didn't see the WHO part, but will look for it later. Thank you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And one of the problems with categorization is that Wikipedia uses the words interchangeably. Category:Women soldiers is a subcategory of Category:Female military personnel which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Women by occupation. StAnselm (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Back in April I did bring the inconsistency to CFD but there was little support for standardising it though some individual tidying migh have got through. But there's very little common use of the terms to distinguish between gender and sex. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

One reason was that the diff you reverted actually contained its reference supporting both the "women" and "in the United States army" parts of the category - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, that doesn't give others carte blanche, you included, to undo without justifying first.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Futhermore, your "that's a novel distinction" wasn't an explanation at all, but condescending. I know you've had a rough week, but don't take that out on me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That would be why I noted it here on the talk page, which answers both your points. Your objection came across as completely irrelevant to (a) the category (b) the reference (so you're not a fan of WP:V?), and (c) was a novel and spurious distinction to the article. It very much came across as an attempt to remove anything describing Manning as a woman, without any colourable justification - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the category makes no distinction between gender/sex ain't my fault. You never mentioned (b) until just now and (c) is based upon what? I'm willing to listen to arguments, and in fact I'm leaning towards yours and others just made here. Communication is a two way street.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, keep "Women in the Army" outta here. Bradley Manning's a man as of this second. When and if he decides to pull a Christine Jorgenson, then we can consider that category, but for the moment, he's male BLP and V are key here, and stop regurtitation MOS:IDENTITY please. That's actually not even officially a guideline as it's inclusion is being disputed.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  23:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
BLP and V are key, and they go along with IDENTITY rather than conflicting with it. I'm afraid your personal belief that genitals determine someone's gender does not override either our policies or the current scientific position. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to ask why such a category exists in the first place? It's not as if there's a corresponding Category:Men in the United States Army. It sounds to me like a similar problem that existed for Category:American women novelists (see, Guardian, etc.)
The category Category:United States Army personnel exists and thankfully contains women such as Jo-Ellen Darcy. Problem solved, --RA () 23:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, thanks RA. I would also recommend placing the category Women in the United States Army up for deletion based on your reasoning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:United States Army personnel covers the issue with a NPOV and without violating BLP, IDENTITY, or any other (currently) divisive issues. GregJackP Boomer! 23:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
So can someone swap out the categories? I would do it but wont violate WP:3RR - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Except that the article already has Category:United States Army soldiers, which is a subcat. StAnselm (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That's fine Category:United States Army soldiers can be seen as being more neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) There is no "compromise solution" agreement here in the least. If you believe the category is inappropriate as a whole, the solution would be to place it up on Categories for Discussion - not to selectively remove it from a page you're bound and determined to ignore MOS:IDENTITY on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a category we are talking about as in mainspace information, not article content, why place a category that conflicts with another category and why be WP:POV here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't conflict, and it is not a "POV" that Chelsea Manning identifies as a woman - it is a fact. That is not subject to POV, just as a person who identifies as gay or lesbian is not subject to POV. There are, no doubt, people who think gay and lesbian people don't exist. Nevertheless, we categorize gay and lesbian people as what they are. If you think trans-people don't exist or aren't really what they are, you're welcome to that opinion - but Wikipedia is not required to give the time of day to your fringe ideology. The scientific facts relating to gender identity and gender dysphoria are essentially settled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
POV is claiming that Chelsea is other than a woman, NPOV is stating the fact that Chelsea identifies as a woman. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Using a gender-neutral category does not push a POV, it is definitely NPOV. It also serves the laudable purpose of reducing conflict until this can be resolved by ArbCom. I don't care how Manning is classified gender-wise, it really isn't that important to me, but the more the conflict goes on, the more emotional people get about it, the more likely that a bunch of people (on both sides) will be sanctioned. For now, why not agree on a gender-neutral description and try and tone things down some? GregJackP Boomer! 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Because a "gender-neutral" category when there is a gendered category is not NPOV, rather it asserts the POV that Manning is not a woman. Which might be your POV, but it is rejected by reliable and verifiable sources reporting on her transition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
And what are you basing your determination of my position on? I have no problem with Chelsea being identified as a female, using female pronouns, etc. Nor do I have problems with her transgender issues, although I don't think that it will be as easy as some apparently think it will be. A gender-neutral category is just that, neutral, and it can step down the rhetoric. I will say this, putting in your two cents about what "my" POV is will not win you my support and to be frank, is counterproductive. GregJackP Boomer! 01:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that it can ease tensions a little, but it's not ideal -- this strikes me as similar in tone to the editors that reword the article to replace female pronouns with "Manning" or other non-gendered constructions: whilst technically it replaces a statement with a non-statement, I think a user viewing the diff might reasonably conclude that we were trying to avoid saying she's female -- and why would we do that? Presumably because it ain't so...
IOW I don't think using the neutral category asserts she is not a woman, but I think it waggles its eyebrows at the possibility in a way that may be misconstrued. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
NorthbySouthBaranof, you're literally the only person regurtitating a disupted guideline. Knock it off! Bradley Mannings a dude, based on gender , not to mention common sense (but if you need verified references, and I sure hope you don't check my post near the top, complete with collapsed references, as theres about 60+ to 4 60 + male , 4 female ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Kosh, there are plenty of people on the project that believe that WP:IDENTITY is a valid issue on this article, and it is not a disputed guideline. You need to be aware that the reason that the article was moved back to the name Bradley is not because the community believed Manning to be male, but because there was no consensus in the community to make the original move to Chelsea. It is likely as time passes and more and more sources use the name Chelsea and the feminine pronouns, that the article will be moved back to Chelsea. At that point both IDENTITY and COMMONNAME will be in sync and the community will support the move. Manning's male appendage does not determine identity. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not "the only person" pointing out MOS:IDENTITY here. The fact that you and some others dispute the existence of the guideline does not negate its existence and its force. In fact, an attempt to change the wording in question was just closed and rejected, with the closing admin noting that "there is a distinct majority in support of keeping the MoS advice as written, which advises that the subject's declared current gender preference should apply "in references to any phase of that person's life." Moreover, your repeated insistence that "Bradley Mannings a dude" demonstrates nothing more than your apparent willful ignorance on matters of gender identity and the lives of transgender people. It will convince exactly nobody. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

  • Oy vey. This is a different can of worms altogether, and not governed by the now-everpresent pronoun and female name insistence. Try sending a postcard to "Chelsea Manning" addressed to Ft. Leavenworth, KS. It will not get there, as the Army does not recognize such a name. There's also the fact that Manning is held at Ft. Leavenworth and not Miramar. This is not really a debatable matter; as far as classification and categorization goes, by all measurable Army regulations and standards, this category is simply not accurate. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    Your contentious proposal is rejected as we all know that until the military is forced to it will not recognize any name change. Essentially you are repeating the tired and inflammatory idea that we should disrespect a BLP wishes to be recognized by their gender identity. Luckily there are people with common sense who also edit here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    So now you think we should be identifying people based on what the United States Postal Service recognizes for mail delivery? What policy or guideline supports the view that we defer to the post office? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    Well, personal attacks aside, I will again point you both back to what we're actually talking about here, which is the categorization of women in the United States Army. The United States Army, at present, has no recognition of a woman named "Chelsea Manning" in the service. How do you justify the categorization of a person into an organization if said organization does not list that person as such? Btw, it isn't the Postal Service that denies recognition, it is the Army that will refuse the mail. You both know this is true, right? Read Manning's statement, the "except in official mail to the confinement facility" line in particular. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    I think you're right that she is not a member of the army that the army recognises as a woman, but barring fringe opinions she is a woman, and she is in the army, so she is a woman in the army. Note that the category title does say that the army makes the gender determination (unlike if the army assigned special female-only ranks, along the lines of Woman Police Constable, where we'd have to carefully clarify that the person is a (woman) (Police Constable) but not a (Woman Police Constable)) Chris Smowton (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

This is the same line of argument that had been deployed by you and a few others for the last week now, but it didn't sway the Move Request (seeing how the article is back to "Bradley") and it doubly does not work here either. Again, this is a separate matter from other discussions as I detailed above; we're talking simply about how people are categorized, in this case men and women in the U.S. Army. If the organization does not categorize this person a woman according to their own rules and policies, for you to try to do so just isn't...correct. A woman in the U.S. military would not be held at an all-male facility, that's kinda the biggest indicator here. Tarc (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean that "per WP:BLP, Chelsea Manning is a woman". What part of WP:BLP are you referring to? It is an undisputed fact that Manning identifies as a woman. What is in dispute is whether she really is a woman, and whether it's appropriate to categorize her as such. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You're going to have to quote a line from BLP to support that. Manning is a man who identifies as a woman. Whether that is enough to make him/her a woman is debatable, both here and in the wider world. As such, the category should be gender-neutral to avoid taking a POV side. (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I still have yet to see a DSM declaration that Manning is transgender. Self-diagnosis in a press release that everyone points to is inadequate for conditions that are medically recognized. The army psychiatrist did not classify Manning as transgender. Secondly, the army would be the authoritative source for this category. If Manning self-identifies as a General in the army, we wouldn't add that as a category. Gender is not immaterial to army service as it determines MOS and barracks. Manning is eligible for male MOS' and lives in male housing units and wears the male uniform. If Manning self-identified as a Heisman trophy winner, he wouldn't get the cat because the controlling body that counts membership would say "no." -- (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
A report of self-diagnosis is unacceptable for a condition noted for being self-diagnosed? Ummm, I see a bit of a problem with that logic. The rest of your tirade is addressed by MOS:IDENTITY. Dolescum (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Which is why it is better, for now, to use the gender-neutral category. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I see a lot of drama over a simple category. This isn't a rush, we don't have some big BLP emergency, so I'd ask all of you to relax and STOP the edit warring. NorthBySouth especially, I feel like you've reverted this category at least 3 or 4 times already. That's enough. Its addition is controversial, as such we should discuss first and come to consensus before adding again.
The application of a category is based on WP:DEFINING. I think as of now, we aren't there yet in our reliable sources. We certainly have enough RS to place Manning as a Transgender military personnel, and of course as a US army soldier, but we don't have sources saying "Manning is a woman who served in the army for 5 years before xxx" - they are mostly eschewing use of that term. As such, I think we should leave this category off for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Per WP:3RR edit warring is not productive here, we found a neutral category to leave in, lets end this discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Allow me to channel my inner Stan Marsh: "This is fucking retarded." Carrite (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No kidding. I requested full protection - and don't care which version is protected, but going over 3RR over a category is insane. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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


Manning addressed as a "she"?

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

Manning was born a male, is a male and will continue to be a male despite his so-called "gender identity" problems. It's ridiculous that the whole article addresses him as a she rather than a he, as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PikkoroDaimao (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)
Yes, in the case of the article's contents, MOS:IDENTITY is a rock solid reason to use she. Vexorian (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I second this. The fact that this is a debate at all is laughable... I can't believe how uneducated the masses are on transgendered people and their issues. People who are blatantly transphobic and obviously know nothing of trans-people should not even have a say in this issue. This article should be moved to Chelsea Manning and have all pronouns changed to female, MOS:IDENTITY is very clear on this. To not do so based on a few bigoted people's biased stances would compromise Wikipedia's already fragile integrity... — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Will Bradley Manning be serving out his sentence in a male prison or a female one? Will he be using male lavatories or female ones? No amount of cosmetic surgery can turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man. All it can do is superficially simulate the appearance of such. Male and female, because the sexes only exist as two complementary roles in sexual reproduction, are defined by the biology of sexual reproduction, not the pathology of a broken mind that believes itself to be something other than it is. They are biological distinctions that exist in relation to reproduction without which they would not have any function/meaning. FurryAminal (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Actually, yes, I can put the trans-phobic label on everyone with that opinion.
"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a man and he should not be allowed to marry another man" is unambiguously homophobic.
"I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but John Doe is a black man and he should not be allowed to marry a white woman" is unambiguously racist.
Please explain how your argument is not unambiguously transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not share MightySaiyan's view on this, but the analogous transphobic comment to your examples would be "I believe everyone has a right to exercise their freedom and lifestyle in their own way but Bradley Manning is a man and should not be able to live as a woman." That's not at all what was said, MightySaiyan was talking about Manning's legal name and his views on what that should mean for the wording on an encyclopedic article. Such inflammatory responses to that are helping no one. U-Mos (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been had UMPTEEN times on this page already. Please drop the stick, both of you. Focus on content. The article currently uses "she", and will likely continue to do so unless MOS:IDENTITY has changed. Thus, there's not much more to say here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No need to change MOS:IDENTITY, Manning is verifiably a man as evidenced by his admission into the US Army as a man and his incarceration in a male prison. His name is verifiably "Bradley" Manning as evidenced by the fact that the military and the courts still refer to him as "Bradley", not "Chelsea". And in regards to the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, the non-neutral bias is coming from those who insist on calling him a "she" and using his non-legal name as the title of the article. He is neither a "she" nor is his name "Chelsea". When his name is legally changed and he starts hormone replacement therapy, at that point the article should be updated to reflect those changes. But at the current time it is obvious that the fervor to change his name and call him a "she" is driven by editors with a non-neutral agenda. Martylunsford (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that the discussed section of MOS:IDENTITY is explicitly intended to be used for the pages of trans people. I'm not sure how this: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." could be read any other way, especially given the lines that follow it about "phase of that person's life" and similar things that imply transition. Given that, I'd say you'd have to blind yourself to the rules pretty willfully to miss that MOS:IDENTITY pretty clearly does assert that female pronouns should be used on this page. Cam94509 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Do we have evidence she was born as a he? Any medical assessment of genitalia and chromosomes at the moment of birth (from reputable sources, of course) ? Vexorian (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment: I don't think we should call this transphobia. Transphobia should be when people beat up transsexuals and discriminate against them, as some sort of evidence of actual animosity. I think there should be some other category of "trans-skepticism" where a person can decide he doesn't believe the surgery and lifestyle changes really change what sex someone is, or doesn't want to stop using an old name or pronoun in certain circumstances, when there is no animosity. Much as someone can be firmly unbelieving of Islam but not Islamophobic. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if you would rename it "trans-skepticism", a trans person being miss-gendered will perceive it as discrimination. Vexorian (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Keep in mind that MOS:IDENTITY was created in its current form with relatively little discussion; far less than has occurred a a result of this particular event. There is substantial evidence that this guideline, in its current form, does not reflect the views of the majority (or is very close to the tipping point either way). This individual represents a strange series of events that is very unlikely to happen again in such a public forum. There are so many ins and outs here that it is unfair to label either side as being transphobic when the topic of discussion here isn't Chelsea now and forward, but rather the way of representing that in an article where the claim to notability took place before the transition. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The views of the majority are clearly subject to extreme WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in this case. This is the reason why consensus is not supposed to be a vote. Wikipedia erred massively to ignore that part of the policy in this precise case. The admins work was not just to count votes. Vexorian (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re personal pronouns

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

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

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

The New York Times specified that it would now use "her" but would keep using "him" when referring to past events. I think this would be the best solution. IMHO, the retroactive use of "her" and "she" in the narrative, when referring to events which took place when Manning was still widely known as a "he", is very unfortunate : I don't think it does a great service to transgendered people. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Using the male pronoun to refer to events when Manning was regarded as male seems sensible.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this, PLEASE!!! I'm fine if Manning wants to be female from now on, but she was born a boy, and did many of the same things boys and young men did. To attribute those actions to a female is *very* confusing, and honestly seems a little wrong. LivitEh?/What? 15:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
So, MOS:IDENTITY says that "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." when discussing pronouns. Moreover, there's reason the policy is written this way: The idea is that one does not *become* trans by announcing one is trans, one is trans (and thus best described by your preferred gender pronoun) in the past, too. While it's understandable that retrospective pronoun shifts are hard to swallow, they're technically much less "wrong" than the alternative. While it might be perfectly reasonable to use male pronouns retrospectively given the persons expressed acceptance of such treatment, such isn't *really* in line with reality, and it's not really in line with policy either. (The first half is more important than the second; if this were merely a problem of policy, this would be an ideal case to use WP:IAR)Cam94509 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
That's consistent with the Associated Press Manual of Style. Amythewillowprincess (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"She was born a boy"? Fascinating. I thought the whole issue of GID was "being born in the wrong body". Are you saying that the "disorder" has been re-defined (if so, please provide a source) or that Manning only "acquired" GID at some point in time (and again, please provide a source). Guettarda (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC) And yes, this sort of stuff is precisely what some define as transphobic. Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ease up. See this; GLAAD, which has been put forth as the final word on this subject by some, uses the term "born a boy", or "born as a male" as do many transgender people themselves. GID is itself complex, and we don't have any specific evidence of when GID started for Manning, or when any arbitrary child may recognize it - for obvious reasons this would be confusing to a child in any case, who is always treated as a boy but feels different, it may take a while for them to crystallize their feelings. Even with Manning, it took until she was 25 until she finally declared that she was a woman, but I don't think all people with GID ultimately end up switching genders, they may just express themselves differently. Born in the wrong body seems like an oversimplification of the spectrum of GID and Gender dysphoria.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ease up on what? Some transwomen say "born a boy". Some say "born in the wrong body". Some characterise their experience differently. But the editor is making a definite statement (Manning was born male) which, IMO, needs to be supported by sources if it is to inform the content of the article; s/he also said that was Manning male up until this point in time ("wants to be female from now on") which amounts to a denial of GID as a real, lived experience. Which seems to fit the definition of 'transphobic language'. Of course, much of what's on this page is much, much worse. Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It is also a treatable medical condition with hormones and gender reassignment surgery. As far as I have found from the sources, he has not been diagnosed as someone who would be eligible for this treatment. Until there is a some reliable source that this is the disorder he was born with, there should not be a change to his gender. He is not qualified to make the diagnoses himself. Doctors don't change someones gender simply because they say they feel a certain way especially during an extremely stressful event occurring in their lives. At points, Manning also expressed desires to kill himself yet no doctors leapt forward with assisted suicide nor did anyone make the case that he should be allowed to kill himself. They were episodic feelings under stress and passed. It is a huge leap to take someone's word and transform their entire history on that one expression. Quite simply, Manning has also felt gay as he was attracted to men. Transgender and gay are not the same thing as one is treated and the other is not. Without a proper evaluation by a psychiatrist that specializes in transgender issues and can make a diagnoses, this is simply a statement from a person that is under extreme stress that is quite possibly simply trying to escape his past. I doubt any doctor would treat him until/unless they can separate his identity from the stress of escaping his past actions as well as discerning whether he is simply gay and attracted to men, or actually female. This cannot be done in a press release. -DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: manning has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder, this was mentioned during the trial, by several different psychologists. To Guettarda, there is plenty of evidence that Manning was "born a boy" - the most important of which was, she was raised as a boy. This is not a statement about genitals, however, of which we don't know anything (and I frankly don't care nor think it matters).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
DHeyward, where in our policies/guidelines, in IDENTITY, does it say we can only change someone's gender after a medical diagnosis has been made? I havent read that policy or guideline so please point it out to me. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the obvious that needs no policy. He also expressed suicidal tendencies yet we he have no Doctor that would be willing to assist. There is no reputable doctor that would start hormone therapy or gender reassignment due to the current stress he is under. In fact, the underlying characteristic is his attraction to men. Whether that is gay (i.e. not a condition that is abnormal or treatable) or he is transgender (which is treatable) is not conclusive. If he is able to change his name or gender, everything he has done should refer to his proper name and gender. He will file a legal brief as Bradley Manning in the future because there is no record of a name or gender change. He might be the most feminine inmate at the all-male prison. But he is still male. He did not wear a wig or skirt at trial. He can claim he is female, the Easter Bunny or Ronald McDonald. His self-identification is secondary to the courts that refer to him as human,man, army enlisted personnel. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Avoiding pronouns

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

For events prior to her announcement, it seems to me to be the right way to dodge an impossible ambiguity, so I would tend to disagree that it's not helping or that there's no need for it. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, especially the sentence about "she was small.... for a boy" - the prior wording was better. Sometimes, you have to word carefully, and sometimes that means avoiding a pronoun (for example, if you have a quote in the same sentence that uses "he", you should eschew "she" to introduce it).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:IDENTITY specifically supports what Slim is saying, why should we make an exception for Chelsea?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? You would "appreciate" it? I'd appreciate it if the article were coherent, which is the only reason I'm even bothering with this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:IDENTITY specifically supports what Slim is saying. There is no need to write poorly to enforce an opinion that she is less female in some way. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well apparently that is just a guideline, and AFAICT there is no mandate to use it part and parcel. And if what Slim reported to us is correct (and I apologize for my snippy response Slim), Manning doesn't want female pronouns to be used for his "male" life, only his "female" life.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Not so, this argument has been put and shot down already on this page only days ago, guidelines are equally important as policies, which is why the opposition to calling her Chelsea has been so damaging to wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, policies are mandates. Guidelines are suggestions, Your opinion of what is and what is not damaging is just that. An opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have seen reliable sources using both he and she in the same sense as well on Margaret Thatcher's page where her name is referred to as Robert in her early life section, your reasoning is poor here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Where here does it say that, Two kinds of pork?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You never answered what I had to say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is challenging the Thatcher usage and anyway transgender issues are substantially different from issues resulting from peop´le getting married, IDENTITY clearly supports what I am saying here. Is there a guideline on usage of maiden names for women? Does it say we shouldnt use them?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
And where is the consensus to support what you want? If there is no consensus we stick to the guidelines. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Once the RM is decided, we can open an RfC about pronoun use if that's wanted. But in the meantime, we shouldn't be writing Manning this, Manning that, the child, the soldier, etc, to avoid using any pronoun at all. It's poor writing and it's stigmatizing, as though we're saying Manning was neither a he nor a she. She should be used in exactly the same way he was used in the previous version, except where the context really does require some rewriting (e.g. where a nearby she refers to someone else). SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Another statement from Manning's lawyer

On August 26, 2013, Manning's attorney David Edward Coombs and the Private Manning Support Network (formerly the Bradley Manning Support Network) jointly posted what they call "Additional clarification on PVT Manning's request." It reads in part:

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

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

Actually, I think it's rather clear. Manning expects male pronouns to be used because that is the reality of how the topic has been discussed in these contexts. I don't see any basis that Manning has changed her preferences based on the above statement. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
GASP! Where is the army of editors jumping on the chance to go in and change all the pronouns in the articles? It looks like NONE of these changes have been made! Could it be that the users who were so quick to make the changes to the article when Manning "announced" he was a woman (as if that just makes it so) gave less than one flying fuck what Manning wants or expects, and were just looking for an opportunity to push their ridiculous advocacy position on a neutral encyclopedia? TUM TUM TUMMMMM! The plot thickens! Clinton (talk)
Cjarbo2, please be aware that some users have cited what they believe to be policy arguments for the move to Chelsea, and that not all users may be "advocates" for social change. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

She asked for respect and acknowledgement of of her gender identity but said that she expected that the name Bradley and male pronoun would be used in various legal contexts. That is not inconsistent with her original statement asking people to use the female pronoun and new name except in official mail to the prison. I fail to see how this is earth-shattering or in any way determinative.AgnosticAphid talk 19:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. It does take the wind out of the sails of the "must use female names/terms now!" side of the debate a tad, but in terms of having a practical effect on the Wikipedia it probably amounts to little, since we shouldn't be relying on the subject's personal preferences anyways. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that some people already are going by what he subject's personal preferences are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The idea that, as Tarc puts it, "we shouldn't be relying on the subject's personal preferences anyways," is downright bizarre. Why did Manning's Wikipedia article require an emergency sex-change operation in the first place? It wasn't because Manning underwent hormone therapy or surgery to alter his gender. It was solely because Manning, through his lawyer's appearance on the Today show, expressed a preference, and Wikipedia's doctors of political correctness sprang into action. JohnValeron (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A person's gender identity is not conditional on completing the process of hormone therapy and surgery. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, quite frankly, not everyone subscribes to that notion, and it is quite wrong of you and a handful of others to push your ideology onto people who hold a different opinion on the matter. There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning" here. What we have is a man named "Bradley Manning" who wants to be called by this other name (and awhile ago it was reportedly "Breanna") and referred to as "she". That is all. That is the reality that the article should reflect, the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. Bradley Manning was a solider in the United States military. Bradley Manning was caught passing classified intel to unauthorized parties, convicted, and sentenced. After that, Bradley Manning decided to be called "Chelsea". That is how the flow of the article should be, these are all things that a man named Bradley Manning did, you can't just flick a switch and rewrite history to say "Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act..." and so on. That just isn't historically accurate or truthful. When and if he legally changes his name, that is when the transition process of the article should begin. That all was simply way too soon. Tarc (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, as I've pointed out before, the problem with insisting on completion of the medical or legal processes as the standard for recognition of a transgender person's new identity is that those things are covered by privacy laws. Nobody but her and her lawyers has a right to access her legal records; nobody but her and her doctors has a right to access her medical records — which means that you're insisting on a standard which no reliable source will ever be able to properly verify whether or when she's successfully met them. It's an unattainable standard which a transgender person can never actually meet unless her privacy is consensually or non-consensually violated in a way that would still be an inadmissible source (e.g. a tabloid stealing her name change documents; somebody actually publishing an unauthorized photograph of her in the communal shower.) That's why it's not conditional on completing the process: there's no way that her completion of the process can ever be properly verified. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Tarc &John Valeron, you both appear to be pushing a fringe view which rejects the medical consensus. The position which Bearcat describes ert to gender identity is the consensus position of the medical profession: WPATH's SOC notes that:
"gender dysphoria—broadly defined as discomfort or distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth."[26]
You are of course quite entitled to disagree, and there are many fringe views on these matters. However, if you want to misuse these discussions to push your own theories about transgenderism and the process of gender reassignment, please have the courtesy not to denounce those with mainstream views as pushers of ideology or "political correctness".
If you insist on approaching the biographies of trans people with your own set of definitions, and insist on applying a standard which (as Bearcat illustrates) is unattainable, you are effectively demanding that Wikipedia should permanently reject the identities of trans people. That is a blatantly ideological position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not a fringe opinion, it is a very real one that is tied to the rejection of political correctness. I give no credence to Bearcat's "medical records are private therefore we just have to go by what the subject says", it's just too absurd to even address. Like it or not, America is fairly evenly divided between liberal and conservative ideologies, and this one of mine happens to fall on the conservative side of things. Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so. You can deride that as "fringe" if that's what makes you comfortable with yourself, I really don't plan to spend much time haranguing you on why that's incorrect. But from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, we're still at the simple place and time where Manning is still regarded as a male, and generally addresses him as such. WP:COMMONNAME and all that. This whole gender affair should be consigned to a few paragraphs of his bio, maybe even a spinout article if there's enough material. Keep in mind that the primary notability here is a soldier convicted of violating the Espionage Act and about to serve a 35-year term in Ft. Leavenworth. Note that I never plan to edit-war or act tendentiously or attack other editors, I'm just working on moving the discussion here in the way I feel it should go. If the Move Request and other issues do not go the way I wish them to, I will be of course disappointed but will alo consider the matter settled. Unlike some around here, I actually respect consensus. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
As I feared, Tarc. You reject the medical consensus as "political correctness" and proclaim your conservative ideology. And yet you denounce others for pushing what you call an ideology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, we're arguing from unequal positions; the article should never have been moved without having this discussion first. So we started this race with your "side", as it were, already a lap ahead. So me arguing...or "denouncing" to borrow your just trying to get back on equal footing. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
We're not going to start asking homeopaths if an article on alternative medicine labelled medicine should be moved. There are no sides here, because you haven't qualified for the race; you are rejecting medical consensus in the name of some perceived right to have your opinions supersede fact. There isn't really much room for debate here. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Information from Manning's lawyer about pronouns and the photograph

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

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

I don't think this carries weight to those who reply here saying "Well this is what manning wants so...." but thanks Slim for the clarification. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
For future reference, the "current main photograph" is File:Bradley Manning US Army.jpg ("MANNING, BRADLEY PFC HEAD AND SHOULDERS 4-26-2012.jpg"). This is the US Army photo of PFC Manning in uniform in front of a US flag, made available by his lawyer, David Coombs. -- ToE 17:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My personal interpretation of the statement would lead me to the conclusion that "change all pronouns/names in events prior to August 22, 2013 to male/Bradley && differentiate between Chelsea/Bradley on events post August 22, in addition to restoring the title to Bradley" would be the neutral, proper way of interpreting it. (And I think it could be valid. But that's just me...) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made some changes on this article.

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

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

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

You also removed her new name from the lede and stripped the identification of her as a transgendered person. Moreover, you changed pronouns that refer to the future tense - "he will serve his sentence" which is no longer true, because she will serve her sentence. While the other pronoun issues might be debatable, it is not debatable that her new name should be mentioned in the lede. So yes, I have reverted you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Not quite, he's still Bradley Manning , legally and therefore , yes he will serve his sentance is correct. Notice that from the moment he declared a gender change, I left the feminine pronouns in. It's as I explained it, he started off life as man , therefore, masculine pronouns are appropriate, per BLP and V, however, the second he declared his desire to become a woman,in the article, the masculine pronoun becomes inappropriate, the feminine pronoun becomes appropriate per V, now if he decides go through with his gender change, then at that time, the entire gender pronoun may change to all feminine (like Billy Tipton ).
Bottom line, this proposed change takes both BLP and V into consideration without stricly favoring one over the other (as both are policy ). BLP and V for historical portions of his story, prior to his announcement that he wants to change his gender to a woman, and V a bit stronger for the portion of the story thereafter (as people are considered verifiable for what they think and believe). You follow ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud, until and unless MOS:IDENTITY changes, follow MOS:IDENTITY: That means retrospectively using the person's preferred pronouns. Cam94509 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, as has been explained many, many times here, one does not have to go through any legal process to change one's name and at any rate, there is no policy or guideline that requires Wikipedia to use a person's "legal name" anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Per MOS:IDENTITY, Manning should be referred to by female pronouns throughout the article. See George Sand for a comparable situation. The decision to keep the article name as Bradley is separate from a conversation/consensus about pronoun usage. (Note, I was not logged in when I first made this comment, so it will show up as an IP in the page history). NewAccount4Me (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Mos Identity is a guideline, BLP and V are policy. Policy always trumps everything else, once again , see Billy Tipton. Billy Tipton was born and died a female, but lived as a male. In that article, V is used to always refer to Billy Tipton as he. This is a simliar situation. Bradley Manning, at this time, is male, is referred to is various reliable sources as "Bradley Manning" and a plethora of masculine pronouns. At least, in this article, prior to his decision to change his gender, he needs to be refered to with masculine pronouns (BLP and V --- I also remind you that MOS:IDENTITY is being disputed right now, and is a guideline only ). Once we get to the section in the article where he states he wants to change his gender, it's acceptable to use a feminine pronoun, per V ( again , policy). By the way, George Sand is not comparable, "George Sand" was a psuedonym for a female writer who is referred to as female throughout the article. Bradley Mannings legal name as of this second, is Mr. Bradley Manning, and he's legally male at this time.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no BLP violation when referring to an article subject by their self-professed gender. Had that information come from TMZ or some non-reputable blog, it would be a BLP violation, but as this info came from a public statement from the subject themselves, it is clearly not a BLP violation. There is no validity in a WP:V argument. My use of Sand as an example is to provide a situation where the article's title and pronouns used are in seeming opposition to one another, but work for the subject in question. There is no "need" for us to rush to discard MOS:IDENTITY at this time. I'd say wait two or three weeks, and then start a reasoned discussion on the talkpage, after the heat from the RM has calmed down, and find a consensus among users about appropriate pronoun usage on this article. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Eh? As far as I can tell, Billy Tipton lived a big chunk of his life identifying both privately and publicly, until his death, as male. The fact he had female anatomy which was made public around the time of his death doesn't mean he 'died female', there's no evidence he changed his mind and identified as female at the time of his death, in fact logic would suggest this was not the case since he was dying or dead. In other words, the example you've chosen actually supports us using female pronouns just as we use male pronouns for Billy. As NewAccount4Me has said, there's clearly no basis for a BLP argument to use male pronouns, quite the opposite in fact, nor is there a V one since the fact that Chelsea identifies as female and female pronouns are preferred by her and used by other sources is clearly verifiable. Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

(raw data below --- it's long, so it's collapsed already )
Sources that refer to Bradley Manning as male and Sources that refer to Bradley Manning as female - Warning, a bit long
References to Bradley Manning as a Male References to Bradley Manning as Female || ||;contentBody (Questionable notability ) (Discusses his gender change, but still refers to him with masculine pronouns)
 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, no. You ignore the fact that once something has changed, it's changed. The references from before Manning announced her transition are effectively irrelevant, because they are artifacts of a previous status. They became outdated the moment she expressed her gender identity publicly. They might apply historically, and that is a matter for reasonable debate. But facing forward, there is simply no question that Manning is now female and we will use her expressed name and identity.
There is absolutely nothing "questionable" about the sources reporting her transition. Every major news organization in North America, and many overseas, have reported on it. There is no evidence presented by you or anyone else that there is any reason to doubt that Manning made the statements that she did. Unless you have any such evidence, those reliable sources are controlling: Chelsea Manning announced her transition, is now a woman and that's pretty much the end of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Irregardless of whether these references are from before Bradley Manning stated he'd change his gender, they're still reliable references that refer to Bradley Manning as Male. The bulk of the resources refer to him as male. As of this second, he's still male, legally and biologically. Once he decides, if he decides, to go Christine Jorgensen, and legally change his name (I ' actually planned to change my name at one point and can tell you that it's a legal prodceedure, nothing big or anything, you submitt a form with your given name and the name you want to change it to, swearing under penalty of perjury that you're not a felon, and you're not trying to escape any existing debts or legal obligations. Once that change is granted, then you change your identification, which is also a legal process as you're swearing under penalty of perjury that the name you are changing your ID to (and credit cards, and everything else ) is your legal name '.) THEN' and only then can we think about call him his female name. He's still a male per the military, he's still a male biologically and still a male legally. We further have an assload of sources (reliable ones, even if we remove Huffington Post and Salon ) that refer to Bradley Manning as male. Reliable Sources and BLP (IE We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. and All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

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

Break as this is getting T/L

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

  • Kosh, you're just... incredibly wrong. I don't know how else to put it. The MoS has been very clear for some time on what to do here, and your refusal to abide by that is disruptive. We don't get to decide what gender someone is. If you want to change the guideline, there's ways to do that, but this is not it. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Pink, go ahead and prove it. (Not a challenge, but a request) I've given evidence using verifiable evidence and your response is to say I'm simply wrong, so show me where or how.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Linking to this article from other articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link that states Chelsea Manning (born Bradley Manning, 1987), U.S. Army intelligence analyst, convicted of leaking classified materials to WikiLeaks, should be changed to Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. Since the Bradley Manning article is now named Bradley Manning, and also because Manning is still legally Bradley Manning. Manning has not had a legal name change yet. BeckiGreen (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC), MOS:BIO says, "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." This should tell you what to do if the link is in another bio article, but it also provides more general advice for non-bio articles. As for the "Manning" article, since Chelsea's claim to notability to be included on the list in the first place was for things she did when her name was "Bradley", the MOS:BIO advice would seem to suggest that she be listed there as "Bradley". But there is no reason there cannot also be a "now known as" parenthetical afterward. (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
BeckiGreen, you appear to be under the misconception that there has to be something called a "legal name change." There does not. 46 of 50 U.S. states recognize the right to make a common-law name change with no formal legal action required. Those states include the states Manning has resided or will reside in. See our handy legal name article for details. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Common law name changes are not accepted for identity in federal courts (the main reason Manning is notable). Nor would the Army being a government entity. Assuming a name under common law is simply not illegal. Manning can be called anything s/he likes except in court, prison or the army. If there's a place for a Manning article outside of the Army, prison or court, any name desired could be used. Otherwise, those three entities consider him to be male, named Bradley Manning exactly as it is stated in his enlistment papers, indictments, etc. "Today my new name is Chelsea" is not illegal but not recognized. If, for example, your legal name is "Robert" and you go by "Bobby" or "Bubba", it is not illegal to do so. However, the government is under no obligation to honor that until/unless it is registered. If you were given a name at birth and it was registered with the government, that's your name for future interactions with the government including government service, courts, prison, etc. Common law makes registering a new name very easy and limits what the government can deny but it is a far cry from "Today my name is Chelsea." One of the requirements is that the name change can't be for fraud. The prosecutor will not simply ignore a gender/name change and have Manning sent to a female prison. They will argue it is a fraud to get out of Leavenworth which would necessitate a court decision. --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
We don't name people exclusively based on what name their government calls them. The rest of your argument is similarly non-responsive. Wikipedia is not required to base its article names on what a prosecutor wants.
Also, the main reason Manning is notable is for the contents of the documents he leaked, not the fact that he was convicted for leaking the documents. If he had leaked meaningless documents revealing nothing of significance, nobody would have ever heard of him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you immediately forfeit your civilian rights upon joining the military? If certain laws apply differently to him, then why are we still pretending that he is a civilian? If you want to argue Wikipedia policy, that's fine; what I don't get is the constant referrals to how "46 of 50 U.S. states" do things. --benlisquareTCE 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this all really necessary??

This is not a forum nor a place to complain, the move is over. Please join the page linked at the top where sources are being found to argue the next move in 30 days time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 3 September 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.

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

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

As has been stated above, it all comes down to how we should represent her. Wikipedia has various guidelines regarding how articles are named, and so it doesn't always come down to how she wants to be seen. Besides, the point is moot as this debate cannot happen again for another 30 days. — Richard BB 11:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, because we decide how to treat people. If we want to be racist, we sure should make wikipedia racist too! Woah, we are so great people! Vexorian (talk)
This has nothing to do with treatment, it's to do with how we follow our existing guidelines. Even though I'm in favour of her being called Chelsea, many people made the valid point that it was moved without consensus. — Richard BB 13:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment A quote I once heard that I believe is attributed to Abraham Lincoln is, "If you call a dogs tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Still only 4. Just because you call it a leg, doesn't make it so."JOJ Hutton<
  • Comment 1. Attributed by whom? Are you spreading myths about Lincoln? 2. I'm hoping you mean that simply saying a trans woman is a man, doesn't make them a man. Otherwise it sounds like you're comparing trans people to dogs and that might be seen as hateful or derogatory to some."Elaqueate (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a battleground. Take the Lincoln quote for what is worth and don't create drama where none exists. JOJ Hutton 00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

WP:SOAPBOX; this is not a forum, nor is it a place to complain about the results of a move. If you have real BLP concerns bring them to the BLP noticeboard.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:45, 3 September 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.

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

This is an encyclopedia that makes changes in a calm, deliberate manner, based on standards such as notability, consensus, and utilizing reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a social organization with a mission to right the wrongs of society. You don't just get to skip the process and where the process has been properly followed, the article was changed in as many places as possible in order to reflect her requests. The other issues, such as whether gender identity issues are given proper consideration by wider society or whether or not she did a noble thing with the revealing of certain governmental data are not germane to this discussion. In addition, this is not a forum for general complaints, so if you have a complaint with a particular person, please take it up with them directly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I highly doubt that anything posted on Wikipedia would ever violate someone's "human rights", loosely defined. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The idea that the article being named "Bradley Manning" is somehow a violation of someone's human rights is one of the most laughable things I've seen in this debate. — Richard BB 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"Two Kinds of Pork" and "Richard BB", may I draw your attention to Wikipedia's article on the right to sexuality, including "legal recognition of preferred gender of transgender persons", occuring in a number of international human rights institutions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. So whilst the issue may still be up for debate, I would advise you to forestall your laughter for a moment - it seems the original poster may have made a good and valuable point. Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Who are you to deny me a good belly rumble? But seriously, I fail to see how something posted on a website could deny anyone their "rights". Especially since we just parrot previously published material.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
While I am very likely to vote in favor of a move to Chelsea Manning in 30 days when it will inevitably come up again, legal recognition and a title of a Wikipedia page are very different things. We have policies to strive to be accommodating when possible, but from a legal standpoint, Wikipedia could title the page Chelsea Manning, Bradley Manning, Cheldly Manning, Peyton Manning, Chelsea Clinton, or Lars, Grand Plenipotentiary of the Oatmeal Gnomes.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

First sentence

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

  • 1. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who ... [27]


  • 2. Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is a United States Army soldier who ..." [28]

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

  • IMO, the RM was as good as a coin-toss. It makes sense to give the first sentence to the losing faction as a consolation prize. Formerip (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning)" is the appropriate solution as it conveys that she now uses the name Chelsea and that Bradley is her former name, not her current name. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an entirely inadequate solution. The title already misgenders her, and the first sentance won't correct that. As it is, the title denies Chelsea Manning's identity, and is an attack on her, and nothing in the rest of the article will really make up for that. (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
for the sake of argument you have to concede the name change should remain the same to be part of this particular argument
  • I prefer the second option. Many/most readers will have never heard of the change in gender identity. A note of the change with since August 2013 solves this. (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer the second opinion, Bradley Edward Manning. Also how is using the name Bradley Manning an attack? That is Bradley's legal name, Bradley has not legally changed names yet. BeckiGreen (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My 2¢ is to start with the "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning". A similar approach is taken on other articles that are not at the subject's "proper" name e.g. Cat Stevens, Republic of Ireland, --RA () 21:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and since August 2013 prefers to be referred to as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is a United States Army soldier who ..." Manning will be filing documents using his legal name. It is Manning's preference to be called Chelsea but won't be filing anything as Chelsea. It currently is a preference that doesn't seem to have any more value than a nickname. The gender identity issue is separate and Manning could easily have said he is keeping his name and changing his gender. I'd even argue that the following is less contentious and accurate:
Bradley Edward "Chelsea Elizabeth" Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who ..." --DHeyward (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Should start with current name. Contrary to some assertions, there is no rule that a biography must start with the same name in the title. See for example Slim Pickens (which is referenced in WP:MOSBIO). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Go with Option 1 (Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning)...), per [[RA and Sam Blacketer. -sche (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is consistent with Wikipedia practices and policies. See Cat Stevens for example. Wikipedia:Article titles is only applicable to titles. WP:MOS and WP:BLP are the applicable guidelines for the body of the article, including the lead sentence. WP:MOS requires that we use female pronouns throughout, thus it would be most appropriate that we lead with the female name to match. Also WP:BLP states that articles on living people "require a high degree of sensitivity". Disregarding Manning's change of gender identity in the lead would not be in keeping with that policy, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Start with the male name. If people can accept the word "also" then put that in too: Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and also known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is...." The "also" makes the sentence more accurate while taking care of the "is"problem discussed below. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (Opening sentence is the crowning glory of this repugnant głupota)
"Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, and known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is …"
I hate to focus on such irrelevances as past and present tenses in the context of that thing called non-self-contradiction, but how can the article involve the pair of statements—within the same sentence and with a straight face—"known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" and "Bradley is …"?

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

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

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

Can you say above whether you prefer 1 or 2? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! The only acceptable version to me, and the only morally acceptable version, is to have the title as Chelsea Manning. As regards the first sentence, it should contain, in my view, a parenthetic mention that her legal name is Bradley Edward, so as to assist any readers less familiar with the name-changing. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It can make sense because it’s possible to be known by multiple names at one time
"it’s possible to be known by multiple names at one time"
For sure, but that is not relevant to the pair of statements we are concerned with. The statement is not "also known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning". LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the need for that "also", omitting it doesn’t necessarily imply a person has no other names
"omitting it doesn’t necessarily imply a person has no other names"
For sure, but we are dealing with the inconsistency of the pair of statements above, not the implications or otherwise of "known since August 2013 as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" taken in isolation. My simple complaint is the use of Bradley Edward in a sentence that asserts she is now known as Chelsea Manning. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, I would add, using also would be normal, or at the very least least highly recommended, as other articles make clear. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The first version is considerably less worse. The second seems to make a point of using her old name - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you changed the first sentence again, it should reflect the most recent name as on most other blp (i.e. choice 1 is preferable). There are numerous blp where the title does not match the lead (e.g. Cat Stevens, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, were title is the most commonly used term and lede use subjects actual name). The way you wrote it really is offensive and appears to make a point. --Space simian (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've changed it back to the previous version (Chelsea, version 1 above) until consensus forms. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 1 is the better option, much more accurate. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (Chelsea) first. The title is one thing and I understand putting it at the most recognizable name, but in the body of the article I think we should honor her wishes and address her primarily as Chelsea. (My vote makes the tally 11-5 in favor of Chelsea if I count right.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per RA and Kaldari. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - start with the current name per above...Modernist (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)#
  • Option 1, as she is currently known as Chelsea. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 2, Chelsea is his subsequent name and Manning explicitly asked to be called Chelsea "starting today", i.e. August 22. In this case the name would be in chronological order and in harmony with the article's title. Brandmeistertalk 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Does that mean that you would start Bill Clinton "William Jefferson Blythe IV, later William Jefferson Clinton ..." and start Gerald Ford "Leslie Lynch King, Jr., later renamed Gerald Rudolph Ford ..."? Please advise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Besides, option 1 is also ordered chronologicaly. --Space simian (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • William Jefferson Blythe IV and Leslie Lynch King, Jr. are better known as Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, but Manning has been (and currently is) better known as Bradley Manning, not Chelsea Manning. When the majority of reliable sources start to call Manning Chelsea, not Bradley, then the issue may be largely solved. Brandmeistertalk 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Manning has not changed his legal name. Until such time as he does, Chelsea is a nickname. I would submit that hardly anyone knows Larry the Cable Guy's real name, yet his article begins "Daniel Lawrence Whitney..." albeit not in bold. In the case of Bill Clinton, his last name was legally changed to Clinton so it makes since to say "born William Jefferson Blythe IV". To say Manning was born Bradley Edward Manning falsely implies that is no longer his legal name. Talmage (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)