This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Move request 2
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
First, thank you to all of the participants of this move request. The page history shows a couple of rough moments, but the overall picture was of good-faith editors making well-reasoned arguments grounded in both policy and respect for our values.
As a reminder to both newer editors (welcome!) and those reading this who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes, move requests, like many other types of Wikipedia discussions, are not decided on the basis of vote counts, but on the strength of arguments. Thus, even though the numbers show that a strong majority of participants support the move to "Chelsea Manning", we must set that aside and focus instead on the substance of the "support" and "oppose" comments rather than how many of them there are.
The core of the debate comes down to differing interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME, part of our policy on article titles. Both sides cite COMMONNAME as supporting their positions: those supporting the move see the intent of the policy as "what do the reliable sources use (now)?" and those opposing the move view it as "what name does the average person recognize?" Both of these interpretations are reasonable, but we conclude that the supporters' interpretation is closer to the letter and spirit of the policy. The guidance that COMMONNAME offers is that editors base their article titling decision on which name is predominant "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources".
Further, COMMONNAME seems to be the opponents' main argument, whereas the supporters make other persuasive arguments: for example, that, in the absence of overwhelming reliable source usage otherwise, Wikipedia should respect what an article subject says their own name is. WP:DIGNITY and WP:HARM are, it should be noted, only essays, but the supporters make a good case that we should have a good reason for disregarding the subject's stated wishes.
A lack of reliable sourcing would be, per COMMONNAME, a good reason to overrule an article subject's preferences, but it appears, based on the evidence presented in this move request, that the reliable sources have generally (although certainly not unanimously) gotten on board with Manning's request to be referred to as Chelsea. It therefore does not seem credible to say that WP:COMMONNAME and the subject's wishes are on the opposite sides of the scale.
That is not to say, however, that the opposing arguments lack merit. Regardless of how quickly the reliable sources adopted the new name, it is fair to say that due to past coverage of the article subject as "Bradley Manning", many people are likely to know of Manning as Bradley, not Chelsea. It is certainly true that the actions that garnered Manning notability were taken under the name Bradley Manning. Following the principle of least astonishment, a possible compromise title, such as "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" might be one way to satisfy that concern; however, the manual of style discourages longer titles where a short one would be sufficient to unambiguously identify the subject, so such a compromise proposal would have its own set of problems.
There was a fair amount of discussion, from both sides, on the applicability of our biographies of living persons policy on a potential move, but no clear consensus on whether BLP concerns were applicable to the naming dispute. Indeed, several of those who supported the move to "Chelsea Manning" explicitly rejected BLP as grounds for a move. It is clear that there is a division among editors over whether, and under what circumstance, our BLP policy mandates that we follow an article subject's wishes regarding their chosen name.
One additional concern that deserves to be addressed was that the move request itself was not worded neutrally. This is true, but to consider this something that compromises the integrity of the discussion misunderstands the nature of move requests. Move requests are, with rare exceptions, filed by an editor who believes a page should be moved, rather than someone who is indifferent. It is natural and, indeed, expected, that they would make their case in the move request for why they think the move is necessary and desirable. Participants are free to accept or reject the reasoning offered by the proposer, and to make their own cases to their fellow editors why the page should or should not be moved.
Once again, thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion for your time and input, and for the trust you have granted the three of us in assessing consensus here. The page will be moved forthwith; please continue any discussion at the main article talk page, not here. Guerillero | My Talk, 28bytes, Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 23:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: !votes and comments on this proposal to move the article belong in the appropriate sections below.
Note also: this is a Requested Move, not a Request for Comment. It is not expected that a Requested Move be phrased in a neutral format: instead, it is expected that the proposer endorse the move. It is the responsibility of people reviewing the request to review the evidence and form their own opinion.
Bradley Manning → Chelsea Manning – As proposed by the closers of the last debate and agreed by subsequent consensus, I am starting the new move discussion and proposing that we move the article currently located at Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning, for the following reasons:
On August 22, 2013, the subject of this article announced that she identified as female and that her name is Chelsea E. Manning, and requested that people refer to her using this name.
Most reliable sources started using this name within a week. At this point (30 September 2013), the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use Chelsea Manning when referring to this person.
Many editors have expressed a concern that using the former name of a transgendered person—that she has requested not be used—as the article title, is offensive and causes harm to that person.
Relevant sources on usage in reliable sources as well as relevant policies and guidelines, contributed by various users over the last few weeks, are cited below. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Please cite relevant Wikipedia policies when you make your argument. You may wish to consider the arguments that others put forward in the previous move request.
Respect other editors and stay on topic
Wikipedia has editors from all over the world, raised in different societies and with different cultural norms, so please assume good faith and accept that different people may have different views from you on this subject. This discussion centers around the title of the article currently located at Bradley Manning. Please comment only about what you think the best choice of article title is according to Wikipedia's policies; please refrain from making other types of comments. For example, your personal opinions about transgenderism — whether pro or con — are not germane to this discussion, and such off-topic comments may be closed or ignored.
Avoiding offensive language
Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy also applies on talk pages, so please familiarize yourself with it. To avoid what some perceive as transphobia during this discussion and to ensure there is a welcoming environment for editors of all kinds, please consider adhering to the following guidelines:
Do not use the following words, which are considered offensive: 'transvestite,' 'she-male,' 'he-she,' 'it,' 'trannie,' 'tranny,' and 'shim.'
Avoid comparing Manning's Gender identity disorder to the belief that one is an animal or object (e.g. "if I wake up one morning and decide I'm a dog, that doesn't make me one.") Manning was diagnosed with gender identity disorder by a clinical psychologist in 2010, so the gender and name change is not a whim nor is Manning's diagnosis a legal tactic.
Do not share your opinion on whether or not Manning is really a woman, or needs to have surgery, hormone treatment, or a legal name change to become one. This is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex.
Do not make comments about what sort of genitals Manning has, which is irrelevant to the title of the article and none of our business.
Do not state that Manning's only "real" name is Bradley or Chelsea. You can share your thoughts on what Manning's "legal" name is, but recall that, per WP:AT and WP:OFFICIALNAME, there is no obligation for biographies to use the legal names of their subjects as their titles.
The question of what pronouns to use for Manning is contentious, and current usage in sources is mixed. It has been suggested the best way to avoid offense is to use 'she' when referring to Manning in the present tense. In any case, the move request is not a discussion on the use of pronouns in the article.
Do not make speculative remarks about the future (e.g. Manning might change her mind next week/year). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
How to respond to offensive language
Please remember that the policy No personal attacks applies to this discussion, for all editors. If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page that you find their language inappropriate, or reporting their comment at WP:ANI if it is egregiously offensive. We're all learning here, and a more open approach (e.g. "You said this, which could be construed as harmful language towards a BLP, can you consider rewording it") may yield more dividends than simply accusing someone of transphobia because they crossed a line they may not have been aware of. Blanket statements like "Those proposing to keep the article titled Bradley are bigoted transphobes" polarize the discussion and are likely to make other contributors less willing to understand your view.
^Transphobia is defined as "A reaction of fear, loathing, and discriminatory treatment of people whose identity or gender presentation (or perceived gender or gender identity) does not “match,” in the societally accepted way, the sex they were assigned at birth." @ Words That are Transphobic and Why
^Use of female pronouns for Manning is recommended by the Manual of Style. The National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association suggests the use of 'he' for the writing of historical events and 'she' for the present tense, here and here, while 'she' is recommended by many other organizations such as GLAAD for all phases of Manning's life. The AP stylebook states "Transgender: Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly."
Relevant content policies and guidelines
Click here for a list of relevant content policies and guidelines
Below is a listing of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that may be relevant to this discussion. They are sorted in alphabetical order by page title, then by section title, so as to remain neutral.
Click here for evidence on usage of Bradley and Chelsea from various reliable sources.
Evidence from reliable news sources on what names they use on first mention
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning vs Bradley Manning as the primary name of the subject.
Sources are sorted based on their latest use of one name or the other in an article or editorial statement from after August 22, when the announcement was made. It is trivially obvious that sources from before the announcement use Bradley; that is not of interest and such sources are not listed here.
Note that regardless of which name they use on first mention, almost all of the sources listed in both sections mention and contribute to readers' awareness of the existence of both names.
Statements by news agencies on their policy to address Manning as Chelsea
News agencies with a policy of addressing Manning as Chelsea
TIME (magazine): (27 August 2013): "As for TIME, a story on Manning’s announcement made its intentions clear within the first sentence: 'Chelsea Manning first announced to the world...'"
CBC.ca: (editor's note added on September 6th): "Our initial coverage of the sentencing and reaction has acknowledged that Bradley Manning chose to live publicly as a man when charged and prosecuted, but now wants to be referred to as a woman. The next phase of coverage will refer to Chelsea Manning, with all appropriate feminine pronouns, while acknowledging the past identity of Bradley Manning when relevant.", (11 September 2013)
Statements by news agencies on their policy to address Manning as Bradley
News agencies with a policy of addressing Manning as Bradley
News agencies which haven't clearly chosen one name over the other
News sources which have mixed up usage of Bradley and Chelsea. In most cases, if a news source started using Bradley post Aug 22, and then started exclusively using Chelsea, we marked it in the Chelsea list. However, if a news source has alternated between use of Bradley and Chelsea since Aug 22, then it is listed here.
Encyclopædia Britannica: article on Manning, lede: "Chelsea Manning, original name Bradley Edward Manning", article title: "Chelsea Manning" (switched from Bradley on September 5th); uses "Bradley" in second paragraph
The Passion of Bradley Manning: The Story Behind the Wikileaks Whistleblower was written before Manning came out, but the author states on page 135 "When and if Bradley Manning clearly and publicly articulates a wish to be known otherwise, this author, who is listening attentively, will address him or her however he or she wishes." The book does not actually use "Chelsea Manning".
Shame the Devil - fiction book, but dedicated to Chelsea Manning (published 28 August 2013, it seems)
Non-news sources addressing Manning as Bradley
"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." Statements by Manning's Lawyer, David Coombs
Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people
Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people
This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question.
Subsection of Trans media watch submission to the Leveson Inquiry (press controls in the UK, ). On page 11 they discuss methods by which the press aggress against trans people; the first bulletpoint in that section:
"Routine use of previous names - even when the use of these names is intensely painful or places them in actual danger. Typically a transitioning transsexual person will wish to move on from their previous identity, having perhaps lived in deep distress within that ’identity’ in the past. They may be working with colleagues who know nothing of their past, or they may not have revealed their life story to neighbours. Gratuitous revelation can lead to abuse. Further, for transgender people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate, it is illegal for an individual working in an "official capacity" to disclose a person’s previous name. They are, for all legal purposes, recognised in the gender in which they live. This seldom makes any difference to the press."
Juliet Jacques article discussing choosing a new name. She states that someone using her old name can be "a mistake [or] a malicious attempt to undermine my identity".
Some editors have expressed a concern that the following source is not reliable, while other editors consider it to be reliable:
Wikipedia’s Deadnaming Violence ("our old name are frequently weaponised against us, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected.") (Urban Achives) (written by digital media ethics scholar)
Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section below, followed by an explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a substitute for discussion, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation. Responses to statements made in the survey sections should be restricted to the discussion section.
Support move to "Chelsea Manning"
Strong support. This seems to be the most common name now, and articles on other transgendered persons are at their identifying name to satisfy BLP and IDENTITY -- save this one, an omission that should be corrected. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"Seems to be" is somewhat subjective. My analysis, although not perfect, outlined in my opposition, below, indicates that there is no clear-cut commonality, with a 5:3 ratio in the news favoring "Bradley" this last week. COMMONNAME should be based as much as possible on evidence, not a subjective assessment. This applies to all arguments based on COMMONNAME - both those supporting and opposing this request. Consensus should be in accordance with policy - as objectively as possible. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be basing your 5:3 ratio on either raw hit counts or simply another subjective assessment. What makes a single unfiltered Google search more reliable than the sources compiled in evidence above by people supporting various arguments, vetted and debated for over a month? __Elaqueate (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support. I am not an expert on policy, but I think respect is important. I think disrespecting her clearly-stated identity would encourage cissexism, risking harm to trans people, and would open a can of worms about when to respect people's identities and when not to. Ananiujitha (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per BLP, because this is the name she has announced for herself, and per V and COMMONNAME, because it appears to be the name most used by reliable sources since the announcement. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. First, to address WP:BLP policy, some things are mandated by BLP policy, when something is mandated by BLP policy, BLP policy trumpts pretty much all other concerns, and only once the BLP issue is resolved, will other policies come in to play. The classic example of such a mandate is that a negative statement about a living person must be properly sourced, or it must be removed. Other points in WP:BLP carry considerable weight, but are not mandates. The latter covers the language such as the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment in the introductory paragraphs, and that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account from the Foundation statement. That language does not mandate a specific result, only that things be considered when exercising our editorial judgement. In my opinion, WP:BLP does not mandate a result here. Nonetheless, we should give strong weight to the non-mandatory language. In the case of a person who has changed names as a result of gender identity, their wishes, when clearly expressed, should carry considerable weight. While in specific cases there may be facts that change the calculus, in most cases the wishes of the subject should outweigh WP:Article Titles and WP:COMMONNAME. While we generally prefer to follow the language used by most reliable sources, there is a good reason not to here, and the alternative is also supported by reliable sources, albeit fewer. I think number of people where suspicious of the timing here, it occurring right at the peak of Manning's notoriety. However, as time has gone on, and we look deeper at the question, it has become increasingly clear that the revelation regarding Manning's gender identity is legitimate. As such, there is nothing here that would change that default calculus, and the article should be moved to Chelsea Manning. Monty845 20:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME more sources are using Chelsea now. However WP:BLP does not apply and as noted before by another editor there have been good faith opinions but no real evidence to support the claim. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME - the obvious trend among sources is to use Chelsea. Additionally, BLP - while somewhat vague on this point - would, in my opinion, tend to back such a move. Kiralexis (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY, and because this is the name that the majority of sources appear now to be using. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per MOS:IDENTITY, WP:COMMONNAME and human decency. There will be no reader confusion with a redirect from Bradley Manning - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. In contrast to the situation at the time of the original move, most sources are now using "Chelsea" in reports of current events. Our normal practice of respecting people's self-identification in the absence of serious and meaningful doubts as to its sincerity or accuracy (i.e. that mysterious "spirit" of WP:BLP) is no longer in conflict with established sources.—Kww(talk) 20:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as per WP:COMMONNAME, but not per WP:BLP. It is not a violation of BLP to use "Bradley Manning" as the title, but we should recognize that most sources have adopted "Chelsea Manning" as the preferred name. Edge3 (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, naturally per BLP. It's her name and we are only causing harm by misgendering her under her former name. It's shameful to have taken this long to correct the title but let's get it done now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support; the reasoning and justification for doing so is overwhelming to my eyes. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per BLP and because so long as a redirect is in place no confusion will result, while leaving it as it is is an implicit insult to any trans* people reading Wikipedia, and where possible we should strive to minimise such insults to marginalised groups. Stealth Munchkin (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. With gratitude to editors tracking name usage in reliable sources, which indicate that, per WP:COMMONNAME and,WP:MOSIDENTITY. and because Chelsea Manning is a woman, her article should be appropriately renamed. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 21:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:DIGNITY. It is insulting to title an article with a name the subject rejects. We should always use a subject's preferred name on their biography when, as in this case from day one, doing so won't make the article difficult to find. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. The list above of news sources that are currently using "Chelsea" ought to settle the issue even for people who have a range of different views on the general question, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as most sources are now using Chelsea, and per WP:BLP, which provides a reasonable basis for using her name, even if the policy does not expressly require it. Gobōnobō+c 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, despite the disruptive "I wanna be first" start to this RM which completely disregarded the hard work of all of the editors who have been working for a month to put this RM together. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DIGNITY, there is no reason to hold the article at Bradley. Redirects are cheap.--v/r - TP 21:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support RS are using both Chelsea Manning and Bradley Manning. From my owns analysis of Google News, I judge Chelsea Manning to be ahead in sources but (surprisingly to me) not vastly. If this were on another topic, I'd say wait a while longer to give sources more time to settle. However, I find WP:DIGNITY to be compelling in this case. As clarified in the previous RM, there are no WP:IDENTITY or WP:BLP issues with the article being at the title Bradley Manning. However, there is little benefit now to the encyclopaedia in keeping it there. Manning herself has said she wants to be called as Chelsea. And the majority of sources appear to be to be on the "Chelsea" side of the question. So out of respect for the subject, given that we can see now that that's how sources are leaning, it's time to move. --Tóraí (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I have to say I really don't even understand opposition to this. If Jim Smith changed his name to John Jones, why would anybody oppose changing his article name? The redirect will still exist, so opposition cannot be based on the possibility of confusion. If someone got married and changed names, would we insist her article stay under her maiden name? If we didn't like that someone with a traditional name like Clay changed his last name to Ali, would we block a move? This discussion strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support for the all of the reasons it should have been done a month ago. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I think the U.S. law principle of strict scrutiny for rules that cause potential harm to disadvantaged groups is the simplest way to look at this. Adapting the principles of that would require us to have compelling encyclopedic reasons, avoid overbroad solutions, and use the least damaging means to achieve the encyclopedic ends. Is there a strong encyclopedic benefit to making clear that "Chelsea Manning" is the same person as the "Bradley Manning" that all the older news, from before she came out, reported on? Yes, so mentioning it comes under a compelling encyclopedic interest. However, having the page at Bradley is both an overbroad solution, and causes potential harm unnecessarily, by passing an editorial judgement that a transwoman should officially be known under her male name. The encyclopedic purpose is served nearly or equally as well by having the page at Chelsea Manning, and stating in the first sentence that she was formerly known as "Bradley Manning", and having a redirect from "Bradley Manning" to bring in anyone who has not heard about her coming out. As such, having the page at Bradley Manning is overbroad and fails to use the least damaging means to the encyclopedic ends, and must be rejected. Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support 100% common name and although not strictly BLP i feel a person should be known by what they wish more than ever in cases of transgender. BletheringScot 22:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. It's been so long, I've forgotten anything about who Chelsea Manning is or why she is not called Bradley, so I'm just following the herd, really. Please discount my vote. For the record, though, it's absolutely obvious that there's a BLP issue with calling a person by a name they have taken a decision not to be known by. This should be noted by the closer. Formerip (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support primarily as an ethical position (so policy-wise channel that via BLP or via the "problematic names" language in WP:AT, but it's a justification not a reason). Chris Smowton (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support It is the person's name now - does not seem like there is much to dispute. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I agree there is no BLP concern with the title and that the MOS does not override policy, but it does seem clear that reliable sources are leaning heavily towards Chelsea Manning being used for the common name as I suspected they would. Whether it is truly at the moment where it is the most common name or not, I see no reason to prolong the inevitable. Unless he opts for another name or reneges, there is no reason to not use Chelsea.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 23:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, although I also think WP:BLP applies in this situation since disregarding a person's gender change in an article title is disrespectful and could have real negative effects on that person. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
On August 22, 2013, Manning announced that she identified as female and that her name is Chelsea E. Manning, and requested that people refer to her using this name. We thus have clear documentation of the subject's preference - which is normally not closely considered, but should be nonetheless taken account of as one factor for the discussion.
In the weeks following the announcement, the bulk of reliable sources started using the name Chelsea on first use to identify the subject (while still explaining that this was a person previously known as Bradley).
Per WP:COMMONNAME, when a name change occurs, we should give more priority to sources *after* the name change than before. With that in mind, the evidence below was on use AFTER August 22. In terms of pure numbers, there will likely *always* be more articles that refer to Manning as Bradley, since so much coverage was generated before and during the trial, vs after it. This should not prevent us from considering a move, however.
In addition, several major news sources, including NY Times, AP, TIME, and NPR publicly stated their editorial guidelines for using "Chelsea" to refer to the subject. It was worth noting that both NY Times and NPR stumbled early on, and struggled with many of the same issues Wikipedians did in the earlier discussion, but finally decided to address Manning as Chelsea and use the female pronouns.
Another change of note was the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which changed the title of their article on September 5, 2013. Encyclopedias are different than news sources, so the fact that they changed is significant.
At this point, as one of the small group of editors building sources for this move request, I have become very familiar with media usage of Bradley and Chelsea, and have watched many sources change before my eyes. There are still exceptions - for example AFP, which is one of the major wire services, has been found to use both, even though an email from an AFP editor claimed they were going to use Chelsea. We also saw instances of AP-issued stories being modified, changing "Chelsea" to Bradley. I have noticed a pattern whereby sources which have signed on to the use of Chelsea may nonetheless use Bradley in ancillary articles that only mention the subject - which would explain why you may still see hits with "Bradley" in those sources.
Many editors have invoked BLP. I believe BLP is not a reason to move this page, as the name Bradley is well sourced in reliable sources and it has not been demonstrated that having "Bradley" in the title is somehow significantly more harmful than having "Bradley" in the lede, infobox, photos, running text, or redirects. If "Bradley" was a BLP issue, then the word should be excised, but instead we welcome it everywhere. Thus, while BLP does apply to titles in general, BLP cannot be used as a reason to move this one.
In close cases, COMMONNAME is notoriously hard to determine. The evidence gathered above, while not overwhelmingly in favor of Chelsea, is nonetheless solid - but it's not yet a slam dunk, esp given major wire services like AFP, Reuters and UPI have not demonstrated a clear preference, and some "Chelsea" sources have been seen to slip back to Bradley (w/o mention of Chelsea) in ancillary articles, thus suggesting "Bradley" is still common, at least for that writer. Overall, Chelsea wins for COMMONNAME, but what tips the scale here are the other criteria, per WP:AT, and the subject's preference. Those criteria are as follows:
Recognizability – Chelsea is now, arguably, as recognizable or moreso than Bradley, due to the rapid switch in the media
Precision – Chelsea and Bradley are equally precise
Conciseness – Chelsea and Bradley are equally concise
Consistency - A tally of trans* people's articles found that the vast majority were at their most recent name. In the name of consistency, people would thus expect to find a trans* person's article at their most recent name.
Finally, we have clearly expressed preferences of the subject, and in the name of balancing potential offense to the subject with an encyclopedic title, we don't have to choose between the two any longer, as Chelsea works just fine. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems you've failed to see the irony of your above justification for not using BLP as part of your support rationale: "...we have clearly expressed preferences of the subject, and in the name of balancing potential offense to the subject with an encyclopedic title, we don't have to choose between the two any longer..." — if I am not mistaken, that is the very spirit of BLP. Kurtis(talk) 01:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
well perhaps the spirit moved me. Nonetheless, if the sources were flipped the other way, with 40% for Chelsea, I would have stil !voted for the move - but if the sources were only 5% Chelsea, probably not. Many have proposed BLP as a trump card here, and stated that irregardless of sources, BLP trumps commonname. I disagree. The feelings of the subject do count, but so does our responsibility to neutrally report facts from RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I supported the move but I think it's incorrect to state it's the COMMONNAME in any meaningful way (or BLP violation). The press still has to address the reader with a "formerly Bradley Manning" to acquaint them with the subject. That's a defacto "we are switching from the common name to this new name." Only people particularly tuned in to the name change are aware of the issue. It remains to be seen if the public outside interested WP editors and the transgender community will ever clearly adopt "Chelsea Manning" as the most recognizable name. Most people don't keep up with the personal stuff. If in six months, the majority of articles have dropped the "formerly Bradley Manning" monicker, or start using "Chelsea" in tangential articles, we will know where the population stands. --DHeyward (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well you both agree here that a title doesn't need the most common name every time, so I think you're actually quite close on this interpretation. __Elaqueate (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The sources have largely gone this way, we should too. I would also say that I don't believe WP:BLP applies here and strongly disagree with the suggestions that an individual changing their name requires the article title be changed as well. There's nothing wrong with taking that into consideration, and in Chelsea's case here, I believe it would have tipped the scales of my opinion if the sources' choices had not been as strong as they are, but there are plenty of possible rename cases (where the name change in question has nothing to do with those individuals' gender identities) where doing so could produce a suboptimal or even bad result. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per MOS:IDENTITY and common decency.-gadfium 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. First, because the source material has clearly moved in this direction. Second, even though I accept that BLP does not mandate that we do this, I think that the spirit of BLP (or WP:DIGNITY if one prefers) points us in the direction that this is the right editorial choice to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support—it is just the right thing to do at this time per policy and the MOS. Imzadi 1979→ 00:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support I did a search and found out that Editors were debating Manning's identity change on Wikipedia back in 2012. So, this name change did not come out of the blue. I think if you look at transgender individuals on WP, it's clear that we honor their sexual identity decisions. This is not an isolated case and it should be handled like other transgender people's articles. LizRead!Talk! 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Chelsea identifies herself as a female. Gender identity is not defined by one's sexual organs. Kurtis(talk) 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support because of WP:IAR and WP:HARM. "Bradley Manning" is not a BLP violation. "Bradley Manning" is the COMMONNAME known by 95% of the population and why every news article that mentions Chelsea has to introduce her using "Bradley Manning". Whether that will diminish is yet to be known but today, the common name is "Bradley" as the press is in transition. Moreover, news article that aren't specifically about Chelsea Manning (i.e. the "Coombs announcement interview" week articles and last weeks "Coomb's tours Leavenworth" articles) , invariably use "Bradley Manning" when word count is more important (i.e. google news search the last week for "snowden manning -chelsea" returns numerous, post anouncement articles about whistleblowers that ignore Mannings preferred name and her gender including news sources with MOS statements. It remains to be seen whether articles that indirectly mention Manning will use Chelsea or Bradley or the current "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning." The only real reason to move now is that the encyclopedic value lost by using Chelsea is outweighed by the perceived harm. All of our policies and guidelines for content say "Bradley Manning" and rather than torture ourselves into fitting this move into a policy that rejects it, it's simply easier to IAR and move it due to harm. Create the redirect (or dab) from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning so that 95% of our readers can find it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong support. I do believe WP:BLP is an issue, although I acknowledge other editors feel differently. Regardless, WP:DIGNITY, WP:HARM, MOS:IDENTITY and WP:COMMONNAME all support the move. I agree with DHeyward that the cost of the move is non-existent and therefore outweighed by any prospect of harm. Sue Gardner (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whatever bureaucratic acronyms we choose to wrap it in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. Looking over the evidence, it's immediately clear the direction all the sources are moving is aligned with this person's preference. Great job collecting all the evidence, to everyone who did that. -WPGA2345-Talk 06:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. The media sources I'm seeing all now use "Chelsea". ciphergoth (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've already posted a longer statement to your talk page, but I am extremely offended by this characterization of my comments, clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Failing a redress, I intend to the next steps outlined in WP:DRCoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. It is clear that by now almost all sources are using Chelsea now, with the notable exception of CNN, and BBC being rather vague on the issue. Still, I would say from anecdotical evidence, the most common name in use is still Bradley. That there are no sources that don't use the Chelsea exclusively, but always include that Chelsea used to be known as Bradley speaks clearly that they think people will be confused, or will not understand who this Chelsea is when they don't explain her former name and identity. If our only responsibility were ease of use, Bradley would be the better choice. But it's not. We have a strong impact on real people, and using the name Bradley is denying the identity of the subject. This doesn't only impact Manning, but also many other transgendered individuals that see their identity being denied by arguably the single most influential source on the internet: us. This causes serious harm, and we're not here to do harm. If we're not here to do the right thing, I have no idea why we are here in the first place. That is not to say that Wikipedia should be used for activism. Had we been the only ones to use Chelsea, it could been seen as an activist choice, and the discussion would be far harder, with far more things to balance, but the fact of the matter is that we're not. In the end, having the article at Bradley has very few things going for it: The inmeasurable 'word on the street', and that when she was at the height of her fame/infamity, she was known as Bradley. I find these arguments to be exceedingly weak for determining the article location, especially when compared to the arguments in favor of Chelsea. Again, almost all sources now use Chelsea, and they do that for roughly the abovementioned reasons. So should we. Not because others use Chelsea as primary identification, but for the same reasons they choose to use Chelsea. all these reasons are currently policy here. If people mistakenly think that pointing to policy is a more valid argument than making the actual points (feel sorry for them), here is some acronym soup for you: WP:BLPWP:HARMWP:COMMONNAMEWP:DIGNITYWP:AT. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - Per the strong suggestions made in MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP that we weigh the considerations of encyclopedicity and humanity when making content decisions. The WP:COMMONNAME balance is tipping rapidly, and a cheap redirect takes care of any issues with making sure readers can find what they're looking for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - Based on WP:COMMONAME. Whilst the media switch to Chelsea isn't as convincing as I would like due to the dearth of articles post-announcement which are unrelated to the announcement itself, I certainly think there's enough RS usage to justify the move at this point. I appreciate some of the arguments made in opposition to the move, but based on the evidence and precedents, I don't think there's anything strong enough there to make it worth a fight over. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's call basic human decency. KTC (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support The moment some minor member of the British upper classes becomes a Lord or a Lady, or marries off to some ghastly in-bred Royal, we are perfectly happy to shunt their article over to "Lord Somesuch of Whatnot" or the "Duke of Lower Miscellanea" (in the case of Kate Middleton, we had Jimmy Wales hovering over the move button during the wedding ceremony!). The moment someone gets married and drops their maiden name in favour of their husband's name, we are more than happy to shunt their article over without demanding 150 news articles and a signed form in triplicate. When someone asks that they be referred to more casually—Suzie rather than Suzanne, Bob rather than Robert, Dick rather than Richard etc.—people generally comply. It is only when the name change is accompanied by a change in gender that everyone freaks out and starts imposing arbitrary standards—legal documentation, proof that everybody on the planet has started using the new name, maybe even (photographic?) proof that the person has undergone gender transition surgery. This strange exceptionalist standard is in itself rather shoddy treatment of trans people and enforcement of said standards seems to be inhumane to me. Under WP:BLP and WP:IAR, we should try our hardest to respect people's self-identity on matters like sexuality, religion and, yes, gender identity. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree this is the essence of the case. Well said! Josh Gorand (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Though it appears Lauren Bush is at her birth name as her article title, not the amusing married name of Lauren Lauren, though at one point the article was at Lauren Bush Lauren. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@Tom Morris: Casting aspersions on the motives of those opposed to the Chelsea Manning title (now or before) is not helpful. It is not at all true that we immediately reflect name changes in titles for every non-transgender individual; Lily Allen and Cat Stevens are examples of individuals whose professional -- and legal -- names were changed (Allen changed her professional name back last month though) whose articles were not moved accordingly. And while there are examples of rapid moves (like with Kate Middleton), others (like Ron Artest), dare I say most others, undergo move requests. Please don't imply prejudice on the part of those opposed to the proposed title. -- tariqabjotu 22:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't suggest anything about the motives of anyone. I only questioned the standard some people are using, not the morals of the contributors using said standard. I certainly did not suggest that there was prejudice on the part of opposers. Of course, if people read my comment and see in themselves the spectre of bigotry and prejudice, that is not me pointing the finger but a reflection of their own conscience. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
"I didn't mean to imply X, but if people infer X, that says a lot about them" is the weakest defense in the book. Statements like It is only when the name change is accompanied by a change in gender that everyone freaks out and starts imposing arbitrary standards make it obvious what you were implying. -- tariqabjotu 23:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I would ask both of you to stop bickering. This is off-topic and borders WP:NPA territory. Huon (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
@Huon: It is not "bickering", and not even "off-topic", and I'm curious to know what you saw (esp. in my comments) as a personal attack. Casting aspersions is one of the issues that existed during the first move request (as noted by the soon-to-be-passed finding of fact in the ArbCom case). It is not helpful for someone to imply prejudice on the part of other editors without evidence and specificity, and I am well within bounds to point out an instance of someone doing that. [That being said, if you want to remove this entire sub-thread, you are free to do so. However, if you truly believe this is off-topic, I would request that you also redact statements by Tom Morris like the one I mentioned above and This strange exceptionalist standard is in itself rather shoddy treatment of trans people that are irrelevant to supporting this move and merely cast aspersions on other editors. Added 00:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)] -- tariqabjotu 00:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. Even if I didn't still think that it was right to use a transgender individual's correct name as an article title, more and better sources are using "Chelsea" now. (Obviously look at the list of sources that use one over the other, but also just look at the list of sources that have made statements about which to use: high-quality news reporting like the NYT, AP, NPR, etc. vs. conservative rag the Washington Times.) I find the arguments that the sources used "Bradley" in their coverage before she came out rather inane, because, well, yes, newspapers don't employ clairvoyants. Sources also used to call JFK Airport "Idlewild." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOSIDENTITY, WP:DIGNITY, Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, and the lack of opposing arguments which I find persuasive. Most media sources use the name "Chelsea". Arguments that notable actions happened when the used a different name are not persuasive to me because there is nearly unanimous precedent that persons who get married and have a name change have their new names recognized a they wish by all media including Wikipedia, and this name change is an analogous situation. Enough time has passed to bring light to all available arguments and the weight of the evidence is on naming the article "Chelsea". I am happy for the pause to consider the move. That time was well spent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support article move/rename: 1) Respect the subject's right to self-identify. 2) Trangenderism is a mental/emotional identity, not a physical state. Outward appearance and legal status are medically irrelevant, and changes to such depend on an individual's access to healthcare and court filings. 3) When writing or speaking about a transgender person, we are writing/reading or speaking/hearing in the present. Even when referring in the present to the person's past, their pronoun and name as they are currently known should be used. This is the opinion of the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, Associated Press, GLAAD, Transgender Law Center, and Human Rights Campaign. 4) Precedence exists in other articles, such as Chaz Bono, Lana Wachowski. 5) If there's a parallel question regarding religious, artistic, or other name changes, I don't have an opinion there. 6) Redirects are inexpensive. Thank you, Startswithj (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak Support I havn't seen any particualy strong arguments either way and in that case we should default to causing the least harm to the subject. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
weak support Obi-Wan Kenobi made a decent argument that COMMONNAME supports this move, but that the BLP argument is weak, and I'm inclined to agree with that logic. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The common name is "Chelsea", not "Bradley"; the article should reflect that. I agree with David Gerard that there will be no confusion. Acalamari 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as in the last RM but with COMMONNAME at worst being a tie. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY, and because the majority of sources appear now to be using this as the name of the person. The person's stated gender identity is sufficient, and proof of legal name change or medical evidence of gender surgery are not required. Edison (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, it is inevitably what she will be known as. Still would have suggested she pick "Peyton". Torquemama007 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support I do love that WP:COMMONNAME is being cited regularly to support both sides...perhaps we need to revisit WP:COMMONNAMEDkriegls(talk to me!) 22:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That's why my !vote was COMMONAME++ - since COMMONNAME isn't quite a slam dunk yet, but it's close enough that we can bring in other concerns to tip the scales clearly in one way. The point made below, that in 2 years, people writing about this may use Bradley, is a good one, and we should be prepared to move it back if that truly happens.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to "bring in other concerns to tip the scales" then why not BLP instead of some hypothetical future use? Dkriegls(talk to me!) 20:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support is respectful to wishes of subject of article, which I think better adhere to spirit of WP:BLP though I am not well versed in policy for speak to how adherent to letter of policy. Lakdfhia (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - The rationale behind the first proposed move and the admin's closure were correct. Now Chelsea is the common name so we should waste no time moving it. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per COMMONNAME and the fact that using Bradley could reasonably be perceived as pejorative by some. Space simian (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per all the news agencies discussing using the new name according to their internal MOS. It won't necessarily have more hits now but it will over time so it is logical to move it now. WP:COMMONNAME and AT pages I think would bring this into clarity. BLP doesn't factor into this, and MOS identity is already in effect throughout the article. Others would note that it is much more productive to state things rooted in facts like policy driven changes then simply saying emotional or mental evoking things as most senior editors will discard them. Policy is what is important to get something like this accomplished. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support as per MOS:Identity and basic human decency. 7daysahead (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. In cases where one policy, such as WP:COMMONNAME, contradicts WP:BLP, BLP always wins. There's a lot of evidence that in cases involving gender identity disorder, referring to a person by the incorrect sex (such as using the name they were given at birth) can cause a lot of psychological harm. Besides, it's now getting to the stage where the common name is, in fact, Chelsea Manning. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong support per the BLP policy. As I see Deskana highlighted above: regardless of the current status of the COMMONNAME policy, BLP policy trumps. Regarding the oppose !votes, it would appear that they almost all center around Manning's name during the period in which she was receiving the most media attention. It would not appear that there is any consensus to remove any mention of the name "Bradley" from the article, nor do I think that's necessary, so the risk of confusion is low. Regardless of whether she was known as Bradley or Chelsea during this period, readers will be able to find the information they want and recognize that she is the same subject. – GorillaWarfare(talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per Jimbo's initial rationale. Chelsea Manning may or may not be the most common name, but it is reasonably common now, and is what the subject of the article asked to be known as. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per MOS:IDENTITY and common decency. Ijon (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP, WP:COMMONNAME and basic decency. I'm disappointed that this was reverted in the first place. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP, WP:COMMONNAME, basic decency and the actual text of the article. Artw (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong support WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that, in event of a name change, newer sources are weighted over older sources. WP:BLP requires avoiding harm to the subject where possible. MOS:IDENTITY may not apply to article titles, but to ignore it would still require good reason, and there isn't any. — MaxHarmony (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Support – This is the respectful adjustment to make in an encyclopedia when an article subject comes out as trans, and for a long time MOS:IDENTITY has recognized this approach. It's heartening that many news organizations are taking a similar approach. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 01:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP, WP:COMMONNAME —April Arcus (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Usage in reliable sources has moved further in favour of Chelsea, which would now seem to be the more frequently used name. In any case, the "high degree of sensitivity" mandated by BLP is not consistent with failing to respect Manning's request regarding her name. Gender identity is a matter where this sensitivity is particularly important, considering the history of discrimination, prejudice and non-recognition that the trans* community has suffered. Neljack (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. Anyone with a cursory interest in the subject knows of the name change (it having been widely adopted in the media), and having the title at "Bradley" now seems anomalous. --LukeSurltc 10:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per COMMONNAME, BLP and IDENTITY. Original move was correct, there needs to be an extremely strong reason to use a name not accepted by the subject of an article. That was never the case here. I hope the consensus emerging here sets a precedent for any similar future cases. Warofdreamstalk 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:BLP, and MOS:IDENTITY. The fact of the name change having occurred is extremely well sourced, and there is no harm done to the encyclopedia by adopting the new name. The idea that "Manning was only notable for events under the old name" doesn't hold water for me - Manning will continue to be notable while in jail for being jailed for the leak, and her release from jail will also be notable (and reflected on the Wikipedia article). If she pursues a legal challenge for hormone therapy while in prison, this will almost certainly also be notable enough to warrant inclusion on her article. If Manning is truly only notable for the leaks and retains no notability outside of this, then as per WP:N she should not have her own article, but I don't see anyone arguing that. Yelyos (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There are precedents where we name bios using a name other than the current one used by the subject. But those don't apply here, as Ms Manning is not trying to hide her former identity. There is some tension between our policies on using the common name that an article might be best known by and our BLP policies. However BLP is the more important policy here, and the precedent has been set with articles like Winnie Madikizela-Mandela with Winnie Mandela itself being a redirect, more recently Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge was renamed as soon as the subject's name changed. I could understand a reluctance to rename the article if Ms Manning had chosen a name that we couldn't pronounce or indeed type, but she has chosen to call herself "Chelsea Elizabeth", and we shouldn't have a problem with that. WP:BLP is the overriding policy in this dispute, the naming of an article is a matter of editorial judgement, and our BLP policy is clear "and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". ϢereSpielChequers 00:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. Arguments in reverse order of importance: WP:BLP tells us we must not unduly harm the subject, and misgendering a transgender person (such as by giving preference or prominence to their birth name) is considered insulting. WP:MOSIDENTITY says we should use labels matching the gender asserted by the subject; "Chelsea" is overwhelmingly understood to be feminine whereas "Bradley" is not. WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the common name for the subject; taking recent events into consideration it's clear most major media outlets have switched to the subject's new name. Finally, arguments about the subject's "legal name" are largely irrelevant here, and in any case incorrect: as I mentioned at the previous RfA, in common-law jurisdictions such as the one in which Manning resides, a simple declaration is all that is required to effect a change of name. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision#Which BLP violation? for further details. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support there are clear BLP issues associated with referring to a transgender person by their former gender identity. BLP is a core policy, so this should trump all the other considerations listed. In any case the fact that most news organisations have switched to "Chelsea" undermines the COMMONNAME argument, and we are usually happy to move pages when the subject changes name or requests that they be known by some other name. Hut 8.5 09:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak support for move accompanied by large troutslap. "Support" since that is the name that is becoming more common, and is the one the subject prefers to use, and redirects are cheap. "Weak" since we're talking about one word in the title, which is much less important than the text of the article; and the person in question, like it or not, is clearly going to be referred to by both names for the forseeable future. "Troutslap" since this has become a sideshow about transgender issues which are actually immaterial to the name/move decision, but have generated a lot of unnecessarily strident and insensitive language on both sides. Wikipedia on these issues should be a follower of reliable sources, not a venue for social debate. Finally, while I agree with the spirit of BLP and agree it is important policy, it was clearly intended for other purposes than to stifle or railroad debate as it has been used here, and so either those who applied it in that way either require troutslapping and/or the policy needs clarification. Martinp (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Reliable sources (like the NYT) now use Chelsea Manning as the primary name with Bradley Manning as the explanation (cf. ). Seems to me that Chelsea is now her WP:COMMONNAME. The argument that she was Bradley during her trial and sentencing isn't really germane since reliable sources use Chelsea when talking about the past as well. --regentspark (comment) 20:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per sources, policy, and decency. — Scott•talk 21:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support move pursuant to Aug. 26 announcement by the Associated Press that "Chelsea Manning" and "she" are official style for this specific case. This makes this the new WP:COMMONNAME. Screw the manual of style. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. I still maintain my position that articles on transgender people should reflect their self-identified genders and preferred names per WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY, and in this case, sources have clearly shifted to use Chelsea since her announcement. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 22:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. Supported last time and the case for 'Chelsea Manning' has only become stronger since. When we moved this article back to 'Bradley Manning', whatever the good intentions people had for supporting that move, we made a mistake which damaged Wikipedia's credibility. The sooner that mistake is corrected, the better. Robofish (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - Reliable sources call her Chelsea, she asked for it in unambiguous terms, and that's that. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per Obi-wan Kenobi's reasoning above. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support If she says it's her name, it's not really our job to tell her it's not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. Arguments in favour of retaining "Bradley" based on WP:COMMONNAME overlook the simple fact that the name "Chelsea Manning" has, since her public coming-out, attained as great a notoreity as "Bradley Manning"; that "Bradley" is the name by which she until recently was best known is immaterial. Anyway, the evidence list on this page suggests that WP:COMMONNAME now argues in favour of "Chelsea" even were that not the case. MOS:IDENTITY certainly does, as do other external media guidelines as others have already indicated. In my contribution to the earlier discussion on the wrongful move back to "Bradley" I addressed at some length the argument made by certain editors that moving the article to "Chelsea" was wrong because Wikipedia was thus "giving in to LGBT activists". It appears to me that this assertion is now widely enough acknowledged to be complete bollocks that I need not do so again. The most important point - the only important point - is a very simple one. A person's name is the name they tell you it is. That really should be all that needs to be said (and this illustrates rather well how anomalous and how absurd it is not to apply this principle just because the person in question happens to be transgender). Even if for a moment we were to suppose (wrongly) that Wikipedia policy and guidelines indicate the opposite, this would be exactly the sort of situation that is why Wikipedia:Ignore all rules exists. Ou tis (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support. The bottom line is that gender identity is real. She is a she. (Sorry to alter the formatting of the previous post, but it was the only way to keep the numbering intact.) Brettalan (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. I believe in showing respect to people. I don't claim to be making my decision based on Wikipedia policies. This person has told us that she is female and that her name is Chelsea Manning. We should respect that and use the name she chooses. SchreiberBiketalk 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. The BLP subject has requested it, and that carries a lot of weight. Plenty of mainstream sources are using Chelsea now, more than enough (it seems to me) to legitimize the name. To me, the only valid counterargument is WP:COMMONNAME (à la Cat Stevens), but -- sorry, Chelsea -- she's not as famous as Yusuf Islam once was. (For the record, although at first I did support the first contested move from Chelsea back to Bradley, that was mostly because it felt too soon. After time passed and things became more clear, I changed my mind.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. The best and easiest way to conform to MOS:IDENTITY is through a complete changeover, including page title. While the initial move may have been a bit premature, this one is well-supported by numerous sources and now has the weight of WP:COMMONNAME behind it, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - this move which is the only action that conforms to existing policy. abstaining—John Cline (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - I opposed Chelsea in the first discussion because "Chelsea" was not the common name at the time the first discussion took place. Since that first discussion, the sources have changed. "Chelsea" now seems to be the common name; hence, by the same logic that I initially opposed, I now support. NickCT (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As an addendum to my comment above I want to note that the arguments of many of my fellow "supporters" above, who are using WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY as the primary basis for their support of this proposition, are, in this editor's humble opinion, crumby. This is and always was a "common name" issue. NickCT (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, it is now the common name, also our NPOV policy demands we put our own feelings aside and go for the most neutral option, which is Chelsea. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 08:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - As a matter of principle, I think it is good to respect her here. Both "Bradley" and "Chelsea" are used to refer to her, but the latter is the name she has chosen and the most respectful name we can use, so we should go with it. Plus I think keeping it as "Bradley" might set a bad precedent over respect for trans* people's names. - AJF (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - Reliable sources show this is the WP:COMMONNAME and the MOS:IDENTITY guideline clearly sets out how we deal with gender self-identification. Additionally, this is the correct application of WP:BLP policy. MRSC (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Support per WP:DIGNITY. It isn't just insulting to call someone something they have expressly requested not to be called but actually hurtful in many cases (especially where gender is concerned). Chelsea is now recognisably the name the person is known as and this will increase over time. This is an electronic encyclopaedia. It is easy to redirect and simple to search. It isn't as if there will be no reference of "Bradley" and that it will not be possible to find out who Bradley Manning was. Having gotten used to the name Chelsea now I find it unexpected that the title of the article has not changed. Antiqueightdiscuss 14:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as we appear to be blindly respecting name changes from organizations ranging from Dorval Airport to the Detroit River International Crossing even where the old name is widely known or the renaming is blatantly political. No reason to apply a more restrictive policy to people than to infrastructure. K7L (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support As for WP:COMMONNAME, the number of reliable, current sources has rapidly increased. In addition, the REASONS for notability of Manning are increasing also. The military judicial case has been decided, but the treatment of transgendered people in the military is still on trial. Neonorange (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support: Whether Opposers like it or not, everyone is aware Bradley Manning now identifies as "Chelsea". "Chelsea Manning" is commonly recognizable, and found in many reliable sources. This satisfies WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. From WP:MOSIDENTITY, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." And from Wikipedia:Gender_identity, "we set our own editorial policies. Where there is no doubt regarding an individual's expressed gender, there is no question of fact... [T]he most reliable medical sources regarding transgender people strongly favor respecting their expressed gender." —winggundam 18:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support My reasons have been largely already laid out above, so I'll keep it very brief, but I do think that even WP:COMMONNAME supports using Chelsea Manning at this point, leaving no compelling reason to keep the page at the title Bradley Manning. Cam94509 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support I believe the derogatory implications to all trans* people stemming from misgendering in any part of the article created a strong case under human decency for moving the article as soon as WP:RS said she'd changed her name. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR I'm frustrated it's taken this long for Wikipedia to walk through a baroque and convoluted process of proceduralism and delays yet again, when all these same arguments had been repeated almost verbatim about other articles like Chaz Bono. Nevertheless if more alphabet soup will help I'll say WP:DIGNITY, WP:HARM, and WP:BLP create a very high bar for any argument supporting the name Bradley Manning to overcome. Many opposing comments cite WP:COMMONNAME but even in those particular searches that do produce more hits for Bradley the balance of the numbers is nowhere near one-sided enough to approach that bar. The other opposing arguments presented so far are appeals to irrelevant standards like what her legal name is, or what her name was when her most notable actions took place. Neither of these would be acceptable arguments even in a noncontroversial move request. In short, "Basic respect requires to accept the individual's statements about their own gender identity at face value." —Wikipedia:Gender identity. Metadox (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Chelsea appears to be the common usage now in a brief survey of newspaper articles: , enough to justify using it per the individuals request, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
SupportWP:BLP; WP:HARM; WP:DIGNITY; WP:AT; and common decency: The sources on trans persons (linked in evidence above) demonstrate the potential for harm (including extreme disrespect, injury to human dignity, depression, etc.) when the former name is used in a routine manner or its use is deliberate and unnecessary. Article titling is generally routine, and here the use of the former name is both deliberate and unnecessary (other contextual uses, as in the body of the article or in a redirect may well be necessary, but not in this title, which will be found and will equally and better inform at the new title). Moreover, article titling policy prefers the more recent and the least problematic (BLP harm problems, listed above, take precedence). The Subject's request (even given the recognition that the former name may sometimes be necessary) and the sources (AP, NYT, Britannica, etc) also make the use of Chelsea Manning as the title encyclopedic (contrary to some unsourced claims below), as well as the subject's Commonname within the policy sense. Common sense (where possible refer to a person by the name they give) in the form of common decency are also good reason for the change (see WP:Consensus and WP:Notabureaucracy) -- the former name is simply not needed in this section of our publication and therefore gratuitous (bureaucracies, like the prison system, notwithstanding because the Pedia under BLP places human dignity above bureaucratic rules). (Also compare Sears Tower, which came to fame for one thing -- its height -- under that old name that is not its article title).
Procedurally, this Move Request was discussed and advertised at the last close and continuously on the Wiki since. At least three discussions rejected additional delay ,,, and it appears to be a Move Request substantively within WP:RM, so the procedural and bureaucratic objections below should be rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. A majority of recent RS have made the shift, so we should do so as well. (Proper respect to the team which assembled the evidence for this RM.)
While BLP may guide a decision here, it in no way mandates the change, and it should not have been invoked to lock in the original move. That action turned August's RM into a referendum on enforcing the R in WP:BRD.
Many editors here suggest that it should be policy that WP titles its biographical articles based solely on the subject's legal name, while others advocate that the subject's preferred name always be used. Both suggestions are short sighted. Manning's choice of Chelsea Elizabeth appears neither whimsical nor mocking, and I am glad to see the media respecting her choice. If she had instead announced a preference for, and possibly obtained a statutory, legal name change to IDidNothingWrong ImInnocent PleasePardonMeMrPresident Manning, the media would, at best, mention this as a footnote in their articles, and we would not find a consensus here on WP to support such a title change. But what if she had chosen Liberty Innocent Manning? That is a reasonable name, but would still be viewed by many as mocking her conviction. Would we automatically choose such a name for this article's title? Fortunately, we do not need to make such arbitrary decisions ourselves because we rely on outside sources. We should always follow our sources and never lead them. -- ToE 12:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Support – the WP:5P tell us to focus on principles rather than exact wordings when applying policy; IAR tells us to ignore rules that get in the way of improving the encyclopedia; the civility policy asks us to respect other editors (necessarily including our transgendered colleagues); and BLP requires that we consider our subjects. Collectively, these strongly point me towards respecting Chelsea's self-identification of her gender. I think the original move should not have been reverted, the closing admins !vote counted without properly applying policy (in my view), though they acted in good faith. Titling the article as "Bradley" may not violate the letter of BLP but it is certainly inconsistent with its spirit as well diminishing the editor community because denying transgendered identity is prejudicial in effect irrespective of its intent. Is Chelsea now the common name (in line with the guideline)? Probably, but I believe it is irrelevant as the sensitive handling of the underlying issue is the overriding concern. The article will need to mention both names but the title can only be at one (with the other as a redirect) so the question is whether we title the article in line with her gender and identity or choose to declare we do not respect that transgendered individuals have spent years suffering under a name and identity with which they do not identify. This is an easy choice, in my view, and while it appears we will reach a sensible outcome it is sad that we have taken so much and furore to get here. EdChem (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Support – Wikipedia calling her "Bradley Manning" is like Wikipedia deciding that she is still of male gender. This is factually inaccurate, and Wikipedia should only state the facts and not judge on them. Sure, people may argue that one cannot change his/her gender merely by telling the public, but the fact that she has gone as far as requesting hormone replacement therapy means that she's serious about it. Heymid (contribs) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia should state the facts. However, "is like" is not a fact, it's an opinion. I support the move too, but you cannot say and opinion and insist Wikipedia state the facts in the same breath. Your principal "Wikipedia should only state the facts" is not supported by an opinion based on "is like"'s. What we're discussing here is the title of an encyclopedia article, not a person's gender.--v/r - TP 16:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You didn't get my point. I know that that this discussion addresses the article title, but I've seen multiple users invoking the "She's not female (yet)" argument to justify the current article name "Bradley Manning". Other than that, I see no reason not to move the article to "Chelsea Manning". The common name appears to be Chelsea Manning now (see , for example), and that is her legal name as well (see ). Calling the current article name a BLP violation may be an exaggeration, but I definitely support moving the article to the name "Chelsea Manning". Heymid (contribs) 20:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Support - out of respect for the rights of individuals to make these very personal decisions, not to mention the clear majority of current sources now reflecting this. There are few more meaningful freedoms than being able to identify yourself by the name you prefer. This is of heightened importance for individuals self-identifying by gender. This kind of move has been done in countless other cases where an individual has changed their name. Kreznik (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Support for two independently sufficient (but complementary) reasons:
Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" unless that most common name "has problems", in which case "it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the other[ names]". If a subject changes names, "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". If "Bradley Manning" were the name sources most commonly used to refer to Manning, the fact that it has problems (which others have outlined) means it would be correct for the article to use another name as its title. However, the fact that "Chelsea Manning" is the name sources most commonly use to refer to the subject (and that name does not "have problems") means it is correct for the article to use that name as its title.
As has been discussed, (almost?) every Wikipedia article about a transgender person except the Manning article uses the person's current name as the title, and (almost?) all other Wikipedia articles about living people use as their titles names that the subjects use or used. Furthermore, WP:TITLE states that "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. [...] Titles are often the names of article topics, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title." (I note this because a few commenters argue titles are not names, attempting to use that mistaken premise to parry the point I am about to make.) As has been discussed, misnaming transgender people is traumatic; it causes harm that using e.g. Deadmau5 as the title of Joel Thomas Zimmerman's article does not cause (Deadmau5 being a name he chose and prefers to use for himself in many areas of his public life). Wikipedia's preference, per WP:BLP, is to avoid doing unnecessary harm. Because titling the Manning article "Chelsea Manning" would not be harmful, whereas [there is reasonable concern, justified by reliable sources, that] titling the article "Bradley Manning" would be harmful, it is appropriate for the article to be titled "Chelsea Manning", not "Bradley Manning".
"Support: Either Chelsea Manning is the common name post-announcement or there is no clear common name. In the latter case common courtesy and the spirit of several rules (e.g. WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY) indicate that the article title ought to be "Chelsea Manning". 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC) This unregistered user requested that this comment be added to the discussion. Edge3 (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support: Calling a trans person who has changed name by their former name is misgendering. Wikipedia should not misgender people; to do so is a violation of WP:Basic dignity. Note that so-called "legal names" are not relevant to article naming. Neither is the fact of any so-called "reliable sources" choosing to ignore a name change. (I strongly suspect that the conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and basic respect for trans*' and other people's self-chosen names will cause problems in future cases, although here is not the place to discuss that; WP:AT is.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY. Chelsea identifies as such and most major English language media follows suit. The legal name argument is hollow, otherwise we would need to change millions of article titles for artists, actors and musicians who are known by different names to the one on their birth certificate. I would also support retaining Bradley Manning as a redirect to this article, with a hat note explaining the change.IrishStephen (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per commonname, blp, and common decency. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose move to "Chelsea Manning"
Oppose on COMMONNAME, Strong Oppose on any other basis. - There is no consensus as of yet among reliable sources of what title to use for Ms. Manning and in the absence of clear guidance from reliable sources, we should err with the stable title of Bradley Manning. In addition, Bradley Manning is the title used during the entirety of the period on which she was notable and WP:AT explicitly states that we have to "remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." Chelsea Manning would not be a terrible title for the article, but under WP:AT's description for what makes a good Wikipedia article, it falls short under the first pillar, recognition, relative to Bradley Manning, as she has been described for years.I strongly oppose on the basis of BLP or MOSIDENTITY. The individual under question was already noted as Bradley Manning for a very long period of time, so there's no outing or privacy issue and she's not notability for being a transgendered woman, but for being involved in a prominent espionage case. I don't see MOSIDENTITY as applicable here - even ignoring that its applicability to the situation is in dispute, a guideline cannot supercede a policy, that of WP:ATNote that this is only for the *title* of the article. I will strongly oppose any attempts to remove "she" or "her" or, where applicable "Chelsea" because unlike the title policy, these guidelines are not superceded by an applicable policy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You mention a lack of reliable sources, although we have innumerable reliable sources mentioning what Manning herself wants. Is there some sort of reliable source that serves as a registry for name changes regardless of the subject's wishes? I know Germany doesn't allow children to be given certain names. Is there some analog for American citizens, especially adults? μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Are a subjects wishes a trump card in this matter? As I recall, that was not the case when there was all that fuss about Daniel Brandt being featured in an article. Dolescum (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per commonname. Individual is notable for activities which took place while named Bradley Manning. Our primary obligation is to our readers who, per principle of least astonishment, will expect article to make name that has been most widely publicized. NE Ent 01:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap, and it is likely that both names will appear bolded in the lead. Any astonishment on the part of the reader is likely to be brief and superficial. Recent coverage, for which the subject is also notable, has extensively used her present name, and so it does not seem unreasonable to assume that many readers will actually expect Chelsea. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as "Bradley" is the name she was known as during her most notable activities; both leaking the material, and during the trial. I consider "Chelsea" as only being undo weight. I should add there is no possible application of BLP to this choice, whether the lead starts
Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, or
Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning.
Oppose retrospective renaming that conflicts with sources supporting the early material. Revisionism should be avoided. Bradley was the child and the person who committed the act, was caught and was sentenced. Bradley then became Chelsea. Both names should be used, divided by in the timeline at the point of change. On COMMONNAME, it refers to looking at usage in reliable sources, implied is that this refers to sources supporting the content. For the majority of this persons life, "Bradley" was the acknowledged name, and "he" the appilcable pronoun. Many sources introduce "Chelsea" only in relation to a relatively late change of choice of name and gender. Only of reliable sources on teh persons early life employ a retrospective name change should we do so.BLP, DIGNITY and HARM claims are exaggerated to the point of being false. There is no problem in saying that in 2010 he was known to others as Bradley. The stated concerns don't arise until later in the timeline.Suggest a compromise title, reflecting the non-constancy of a name, Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning. (Oppose the use of the word "now") --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As a title, not a sentence in the lead? Can you point out any parallel cases for people with name changes?—Kww(talk) 06:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Current Wikipedian affection for minimalist titling notwithstanding. This person defies a single defining name, so compromise. Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, née Bradley Edward Manning also works, but I fear an inevitable future conundrum when someone changes from a name that was not their birth name. The feminine "née" Bradley is an attractive provocative contradiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Livingstone_(née_Moffat). I think "Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning" does a much better job of rectifying the principle of least astonishmentwp:blp (the spirit, it's not a trump card), and wp:commonname. I oppose any argument that weighs the attractiveness of the title over clarity and communication (eg It's not clean/it's ugly). Disambiguation and clarification in parenthesis are unrelated to wp:commonname. I also oppose the notion (and rhetoric) that the title will cause harm when subject's statement itself acknowledges the old name will continue to be used. Chelsea is more respectful, but Bradley is not inherently disrespectful. Xkcdreader (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm in general alignment with you over the "harm" issue. Your choice of a parallel example doesn't seem sound, though. Isn't that title just a way to disambiguate from Mary Livingstone?—Kww(talk) 07:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If we're going down this route, wouldn't the sometimes-proposed "Private Manning" be better? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No. She is not a private for life and it looks like her military career - where the title comes from - is limited. You'll notice that General Patton is not under that title, for instance. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The article in its current state broadly complies with WP:NPOV, giving appropriate weight to the various events in Manning's life. The name "Bradley Manning" is widely known and was used by the subject while she engaged in many of the activities for which she is notable. Encyclopedic considerations require that we retain references to the name Bradley in the article. Because there is no "unsourced or poorly sourced" information to remove, and the article does not give undue weight to one POV, WP:BLP is not a compelling reason to change the title to "Chelsea Manning". MOS:IDENTITY addresses article titles, saying "disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article." So that points to WP:TITLE, specifically WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE, and WP:TITLECHANGES. WP:TITLECHANGES is interesting because it mandates that if no consensus can be achieved, the article should remain at the last uncontroversial title. However, it makes no sense to !vote one way or the other based on this section because that would change the degree of consensus. WP:POVTITLE mandates that the article title be compliant with WP:V and NPOV. Both Bradley and Chelsea are supported by reliable sources, satisfying WP:V. The bulk of the content concerns events in her life while she identified as Bradley, but new sources are generally using Chelsea, so I see no compelling argument against either on the basis of NPOV. That leaves WP:COMMONNAME, which specifically addresses the problem of name changes: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." The yardstick I will be using in this case, and that I plan on using for future BLP RMs, is to use the new name if NPOV is satisfied and more than 10% of the content references reliable sources that identify the subject by the new name. By my count, Chelsea is supported by 477 words, Breanna by 359(!), and Bradley by 7645. That puts the new name at 6% of the article, and leads me to Oppose the move. I consider this to be a reflection of the notability of the subject during the span of time when she identified as Bradley, not a statement about the validity of her current identity. DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
But isn't your yardstick essentially ignoring the advice from WP:COMMONNAME that "more weight should be given" to recent sources? If most content is written from sources before the name change, "reflection of the notability" of Bradley Manning means that you're measuring sources just by volume, not taking recency into account at all. Diego (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It does not ignore COMMONNAME. If I were giving equal weight to sources published after the name change, I would demand a plurality. The phrase "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change" is not specific. It encompasses everything less than a relative majority but more than 0. I think 10% is generous. Considering all the hubbub surrounding the name change, I honestly expected to be !voting the other way. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
* Strongly Oppose - Material redacted from this comment pursuant to discretionary sanctions. Do not restore except after following the appeal procedures listed there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC) So, no way should we move this over to Chelsea Manning. He's not notable under that name,so moving to Chelsea Manning would also violate (for a number of reasons, WP:CRYSTAL, (hasn't happened yet, it's not a notable event, he's not notable under that name ). He IS notable under Bradley Manning. Leave it at Bradley Manning. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 11:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to put words into your mouth but could you clarify why you beleive genetics and not gender are important here? CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Be careful to not switch sex (physical) and gender (psychological). She hasn't changed her gender, true -- she has seen herself as female for years. It is her sex she is seeking to change. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would politely point out that comments of this sort - i.e. ones based on the poster's personal rejection of the legitimacy of trans identities - were explicitly discarded by the closing admins of the previous move request, and encourage that this precedent be followed again by whoever closes this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose During the trial she was "Bradley Manning". Since this article focuses on her pre-incarnation life (for which she is notable for) it should remain as Bradley. Future persons doing research will not find court, army or government documents relating to the case under her new name therefore it should remain as Bradley. WP:COMMONNAME states that we should use the name most referenced in reliable sources, just because those sources have now started to report on her transgender status and are using her new name should not outweigh those sources that are relevant to her actual notability. Bradley Manning is NOT notable for being a transgendered member of the army who is currently in jail, rather she is notable for the information leak, criminal charges and subsequent trial that took place. Mike (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Your argument is a self defeating one because in a few months when all the news sources report her as a woman you will have to admit that then she is a woman. So she isn't a woman now, but she will be then? That really doesn't make sense. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 16:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. The sources used are in the past, what happens after the trial has no bearing on the event in which Bradley Manning is notable for. Mike (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: when reliable sources confirm that Bradley Manning has changed legal name to Chelsea Manning the article can be moved to that title, and when equally reliable sources confirm that Bradley/Chelsea has had a change of "legal gender" all references to he/him/his in the article can be changed to she/her/hers. But not until then. Thomas.Wtalk to me 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thomas, we have lots of people (dare I say most?) that we have an article under a different name than the legal name, and the legal name argument rarely comes up. Could you maybe explain why this case is different, or conversely why you think that biographies should be under the legal name? I have the feeling that the legal name argument might not been very well thought through, but I might be wrong, and a good answer might strengthen your argument and convince me or others. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Certain judges have been known to block or even reverse trans people's name changes because they don't accept trans people's identities. A "legal name change" standard would create unnecessary barriers, and would be inconsistent with the fact that Wikipedia doesn't require "legal name" or "legal name changes" elsewhere. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - There is a person. Her name is Chelsea Manning. There is an article. Its name is Bradley Manning. The names are different. Yes. This only reflects the fact that living people are not articles, and articles are not living people. The baseline for living people is that they are entitled to live, notorious or not, named or not. Each and every people whose death is depicted in the 'Collateral Murder' video was entitled to live (and nevertheless was shot to death). For articles, the rule is different, the topic must be notable... or the article is to be deleted. 1.4 million people hold the US top-secret security clearance. Assuming independency from gender, 3 per 1000 among them perceive themselves as transgender, i.e. roughly 4000 people. Did really someone intent to have an article or even a stub about each of them? In the Bradley Manning article, due weight must be given to trans-genderism (incidental) and to trans-loyalty (key point). That is the reason why the article's name must be chosen from the enrolment name, not from the gender name. Presenting Chelsea Manning as yet another Kristin Beck would be rather misleading. On the contrary, the notoriety of Chelsea Manning and her impact onto the real world occured from the 'Collateral murder' leak, that was comparable in importance to the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse leak. These key actions were done using the 'Bradley' enrolment name and are known under that name. Putting the focus on this 'Collateral murder' video and naming the article Bradley will hurt the feelings of some people in the military. Putting the foccus elsewhere and naming the article Chelsea would hurt the feelings of some people in the wide-world mankind. Guess what will be the academic choice of the western-male-white-thirty Encyclopedia? Pldx1 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Everything notable about Manning (except for the gender change) occurred when he was called Bradley. Wikipedia isn't a directory; it only includes people with notability. Therefore, the article's title should emphasize the time period of Manning's notability. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I said previously that I would support the move when the balance of significant coverage had switched over to the new name. (For my reasons why this is the only relevant criterion, see my post in the pronouns RFC.) However, on further consideration, I've realised that this is unlikely to ever happen. Yes, a majority of reliable sources decided to respect Manning's wishes in the immediate aftermath of her announcement. But that was a post-script to the events for which she will be remembered, the events which actually justify the existence of this article, events which all occurred under the name Bradley Manning. There will be the occasional news story about legal processes and her eventual release, but that is it. Her time in the spotlight is almost certainly over. And when people write about these events 20 years from now, Bradley is the name they will use. In that respect, this situation is highly comparable to the article on Alexis Reich / John Mark Karr, where a person announced a new gender identity and name long after the events for which they became notable. Though that case is much more egregious, because virtually all of our sources have chosen not to respect the name change, but many editors apparently think that the preferences of the subject are more important than our core policy of verifiability. – Smyth\talk 21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Although we have the article on the person who falsely admitted to killing JonBenet Ramsey titled as a woman named Alexis Reich, even though that person was notable as John Mark Karr, and just about every source refers to her as Karr. If we have that article at Reich over the much more well known Karr, to me that casts doubt on using the notability of Bradley versus Chelsea as rationale for resisting a move on transgendered articles. Truthfully, I'm very troubled by the Karr/Reich case, and its potential implications of whether this page should be Bradley or Chelsea. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the other one should be changed. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across the Alexis Reich case while doing some research on this one, and was struck by the lack of sourcing for the name, so I submitted an RM. The response was rather vicious - people claimed they felt physically ill as a result, and I was branded a raving transphobe. I nonetheless think that article should be moved, the title is inherently anti-reader, as any reader would not know to search for the name Alexis Reich. Once this one closes, we could put together some more sources and attempt another move on that one. I think they're quite different cases, actually.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The redirect works fine, and "John Mark Karr" is mentioned in the article, so I don't see why search is an issue here. Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The redirect argument is literally the worst argument ever possible in an RM. Watch carefully:
The redirect works fine, and "Alexis Reich" is mentioned in the article, so I don't see why BLP is an issue here.
See how easy that was? Anyway, we're off topic, we can discuss further at the Reich talk page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Saying "we can redirect users who search for Karr to Reich" is a great response to "what if people search for Karr?" — whereas saying "we can redirect Reich to Karr" doesn't, IMO, make sense as response to "using 'Karr' as the tite seems to violate BLP"! -sche (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I hadn't seen that Alexis Reich article before. How is it not at John Mark Karr? I guess it's one of those things where consensus overrides fact, common use, and logic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that the present discussion is biased due to a large sympathy towards the editorial choices made by the person that was enrolled under the name Bradley Manning. To summarize, "If she wants that, lets do it", with the unsaid intention to assert that if all sources were censored, how could an Encyclopedia based on sources not be censored? But an advocacy group is trying to change that sympathy into an "ever, ever, she from beginning" policy. A first answer is simply to quote the very words used by Chelsae Manning herself. Another answer is to see what would happen if a courtesy towards Chelsea Manning was changed into a hard rule, allowing to cry "bee-ell-pee" as a trump card. Applying that would-be hard rule to another situation would result into a shameful denial of the human rights of the victims of John Mark Karr. Therefore, a hard rule would be shameful. As a result, a courtesy towards a fellow editor of the "world-wide sum of knowledge" must remain... an editorial choice. Pldx1 (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose For the past week, Google News yields 2,640 results for “Bradley Manning”, 910 for “Chelsea Manning”. The subject was convicted of espionage as “Bradley Manning,” and he is not likely to do anything under this new name that is anywhere near as notable as that. Despite all the recent gender bending excitement, more readers have been looking for “Bradly Manning” than for “Chelsea Manning” all along, according to Google Trends. With the novelty wearing off, his feminine side is already receiving noticeably less attention. I'm fine "Private Manning" as well. Greatness Bites (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
User blocked as a sockpuppet. Formerip (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
How about the likelihood of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize or being one of the world's most notable imprisoned dissidents, on par with Liu Xiaobo in terms of notability/fame? The world will be closely watching whatever happens to her for the rest of her life. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as per Smyth above. I barely see anything in the press these days on the subject, but the overwhelming reason for this article existing was when she was called Bradley Manning. Even though the press after 1937 referred to her as Helen Roark or Mrs Roark, she will forever be linked to the name Helen Wills (one of the greatest tennis players in history). We have her article under Helen Wills even though she was known far longer as Helen Roark. If this was simply an army private who changed her gender we wouldn't have an article to argue about. This is about Bradley Manning the criminal who also happened to change her gender. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Bradley Manning is his legal name, and his common name. Barring an executive order from his commander in chief, he will become Chelsea Manning only when he is free to make that choice. It is only at this point we can say "she." Wikipedia is becoming a sad joke. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
He's not a prisoner of the federal or state prison system. Manning was free to enlist in the Army. He did so of his own free will, and had voluntarily placed himself under Army regulations. This is actually something that gay advocates had been demanding the right to do for years. To whine now is incredibly naive -- and should not be forgotten. But if it's true that he can change his name, then he could settle the issue on his own. -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Gay and transgender are not the same thing and as far as I'm aware, Chelsea has not made a comment on her sexual orientation. Besides, the argument that she enlisted freely is a non sequitur. She could not have known at the time she enlisted that she would commit a crime, and then be subjected to an identity she is uncomfortable with for the duration of her sentence. The Army may be required to identify her as a male, but we, on Wikipedia, are not bound to those regulations.--v/r - TP 13:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This has already been addressed. Her legal name is now Chelsea Manning, what the military recognizes is of no consequence here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Sportfan5000 please cite where Kansas law recognizes common law name changes of persons with the equivalence of a felony conviction (Hint: no, they don't. Felonies negate many civil rights). You do know, I hope, that Manning is applying for a name change in Kansas which would be unnecessary if what you said is true. But it's not true and repeating it many time does not make it so. Her legal name is Bradley Manning according to her lawyer. I doubt you have more knowledge or insight than Coombs on her legal name. BTW, Federal rules of criminal procedure require that all motions in court be filed under the legal name. Knock yourself out trying to find a "Chelsea Manning" filing to support your hypothesis. Not even her lawyer agrees with you and he read the statement on the "Today" show. --DHeyward (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stop pretend lawyering. In Kansas a person can change his or her name under the common law  as long as it's not to commit fraud or to avoid a felony charge, and Manning is doing neither. Your claim about felony convictions is unsupported. A formal name change makes things easier to provide proof a name change has occurred so it's not unusual for her lawyer to also do it. It doesn't mean the common law change was never legal nor available if a different way is chosen for convenience. The legal name arguments are completely unrelated to Wikipedia titling anyway, as repeated elsewhere, but please don't make up law to support your argument. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, but no, it is not her legal name. Aside even from Kansas law, it is against the rules of procedure to use anything but the legal name. Why do you think all the legal petitions are filed under "Bradley Manning?" It is largely irrelevant to WP as to what her legal name is, so stop asserting a falsehood. It is not her legal name. Neither the army, court or her lawyer assert that Chelsea is her legal name. See here for quotes. What authority are you basing your finding on? The Interwebz? A complete misunderstanding of what incorporating common law into statutory law means? Anyone that's ever seen a court case where names change, know that all future filings are with the legal name. Find a filing with "Chelsea Manning" on it and you can talk about legal name. Otherwise, it's her preference. Secondly, it's a given that unless she gets a court to recognize it, fraud is the way it would be perceived by law enforcement, employers, etc.. She would not be able to give her name to a police officer as "Chelsea Manning" if she is a convicted felon (or dishonorably discharged) unless a court approves it. Same with filling out an application to own a firearm. Felons (and those dishonorably discharged) have restrictions, and one of those restrictions is escaping a previous identity without consent of the court. A lack of fraudulent intent can be taken into consideration by the court when she makes the request but that is not up to Chelsea. Often deference to allowing the change is given to the state in which the person is convicted. It is entirely likely that Kansas would punt the name change back to federal court and federal court would defer until her sentence is carried out. You will know when her name is legally changed when her lawyer starts filing petitions and appeals with that name. That's a pretty straight forward rule of procedure and is why when Coombs explained using "Bradley," he said he was bound to use her legal name by rule. When she applies for a name change, look for the name of the applicant. I don't know where people think they know more about her legal name than her attorney. Especially if you claim the argument isn't weakened by it. It's ridiculous. --DHeyward (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
["In Kansas a person can change his or her name under the common law (law established by usage and custom, which is not statutory) to any name he or she chooses so long as the reason behind the name change is neither fraudulent nor an infringement on another’s rights. A person may simply begin to use the chosen name without any involvement with the court system or legal formalities. In re Morehead, 10 Kan. App. 2d 625, 627, 706 P.2d 480, 482 (1985)."] Your sourceless legal speculations notwithstanding. It's easier for her lawyer to prove a record of the name change for secondary requirements (like your firearms example, but more importantly for the military, but also people who don't understand common law ) when a court formally confirms it, but court confirmation is not required to be a legal name. A police officer would require former legal names, not just the current one, but I don't know why that's relevant. Having a new legal name while acknowledging the old one is not "escaping a previous identity". The things you assert are "settled" are not. You are also off topic. The main point is that legal names aren't necessary for titles. __Elaqueate (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You keep citing sources irrelevant to incarcerated persons and convicted of felonies. California, one of the most trans* friendly states and a common law state says, no, not if your in prison. Kansas codes say that even prisoners that get a statutory legal name name change, they don't get a new name in prison. The truth is that her legal name is "Bradley Manning", it may stay with her throughout her sentence as that was the name of conviction an incarceration. Her lawyer knows it per the citation I gave above [and see here for quotes. The Army knows it too, whence her request that mail be addressed to "Bradley Manning." You keep saying it's irrelevant but then continue to make unfounded claims about persons that are in prison as if it only matters that your right, not whether it's relevant. Many common law recognitions are denied in prison as well as civil rights and certain constitutional rights. It's a price that persons convicted of crimes pay. Here's a quote from Kansas procedure for prisoners: "44-12-506. Change of name as it appears on journal entry of sentence, convictions. In all matters an inmate shall respond to officials when addressed by the name under which he was committed to the custody of the secretary of corrections until discharged from sentence. An inmate shall be referred to in all official transactions , and all correspondence to and from the inmate, under the name used in the journal entry of convictions and commitment throughout his or her period of incarceration. In the event of a legal name change, the records may reflect the new name as an alias and the inmate may use the alias name in parentheses after the conviction name. All directives to, references to, or orders to an inmate by his convicted name shall be complied with regardless of the fact that he or she may have changed his or her name. " Note, as a statutory body, that legal name change would refer only to a statutory name change (and even then, it's "No") --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You talk about irrelevancy then point to a specific-to-California law to make a claim about Kansas (For some reason you ignore "A common law name (i.e. one assumed for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name."). More importantly, showing that a prison system (and still not the relevant one) has a clause that they only use the original conviction name in their records despite legal name changes explicitly admits legal name changes can occur. Your argument has eaten its own tail. I won't repeat myself more as your sources argue my points and refute yours.__Elaqueate (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I cited a common law state, the most trans* friendly state in the U.S., doesn't extend Common Law recognition to prisoners. Then I showed that Kansas prisons don't recognize any' name changes. It's clear that common law states don't recognize non-statutory name changes for incarcerated persons, and Kansas in particular doesn't recognize any. Keep citing the Interwebz FAQ for a family law center and interpolate to a federal military prisoner in Kansas, that exactly reflects the Kansas administrative code - can't receive mail as "Chelsea". Again, no legal authority recognizes "Chelsea Manning" as a legal name. Not Army, Kansas or Coombs. Are you really arguing that the army will accept a common law name change in Kansas when Kansas prisons will not and the Army currently reflects the Kansas policy exactly with respect to letters? You can repeat it all ou like and say "common law" over and over again but if California, a common law name state, says "no effing way," it's kind of ludicrous that Kansas is more progressive on trans* issues for convicts. Somehow Kansas isn't at the top of my "trans friendly" list. --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Stop. Just stop. Your argument is that if it's a law in California then it must be so in Kansas. Even when you've seen the Kansas law doesn't have that clause. I'm clearly not arguing that the army will use it in their records, but that doesn't mean it's not a legal name, as your sources and our page on name changes agree. And don't badmouth Kansas. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No, Kansas does not recognize it. This the equivalent of the federal register of laws in Kansas. It is the interpretation of law. It is the framework through which laws are interpreted and enforced by executive agencies. You can disregard it all you like, but it has the force of law in Kansas. Kansas doesn't recognize name changes of prisoners. The army doesn't recognize them. She has a shot at getting a judge to change her name and petitioning the Army. Kansas and the Army only recognize her as "Bradley Manning" now though. Pretending otherwise is ignoring all sources on prisoners, KAnsas, the Army, Chelsea's lawyer and common law. Even if she said "My legal name is Chelsea", to avoid an argument the only answer (the one given by her lawyer, the court, the army and kansas) is "Fine, your legal name is Chelsea. Here's the rules: all legal filings, mail, names on uniforms, roll call callout, your drivers license, birth certificate, response to guards, signatures, phone calls, commissary requests and accounts, visitation requests and anything else must use Bradley Manning." Are you really satisfied that the common law nonsense you quoted conferred any sort of legal status to her name when virtually every legal entity will require her to ignore it? It seems you simply want to state "Chelsea" is her legal name but you know she will be punished for using it and will only be able to use the name "Bradley Manning". Your desire to believe it has no bearing on it's validity and it seems you wish to make a case for accepting "Chelsea" as her legal name only for the sake of argument, rather than any recognition of the reality of circumstance. Would you be as accepting if the Army said "Okay, your female. The rules are you will be held at the male barracks, called Bradley, refused hormone treatment, subject to the appearance requirements of male soldiers but legally we recognize you as a trans woman." Would you really argue they are treating her legal status as female under those conditions? Your "Family Law" source is great for the couple that just adopted a child of unknown origin. It's worthless for identifying the legal name of a convicted soldier held in federal detention in Kansas especially when the implementation at every level is that her legal name is "Bradley" including her lawyer. --DHeyward (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
What you call an equivalent to the federal register, clearly isn't at all. It is the manual for the Kansas Department of Corrections (still as irrelevant to Manning as California law) where they say if there's a legal name change (they explicitly admit legal name changes exist! Please read what you're citing.) they will still use the name of the conviction. You've cited it before. It was addressed before. Kansas recognizes common law name changes as legal names; they won't use the new name as the main name for prisoners in prison records, preferring the name when sentenced. This is according to your repeatedly given source. You haven't proven that Kansas would not recognize it in other contexts, if it clearly wasn't used for fraudulent purposes. The "common law nonsense" I quoted is from our page on name changes and your own sources. Her lawyer has only said that he needs to use "Bradley Manning" with the Army; he's never said "Chelsea Manning wouldn't be considered a legal name in other contexts. I repeat: "I'm clearly not arguing that the army will use it in their records, but that doesn't mean it's not a legal name, as your sources and our page on name changes agree." Please don't bring birth certificates etc. into it; nobody has to change their birth certificate to change their name. Especially as you agree that the answer to the actual question is "Fine, your legal name is Chelsea." __Elaqueate (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for my injection but surely if what is written on legal documents is to be given priority, then that much vaunted example Cat Stevensshould be titled Yusuf Islam after all, no? It seems that it's not, though. Dolescum (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Probably. I expect a WP:RM when this one is over - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Will we also be retitling the articles of other performers who are listed under their stage names rather than what is on their legal documentation such as 50 Cent, Woody Allen and Aphex Twin? Dolescum (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No, but that's a poor support argument as those are all common names. There are Yusuf Islam media articles but they invariably reference his common name so people don't say who eff is this guy talking about? --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. They all also differ from the legal documentation. If common names at odds with government issues bits of paper are acceptable elsewhere, why argue that legal documents are required here? Isn't it special pleading to do that? Dolescum (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to oppose this - as commonname has two sides. True, looking at the sources, there is a noticeable shift to more Chelsea names than Bradley. However, the American public still knows the subject as Bradley, and at least 4 of the major (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC) television news channels have recently (within the past 7 days) referred to the subject as Bradley. Thus, taking into account the readers, we must provide the encyclopedic value (as a reference work) for them. This means links to what the subject did before their announcement should also be Bradley - as that is what people will be looking for. The subject is notable mainly due to one event, and as such, it is that which should be used as the name. For a comparison that doesn't even apply to my comments - Obamacare is a redirect, even though the vast majority of sources use Obamacare (not the PPACA spelled out). Just food for thought on why commonname may not always apply. So, all in all, I can't say it's unambiguously the right thing, as an encyclopedia with a duty to its readers, to move the article to a name that they won't be looking for. This really isn't based in policy, though, as strict policy interpretation would infer (to me at least) that Chelsea is the correct name for the article. I strongly believe an RfC is required after this RM, regardless of outcome, to determine pronouns in the article (he, she, he before announcement, but wait when did the subject really accept their change, etc. etc.), as that is nowhere near clear in policy. ~Charmlet-talk- 23:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I furthermore will note that searching for Bradley Manning brings 67 million results, and Chelsea Manning only 23 million results. Narrowing this to Google News brings 18000 for Bradley, and 13000 for Chelsea, showing that, based on recent (the Google news within the past month or so (based on standard Google news timing from experience)) news reports, there's not a cut and dry commonname. ~Charmlet-talk- 23:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You are including searches from before she announced her name change. A strict search on "Chelsea Manning" within the last week gives 268 ghits, for "Bradley Manning" gives 280. That pretty much vitiates the argument. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
As he should include them. If we ignore anything he did prior to him wanting to change his name would he be notable? The answer is no. Including results from before his request to change his name would include the very sources that make him notable. Please do not try to spin numbers in ways that would favour your opinion. Mike (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
COMMONNAME says to give more weight to recent sources. It does not say to only look at recent sources, nor to discount older sources. Your numbers show that a) Bradley is still technically in more use, but it is too close to make a valid determination, and b) It is not a clear Chelsea use in all sources. Thus, you actually helped my argument - thanks. ~Charmlet-talk- 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The way you are searching adds all "Chelsea Manning (previously known as Bradley Manning)" sources as hits for Bradley Manning. Completely unfiltered Google searches should not be cited as reliable evidence. It's misleading and inaccurate and varies wildly by the hour. "Total hits" on Google is ultimately a census of how many spambot sites have absorbed and roboticly reproduced a name from the news over time. You shouldn't try to include "millions" of non-humans as somehow reliable evidence of human usage. __Elaqueate (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per the policy arguments made by the previous opposers. Additionally, I find this whole discussion a bit misguided. "Chelsea" is not invariably a name for females. See, for example, Chelsea Quealey. So the issue here is more like: what happens when a person famous under one name says they want another? It really is not a gender issue at all. The gender issue will arise when we discuss what pronouns to use, but it is not really relevant as far as the article move is concerned. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Even if Chelsea were invariably a female name (which it isn't), I don't see any reason to treat this any differently from any other famous person who (having already attained fame) desires a name change. Google News favors "Bradley". I get 11,100 hits for "Bradley Manning", but only 3,730 hits for "Chelsea Manning". Lots of males have predominantly female names, and vice versa, even when LGBT is not involved; examples of males include Leslie Nielsen, Lindsay Buckingham, Carol Reed, Meredith Wilson, Evelyn Waugh, Dana Andrews, Sandy Koufax, Abbie Hoffman, and Stacy Keach. If such a man wanted to change his name to a predominantly male name, I don't think Wikipedia would or should be influenced by their gender when the time comes to consider renaming their Wikipedia articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Names aren't gendered by themselves, they're labels. A woman can be named Jack, obviously. This specific usage of the name for this specific person is being used explicitly to mark a change in presented gender expression. It's usage in context that speaks to a gender here. It's a way of showing commitment and that it is not a whim. If she didn't change her name people would be complaining that she wasn't committing enough and probably wasn't serious. __Elaqueate (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Which Wikipedia policy says we should edit so that "people would [not] be complaining"? Seems to me that people will be complaining no matter what this article title is. So we might as well pick the one that conforms with the same policies that we apply to all other Wikipedia articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. Did you just decide to change your vote? __Elaqueate (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No, why do you think I might have changed my vote? You said, "If she didn't change her name people would be complaining". I simply pointed out that we shouldn't change the name of this article merely because some people would otherwise be complaining. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant by picking the one that conforms with policy. More people seemed to see a policy argument for the change, that's all. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Manning is notable for actions carried out under the name "Bradley Manning". Manning's actions since adopting the name "Chelsea Manning" have not eclipsed this notability. Moving the page to Chelsea Manning gives undue weight to Manning's life post-conviction. McPhail (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting theory, that calling Manning what she wants to be called would be giving undue weight to her post-conviction life. But it has no basis in policy or even fact. What would be undue weight would be if we dedicated the article to her desire for a sex change, and had one paragraph on her conviction. I don't think we are in jeopardy of that outcome. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The idea is without proof. Although it will probably be moved anyway, I will say this. What I say following this is cold-minded, so sorry if it is out of touch. The idea of suddenly changing names without legal basis is far, far out there. News articles are not to be used into factoring this, and the government records are proof. It is simple minded to really change gender "just" because he said so. Since I don't want to get to far into it, I will say this. The fact of this is that it is without merit. Some say just do it just for the dignity; others say do it as per subjects wishes; still others oppose. As I've said before, it is an opinion, and I am withholding a large amount of words. Anyway, the correct discretion is to stop the move, and discontinue discussion of it until the real name change began. Think you. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Far out there, huh? Guess we better start changing that article title for Martin Sheen then, seeing as he hasn't bothered to change his legal name from Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez (it's even on his license) and change it to Katy Hudson instead of Katy Perry. Since when has a legal requirement overshadowed WP:IDENTITY? I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Oppose If Wikipedia reverts this back to "Chelsea Manning", the entire encyclopedia is a joke. He is still Bradley Manning both legally and per WP:COMMONNAME. MOS:IDENTITY is not policy, but rather, as its title suggests a "manual of style". Just because someone wants to be called by a name does not mean they are called that name. Maybe down the line, but for now, Bradley is his name.--Giants27(T|C) 22:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with you that it defies logic and rationality to contend that a person can change their name, gender, or ethnicity with a news conference, we follow rather than advocate. On Aug. 26 the Associated Press sent out a statement to its members (i.e. the whole of the mainstream press), indicating that it would switch to "Chelsea" and "she" as a matter of official style. Whatever... Roll your eyes with me, grit your teeth with me, but please do accept that this is the new common name for WP purposes. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
the Associated Press? What about WP:NOTNEWS? Most news sources are primary sources and are not the best to be guide by. There is even an appearance that there has been a flurry of news reports that are now waning. Has the name Chelsea achieved long term significance in reliable sources on the bulk of the material in the article? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
NOTNEWS relates to notability doctrine. Bradley Manning got the cover of the August issue of The Nation, presumably GNG presents no hurdle. The point is this: once it is AP style, that's how the subject is gonna be written up from now on. Even Fox News made the switch. That's it, common name, done deal, we're finished here... You or I may think that this is idiotic and PC, but that shouldn't matter a whit. Once that's the common name for the subject, and it now is, that should be the article title. Give it some thought. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I have given it some thought. My thoughts, my concerns with this rationale, popular as it is, is that AP style is suitable for news outlets, and news material has extreme recentism bias. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should follow AP style, but still wondering. Do the recent publications that follow AP style repeat or otherwise provide full historic coverage of Manning. If we count only the currently referenced sources of the article, weighted by the number of words they support, what's the ratio of Bradley vs Chealsea? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose on COMMONNAME. Pending a legal name change, "Chelsey" is a nickname and/or alias - a point which could be trumped by common use, except it's not commonly used. Arguments about a common law name change occurring are specious at best. The legal customs (or codified law, for that matter) of the U.S. state of Kansas, the Mauritanian province of Inchiri, or any of the world's other, thousands of political sub-divisions, are not a style guide for Wikipedia. BlueSalix (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, also on the basis of COMMONNAME. From my analysis of news and opinion pieces, Bradley is still the more common reference. This may change in time, but it is not yet the case. This should not be a political issue, but simply an objective application of policy, as best we can do so. We may not agree with using Manning's old name, but if that usage is still more common, then we should wait. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and using it to facilitate activism by being on the forefront of change is a form of soapboxing, in my opinion. Just like we need to use reliable, independent secondary sources to support content - even if we don't agree with the sources on a personal level - so we must also apply COMMONNAME, i.e. we should not use WP in an attempt to influence the mainstream society around us, but simply reflect reality - in other words, we are guided by the mainstream, not the other way around. If the mainstream is slower to change than we would prefer, than that is a reality we must simply accept. As "Chelsea" becomes more common than "Bradley", we should switch over, but I don't feel we are there yet. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Further comment on my opposition: If news articles are a proxy for common usage, then a quickly Google News search for news articles published in this last week shows a 5:3 ratio in favor of "Bradley", going by quantity of separate news articles alone. Scanning the list of news articles, the news sources using "Bradley" also appear to include several more "quality" sources (i.e. not blogs, etc). This is, of course, somewhat subjective, but it seems to me that there is no clear evidence that "Chelsea" has become the more common usage, despite claims made to that effect by many supporting the move. The decision to apply a Wikipedia guideline or policy such as COMMONNAME must be on evidence thereof, not because the policy/guideline is quoted by more users. If users are not happy with a guideline or policy, then that policy or guideline can be changed, but that change happens as a discussion of the policy in question and not in a forum like this. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and recognising that the current title is perfectly acceptable per WP:BLP. Firstly, it should be point out that coverage of Manning as tapered off in the last month. This means that although more recent coverage is to be given greater weight, it will be a long time before "Chelsea Manning" overtakes "Bradley Manning" in total usage in reliable sources. Secondly, even now, these statistics on Google Trends suggest that "Bradley" is still more common than "Chelsea". Thirdly, the continued presence of the Bradley Manning Support Network blows out of the water any suggestion that having the article at Bradley Manning harms the subject in any way. Fourthly, not enough weight in this discussion has been given to the request for presidential pardon which was signed "Bradley Manning" - see the image here. This means that not only is there no BLP problem with the name Bradley, but also that Bradley is still Manning's "official" ("real"?) name. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggest you click on that "Bradley Manning Support Network" link: the page title uses "Private Manning" rather than Bradley, the banner does the same, and the subheading uses "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning". It is reachable through both bradleymanning.org and chelseamanning.org. In short, while a couple of references remain, the group has largely changed its name. Chris Smowton (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The site is at http://bradleymanning.org/ - chelseamanning.org redirects there. Secondly, the name of the organization at the bottom of the main page is clearly "Bradley Manning Support Network". StAnselm (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
They've written explicit press releases about how they've formally changed their name for over a month. Apparently they're putting out "Free Chelsea Manning" stickers to stick on everything around you. If you look at that and still think they haven't changed, based on vestigial server info, then you may never see it.__Elaqueate (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
But even if that's the case, it demonstrates that there is nothing inherently harmful in calling Manning "Bradley". And it's interesting that they've chosen to go with "Private Manning" at the top of their page, rather than "Chelsea Manning". StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, except they don't really call her Bradley any more, do they? I think there might be some kind of reasons for that. __Elaqueate (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of sources (such as articles from the NYT) use 'Bradley'. That some news organizations (such as NYT) have indicated they plan on using 'Chelsea' doesn't amount to much unless they are publishing new articles about 'Chelsea' and that use is sustained. Maybe the scale of sources will tip towards Chelsea in the future, maybe not. But it's obvious 'Bradey' is the current common name. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Manning is Wikipedia-notable because of his leaks during his service in the US Army. During this time he was known as Bradley Manning to all. The media coverage on those leaks also used the name Bradley. He hasn't done anything notable during the brief time he has used the name Chelsea. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I see that the majority of news sources (18,000) still refer to Manning as Bradley, Chelsea has 13,400. And even if a general Google test is narrowed to results one-month old, "Bradley Manning" yields a considerable number. Secondly, Manning became widely known as Bradley and this is the name used in official US records on his case. Lastly, the proposed return to Chelsea, coupled with the usage of "she" throughout the article would be confusing to the majority of readers and it's not Wikipedia's function to endorse and propagate a particular view per WP:IMPARTIAL (especially to override other Wikipolicies). Still I do not object the relevant notice in the lead, something like "Chelsea Manning since..." Brandmeistertalk 08:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The vast number of printed texts currently in circulation regarding the state of Physics will state that the Higgs boson is entirely theoretical. That is entirely reasonable, since those texts report what was known at time of their publishing and as reliable sources do not print conjecture or hearsay. I would hope you would agree that anyone pointing to the existence of those texts as a reason to ignore the evidence later produced by CERN of the Higgs boson's existence as being rather misguided. Is there some reason we should treat Mannings name differently to the Higgs boson and include prior sources? Dolescum (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the news sources one-month old, i.e. written after Manning's declaration, you'll see there are still lots of them refferring to Manning as Bradley. But the issue doesn't come down to news outlets alone, as I pointed out above. Brandmeistertalk 16:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
That's why I wrote it's not about Google and news only. But since there are no books or other reliable printed sources on Manning, we have mainly various online stuff at hand (and that's why the initiator of this motion brought the issue of news sources above). Brandmeistertalk 17:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to take time to address your point that we would confuse readers. If I might present Shor's algorithm. A rather obtuse read and probably extremely challenging to most readers, no? I do feel that article illustrates that sometimes imparting knowledge requires that the reader be possibly confused and made to think. Could that not be true here? Dolescum (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Shor's algorithm may be too technical, but I doubt it is as confusing as Chelsea Manning. Since Manning hasn't underwent the announced gender reassignment surgery yet, per WP:CRYSTALBALL we shouldn't forestall the events and confuse the majority of readers. As such I agree with the commentaries below that the revert is premature. In such polarized issues Wikipedia should not take sides and perturbate the common thought (and this is actually what the entire NPOV policy is all about). Brandmeistertalk 18:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As I understand things, reassignment surgery is not a requirement in law for any given individual to to have their legal documentation permanently changed. Are you suggesting that wikipedia adopt what might be considered more stringent criteria than lawmakers?
Furthermore, I find it interesting that you point to npov. Given that psychologists are the segment of academia who are most acquainted with the nature of the self and what identity is and they have accepted transpersons identities as valid, why should we not follow the most knowledgeable sources in this matter? Is this not enshrined in both npov and and the reliable sources policies? Dolescum (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Brandmeister should also review the discussion guidelines and decide if this is a useful place to assert that surgery is a useful requirement for evaluating whether a title change is more suitable on Wikipedia. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This is my opinion that if someone bears a female name and is referred to as "she", that person is either a female by birth or underwent sex reassignment. If we are about to mention academia here, one could see that their opinions are divided on Manning's gender identity disorder, as shown in ICD and the corresponding article. Brandmeistertalk 20:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I can only invite you to look at the resources referenced above before predicating a Wikipedia title on completed surgery. I don't think you're necessarily starting a helpful line of argument here and advise you to consider the greater discussion. We don't need to talk about what's in people's pants. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per COMMONNAME - fully respecting her decision to adjust, and that she wants to be called 'Chelsea', but she is known as 'Bradley' in the wider world. GiantSnowman 08:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Subject is more well-known for his actions prior to the requested name change. Also, the U.S. government has made it clear that it will not process the requested name change while the subject is incarcerated. Finally, we should not overlook the fact that the subject is a convicted felon with a long history of emotional instability. --Tocino 13:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for redacting. bd2412T 19:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing to thank, I had no choice. My opinion still exists, but I bow before WP censorship. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course you have a choice; editing Wikipedia at all is a choice. bd2412T 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. At present, sources are running about even between both names since the announcement. For all time, Bradley is more common. See the argument of Charmlet for more, I concur with their analysis. GregJackPBoomer! 15:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As I see it, this isn't an issue of respecting an individual's choice, as that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Rather, this is simply about the notability of the subject. Bradley Manning engaged in conduct that was notable, and was Bradley Manning for the entirety of that period. It also doesn't really matter to me how many news organizations have switched over to calling her Chelsea, because the reality is that the volume of news relating to this has been substantially reduced. With the exception of some coverage relating to appeals and her ultimate release at some point in the fairly distant future, this event is over. And the vast majority of the coverage relating to the event referred to her as Bradley Manning, because that's what she was at the time. The purpose of an encylopedia is to present accurate information, not to rewrite history. Bradley Manning committed a series of acts that drew worldwide attention, and was then tried and convicted for them. The title of the article, and everything up until she decided to change her name and gender, should reflect that. JCO312 (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose For reason outlined byCharmlet and JCO312. Manning's notable actions were conducted as Bradley, not Chelsea, and changing the name does a disservice to users of the encylocpedia, especially given COMMONPLACE arguments made. The feelings of the individual concerned on what is or is not included in their article should not be relevant. Atshal (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose move at this time, the subject is only notable for her actions as Bradley, so per naming policy the article should be at Bradley, and her personal wishes (saying that Bradley is fine when referring to pre-transition events) completely invalidate every "respect" or BLP-based argument in support, even leaving aside whether the subject of an article gets a say. This leaves, as best I can determine, zero valid reasons to move the page at this point in time. If Chelsea remains a public figure several years in the future, we should reconsider the matter then. --erachimatalk 19:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The average person knows who "Bradley Manning" is but has no idea who "Chelsea Manning" is. "Bradley" is still being used in signing legal documents in the case. LionMans Account (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Let Chelsea do something notable in her own right before the change. Gender change may have been enough to warrant an article in Christine Jorgensen's time, but gender transition has since become commonplace. We need something mote substantial than a single announcement. Even in the case of a married woman in the most common sense of the term we cannot assume that there has been a name change. There needs to be something more substantial. Eclecticology (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Let me say first what is this not about. It is not (or at least should not be) about gender. As others have duly noted, when a person changes his or her name, while keeping his or her existing gender identity, we do not spring into action and change the article name immediately. Gender, like religious beliefs, does not (or, again, should not) give anyone special rights others do not enjoy. Also, it is not about offense, dignity or "extending the courtesy". We chose to potentially offend 1 billion Muslims with images of Muhammad, yet we must not offend Manning? The Muhammad decision is a right one because it's based on the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is based on encyclopedic principles, and as long as it is pursuing them in a meaningful way, it should give no quarter to anyone's offense or personal wishes. It is all about WP:COMMONNAME, and while the move proposal states that "the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use Chelsea Manning when referring to this person", it offers no evidence in support. Finally, one more thing: this is also not about activism, which seems to permeate many "Support" votes. Wikipedia is not about "doing the right thing". GregorB (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - super-sloppy reading on my part obviously. The page is big though and COMMONNAME evidence seems to be almost absent from the discussion. Will reconsider my position. GregorB (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Striking out my "oppose" vote. I still feel my line of reasoning is valid, though. In fact, I'm striking it out precisely because I think it's valid - if everything hinges on WP:COMMONNAME, then, given the situation with the sources, it is barely possible to oppose the move on these grounds. (Whether these are sufficient for supporting the move or not is debatable, though. Whether other arguments for the move are valid or not - even more debatable.) GregorB (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Elaqueate, several opposers have mentioned Google News. In my oppose, I said "Google News favors 'Bradley'. I get 11,100 hits for 'Bradley Manning', but only 3,730 hits for 'Chelsea Manning'." Are these Google News results included in the evidence section of this RFC? If not, why not? Am I allowed to put them there?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that transgender individuals do seem to be a uniform exception to Commonname, save this one: Manning is the only transgendered individual that I have found, correct me otherwise who has the article at her old name; even when the old name is much more widely known (like Alexis Reich or Lana Wachowski), the article is quickly shuffled over to the new name. This is the only transgendered article with such due caution. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Lana Wachowski, that's merely a redirect. Regarding Alexis Reich, Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change. It was only after that that the Wikipedia article for Reich was moved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't see anything about the Wachowski article that supports moving the present article to Chelsea as compared to, for example, Private Manning. Anyway, bd2412, several opposers have mentioned Google News. In my oppose, I said "Google News favors 'Bradley'. I get 11,100 hits for 'Bradley Manning', but only 3,730 hits for 'Chelsea Manning'." Are these Google News results included in the evidence section of this RFC? If not, why not? Am I allowed to put them there?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a thirty-day period prior to the launch of this discussion when both proponents and opponents of the move worked together to assemble and present the relevant evidence. This process was well-publicized on the article's talk page, and anyone interested in the topic could have participated at the time. Frankly, I think it's a bit late to be adding anything at this point. I would suggest proposing this in the discussion section below, but I doubt that a resolution would be reach in the hours remaining before this move request closes. bd2412T 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Omission of a Google News search seems like a glaring omission to me, and one which was not foreseeable. But since you doubt the omission will be fixed, I won't go further right now than bringing it to your attention. To me, it indicates a lack of neutrality in the "Evidence" section above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been pointed out several times over the course of this discussion that an RM is specifically a process for an editor to advocate a move, and to present evidence in support of that proposal. An RM is not supposed to be "neutral", any more than your "oppose" !vote is supposed to present evidence in support of the move. bd2412T 18:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have corrected the misleading header, changing it from "Evidence" to "Evidence excluding information that supports the present title". Plus I commented here. Plus, why did you say that I missed the thirty-day period if non-supporting evidence wasn't allowed anyway?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit, and I recommend you do not engage in further disruptive edits. Cam94509 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You are correct that you reverted my edit, but incorrect that it was disruptive. My understanding from User: BD2412 is that the evidence is not neutral, but rather one-sided. So the heading should reflect that, unless the goal is to mislabel of course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Your understanding is incorrect, as you have presumably been told at other places on the page, the Evidence section was a result of a month or so of open effort on finding sources, thus making it neutral. Cam94509 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — I’m opposed to changing the title to Chelsea Manning. Referring to Bradley Manning as Chelsea is relatively new and has essentially only happened in some news reports for about a week or two after Manning’s announcement on Aug 22, 2013. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I don’t think that the one or two week period of news is enough to cancel the two years or so of articles and books where Manning is referred to as Bradley. The Manning story is essentially over, except for occasional rare updates that will be appearing in the news, and maybe another book or two. The leak of classified material and the trial are by far the main parts of the story, and that’s past. To write a cogent article on the subject, it should be about Bradley Manning's background, leaking of classified material, including the repercussions, and statement about wanting to be perceived as a woman named Chelsea, the last item being a relatively small part of the story. Taking into account all of the reliable sources in the last few years, I think Bradley Manning is the appropriate title. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a very reasonable perspective. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose A gender change does not imply a name change. A name change does not imply a gender change. We should not change an article name simply because a subject wants it changed. The vast majority of sources over the time span covered in the article use "Bradley". Dingo1729 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. COMMONNAME applies, as does common sense. This individual came to fame as Bradley, and wore "Bradley Manning" dog tags while committing the famous crime. Plenty of biography subjects have had important details change later in life, but a biography should focus on what made them notable in the first place or else William Penn's bio would start "William Penn (14 October 1644 – 30 July 1718) was a penniless resident of a debtors prison" and Martin Luther's lead would be angry. Andrew327 12:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last discussion, despite the endless attempts at bullying by the pro-change brigade (and unacceptable allegations that anyone who opposes is ignorant/transphobic/bigoted etc). Still the name by which Manning became well-known. Still the name by which Manning will continue to be well-known. WP:COMMONNAME has not ceased to apply because the pro brigade shout a lot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You offer no evidence in support of your claim that reliable sources continue to predominantly use Bradley. As has been demonstrated by the evidence submitted with this proposal, the vast majority of sources refer to Manning as Chelsea. Without evidence, claims as to what is the common name by opposers have no weight. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The current title (Bradley Manning) is the name he was known under when he did the majority of the actions that he is notable for and is the more common name that will be used to look for this article. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at news stories using Chelsea/Bradley over last month, it seems more are about the gender change and use Chelsea, and that those that only use Bradley tend to be only about the leaks, and those tend to be somewhat old news. So it really doesn't matter if the name is change to Chelsea or not. User:Carolmooredc 17:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer using Private Manning as a title, thus avoiding the problems of either of the other two choices. (With the obvious redirects). --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Probably the best choice considering everything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Would not be the worst idea. Would avoid a lot of conflict.--Giants27(T|C) 22:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
One issue with this suggestion is that it may no longer be accurate. Is a Private who has been dishonorably discharged still a Private? I don't know myself, but if not, that title may be just as out of date as 'Bradley Manning'. Robofish (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not a question of out of date... As was pointed out before it would have been far more up to date to title an article "Helen Roark" since that was her name for over 50 years until she died. But for 20 years of tennis it was "Helen Wills" so that's where the article is properly at. That's what we look at it article titles. The name in the lead is usually the full proper name as of the present, but the article title needs to encompass the reason for even being on wikipedia. That would lean towards Bradley Manning, but Private Manning would also suffice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
"Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning" is much clearer, and communicates the former and current name without people having clicked a link or read the leade. IMHO, Private manning is worse than putting the page at either Chelsea or Bradley. I think the (née Bradley) is more encyclopedic than debating over the "correct" title. Xkcdreader (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Google Trends shows that "Bradley" has about double the usage over the past 30 days. But I can't be moved to oppose because on balance Commonname and BLP and the feelings of the community seem to have reached parity. Abductive (reasoning) 00:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Premature. In August I !voted for Bradley, on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, which was what the media was almost-universally using. A bit of searching (including Google News) shows that since then Chelsea has become more common, but that most reliable sources still use both. I think it's clear that the common name is in the process of becoming Chelsea, but that that process is not yet complete. I therefore think this move request is premature, and should wait another couple of months and assess reliable sources over a longer period. That would also allow the ArbCom case to conclude (are you even allowed to hold an RM while an ArbCom case is proceeding?). However, I don't feel sufficiently strongly about this procedural point to !vote oppose. I do advise that we avoid hasty decisions. Modest Geniustalk 07:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Premature. There is a major motion picture (The Fifth Estate) about to be released that will have Manning's disclosures to Wikileaks as a major plot element... and I fully expect that this film will cause renewed interest and coverage of Manning as a leaker (ie coverage that is likely to use "Bradley") as opposed to coverage of Manning as a transgender person (ie coverage that is likely to use "Chelsea"). This means that, if we change the article title now, there is a strong possibility that we will have to re-visit this issue yet again in a few months time. Having the article title see-saw back and forth every six months will simply cause more disruption, debate and angst. My call... Give it a year... then examine the sources and make a proper determination, based on a neutral examination of source usage. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As things currently stand, there are increasing numbers of newer reliable sources using the name Chelsea. However, this does somewhat fall within WP:RECENTISM; these major events have only occurred quite recently, and there's no way of predicting how trends will move in the future. Bradley/Chelsea has existed in this world for twenty-five (25) years, and the recent events form less than 1% of his entire lifespan. It's too short of a timeframe to be drawing conclusions. The large majority of overall reliable sources still use Bradley, however this includes those from a long time ago - will the present trend towards Chelsea stay, or wither away? I think it's too early to make such predictions. All these calls for decision-making are too rushed, likely due to the strong feelings attached.
The majority of people making google searches are still using "Bradley". Like it or not, thanks to decreasing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and an aging population, the world has a surplus of wrinkly old men that outnumber young people within the developed western world (which also happens to be portion of the world that dominates internet usage), and statistically speaking (past surveys, voter statistics, etc) older people tend to hold more conservative views than younger people with more liberal ideas. Don't like this predicament? There's not much else you can do, apart from raising the fertility rate by having more babies.
I personally don't give a damn about where this article goes, however. During the last RM, my main beef was that there was admin abuse over the whole incident, which was the reason for my !vote. I was opposed to how the whole situation unfolded, where admin action was taken without proper consensus. This time, I don't really feel that I need to care about anything. That said, I would like people to take the above points into account. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The integrity of this discussion has been compromised and its legitimacy is in doubt:
* The wording should be neutral so as to not unduly sway the !voting or the consensus building process. This obviously taints the result. As a point of comparison, imagine voting in a presidential election and the voting booth contained a long list of all the great things Obama is doing for America and how terrible McCain is (or vice versa). Such a scenario would be completely unacceptable. That's basically what we have here.
* This should be an RfC so as to better reflect community consensus. MRs rarely attract outside opinions from uninvolved editors.
* This is bad timing considering that ArbCom is in the middling of finalizing their decision. I expect that ArbCom will topic-ban the most disruptive editors. It should be easier for consensus building process to proceed after ArbCom completes. I suggest that this MR be closed down, and someone open an RfC with neutral wording after the ArbCom case completes. BTW, someone apparently moved my !vote. Please do not do that again. All editors should be allowed to !vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Evidence gathering has taken a month. You were welcome to contribute to that discussion, and indeed editors with various viewpoints were involved. 7daysahead (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that this discussion was taking place. Nobody notified me (not that anyone had to), but the bulk of the discussion seems the have occurred on an article talk sub-page which nobody would be aware of unless they following extremely closely or specifically look for it. In fact, this is one of the problems with using sub-pages. Anyone who only has the article page and talk page watchlisted is most likely going to miss the subpage since it's not on their watchlist. In any case, the 3 bullet points I present above remain valid. Perhaps even more so given that the bulk of the discussion was on a subpage, out of sight of most editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
1) The preparation of an RM (Requested Move) on that sub page was prominently advertised on the top and elsewhere on Talk:Bradley Manning for a month. 2) There is no requirement under the RM procedure that opponents of the move be involved in preparation of a proposal in favour of moving the article. Under the RM procedure, an editor in favour of a move normally would simply start the RM with no prior discussion at all, and when it has started, as is now the case, opponents can present any counter-evidence they like. As both proponents and opponents had the opportunity to (somewhat unusual) and did add evidence in advance, I suspect there is not that much counter-evidence to be presented. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "prominent". If you're referring to the Starting_move_request discussion, that was started only 4 days ago. If you're referring to a previous discussion, it appears to have already been archived.
As a point of comparison, there are 408 page watchers over the main talk page and only 81 over the sub talk page. Even if all 81 !voted the same, that's still a tiny fraction of the majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. This dog-and-pony-show is an embarrassment. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I can assure you all that the legitimacy of the RM has not been compromised, nor is the whole thing rigged. There seems to be a clear effort by those unhappy with the likely outcome of the vote to block it or start a new one. I can only see this as being a sore loser. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 20:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. How is my electing to abstain from voting under what I feel to be biased conditions an attempt to "block the vote or start a new one"? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you in particular, but there have been some comments about restarting the whole process, whcih irks me because of all the time and effort by the contributing editors required to setup this RM only to find others wanted them to do it all over again. Although I did not participate in wording and creating the RM, I don't think that the votes and inputs that people have given here should be thrown away. Postponing the decision further would be an egg on Wikipedia's face given the media coverage of this controversy. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 00:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for arriving late to the party, but after all this time, has no one bothered to point out this blatant disregard for civility on behalf of Konveyor Belt? This kind of remark is really unnecessary and inappropriate. It's a clear anger-baiting response. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Noting that WP:AGF would seem to indicate that calling editors wanting "to block it" is quite out of keeping with the proper tenor on Wikipedia. I have trepidation that Manning has not received proper counsel and therapy per standards of care with regard to any gender change. Collect (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
After several documented years of counseling on her gender dysphoria, it's unlikely that she hasn't made a thoughtful decision given the extremely high-profile status of her case. Pulling from Wikipedia:Gender identity, coming out as trans can not be dismissed as an arbitrary or irrational decision. It is a deeply personal decision recognized and supported by mental health professionals. A person's gender identity of who they are or becoming can evolve so we favor their latest understanding of themselves. Additionally it is often not possible to use the previous name without misgendering the individual, which cause WP:BLP-related harm. The most reliable medical sources regarding transgender people strongly favour respecting their expressed gender. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The wording of the request is so far out of bounds it's laughable. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I Abstain. I initially preferred that the article move back to Bradley because of the way in which the initial moves and multiple reverts were done. The POINTedness of that discussion (which I see echoed here, although with considerably more self-restraint) bothers me. This should not, at least in my eyes, be a matter for passion. This should have been an abstract intellectual discussion about an article's title. I remarked about this (the title change uproar) in a place and time where sensitive things are spoken of and immediately heard "We have enough problems, she's exactly the person we don't need making waves!" and "I wish she'd kept herself in the closet for another decade!" from two there who are transgender (another shook his head, and said nothing, at least to me.) I can see reasonable arguments for and against each position, don't have to decide, and so, don't. I wish all of this passion was put into fixing other articles. htom (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Abstain for reasons I don't have time to lay out right now, just wanted to make sure this got in if a closure is pending. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have determined upon greater thought that my original support of this move was misplaced. I can not stand with a consensus that frames this as a wp:blp consideration; I do not think that it is. I also have other concerns related to the premise of this wp:rm; and our general manner of moving titles overall—especially when contention arises!—John Cline (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
* Comment * - I didn't realize my comment would cause such a shitstorm (over nothing). That definetly wasn't my intent, so I appologize for that. However, I stand by my comments as being valid and pertinent to the discussion. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It sure is a good idea, but I don't think we should be setting up required reading lists to qualify to partake in any discussion, and especially not require reading only for one side. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment. And I suggest that Georgia guy read this text in the banner at the top of that page: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." (my emphasis). Thomas.Wtalk to me 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean that it's sometimes better to break the essay than it is to follow it?? (In contrast, if it were a policy it would be necessary to follow it.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It means that it is someone's opinions, opinions that carry no more weight than my opinions or anyone else's opinions. And should not be presented as policies, or even guidelines. Thomas.Wtalk to me 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the required reading list has really been getting under my skin. I highly doubt either side has read the sources the other would like them to. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but knowing more never hurts. Is there any reading that you recommend? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment When is this RM supposed to be closed? Cam94509 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Complaints about the process of the RM
Comment Is it really necessary to critiize the process of evidence gathering and how the RM was worded? It seems to me an ex post facto argument by parties disgruntled with the likely outcome of the discussion. evidence gathering and procedural discussions began over a month ago, and any editor that had a problem with the wording could have spoken then and gotten it changed. There was no complaints about it then but lo and behold, once the RM started complaints popped up like whack-a-moles. So please, don't complain about the process. You have had time to voice your complaints and now that it has started we can't shelve the whole process based on complaints that it was biased (when they have had a month to fix such bias). Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 15:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the gathering of the evidence cited in the collapsed sections was a collaborative effort, where those in favour as well as some opposed to the move contributed sources, and where we didn't exclude relevant sources, so everyone had the opportunity to add sources to that. The formal proposal initiating the move discussion is under the Requested Move instructions required to be a signed comment by an editor that proposes, endorses and cites reasons in favour of a change; hence it cannot be neutral, because that wouldn't make sense. In such a well known case with a wealth of evidence, only a brief statement in accordance with the formal requirements by any editor wanting to initiate the RM was necessary. Those opposed to the proposal are of course free to cite any additional sources they want in the oppose or discussion sections here, and any editor participating here should review the evidence presented and make up their own mind. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Everyone of course, should look at the evidence themselves. If those who feel it was a bad process could avoid using the argument "the RFC was not worded right" (because of course, it is an RM and thus not supposed to be neutral), and could state exactly what was bad with the process, we could possibly fix it. Until then, as long as they keep using ad hominem arguments, we will get nowhere in changing anything. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 22:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I fully agree that everyone should look at the evidence objectively. There are 408 page watchers over the main talk page and only 81 over the sub talk page. Even if all 81 !voted the same, that's still a tiny fraction (less than 20%) of the majority. I submit that <20% is not majority, let alone consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It was announced on the main talk page several weeks ago that preparation for the RM was underway on this subpage; I announced early on the 30th that the RM would soon be open on this page; late on the 30th, in a thread that has been updated every day since then, it was announced that the RM had opened and was underway on this page. Anyone who watches the main talk page is aware of the RM. BD2412 also neutrally notified all the Wikiprojects with which the article is associated of the move. -sche (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS, it is appropriate to notify "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". If there is any concern that this discussion is not being sufficiently publicized because of its placement on a subpage, I would be glad to follow through on that policy and notify all participants from the previous discussion. bd2412T 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I will do so this evening. Note that I will not notify editors who have already participated in this discussion, and I will not notify the handful of editors currently being discussed by ArbCom for potential sanctions with respect to the previous discussion. Cheers! bd2412T 17:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
@KB, The only complaint that is being made about this RM is that Josh Gorand acted like a horse's petute and launched his preferred version when he knew that a collaborative effort was in place. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
If you have a personal grudge, maybe keep it to yourself. Broad personal attacks aren't going to help keep this page civil. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed somewhat ironic that users vehemently opposed to this proposal would claim ownership to a proposal in favour of it that they had never supported. Everyone knew 30 September was the date someone would file an RM and the RM was correctly filed, late in the day on that day. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has redirects. I think this enables us, and requires us, to consider which name is more respectful, at least as much as which name is more common. A redirect from a common but disrespectful name to a respectful name doesn't create many problems, except possibly technical ones. A redirect from a common and respectful name to a disrespectful name does imply disrespect. That may not be the intention, but what many readers may find is just as important as what the editors intend. Ananiujitha (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Concur - reader confusion will be alleviated by the intro. I don't think anyone's seriously argued the redirect shouldn't exist, or that the name "Bradley" shouldn't be mentioned, we are an encyclopedia - but redirects and explanation should suffice - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No. Irrespective of whether the article ends up at Chelsea Manning or Bradley Manning. And I'm surprised David would suggest otherwise because this idea fundamentally misunderstands what Wikipedia is.
Wikipedia is a project written with the intention of re-use. That's what the project is about: creating free encyclopaedia content that anyone can re-use. Redirects may not be present in re-uses.
As an example, if you own a Mac, select and right click on the words "Cat Stevens" then select Look Up in Dictionary. You'll get a pop-up with the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article Cat Stevens. Now, do the same on the word "Yusuf Islam" and you will be told "No result found". This is because the article is at Cat Stevens whereas Yusuf Islam is just a redirect.
That simply isn't true. For those who don't use a Mac, I've posted a screenshot of a Dictionary search for Yusuf Islam. MaxHarmony (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That's why we we have the common name policy. And why redirects are not a substitute for properly policy-compliant article titles. --Tóraí (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In the end, we aren't responsible for people coding shitty software when reusing us, and can't be responsible for trying to fix every bug in it. Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Our primary aim is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." We are technology neutral in that effort. And we have no expectation of how content is going to be re-used or what technical environment it will be presented in. That's why we have policies such as we do (e.g. around the title of articles). --Tóraí (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
For a book the equivalent would be "Manning, Bradley, see: Manning, Chelsea", and the very next entry "Manning, Chelsea". For spoken articles redirects work. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
"For spoken articles redirects work." I'm not sure how redirects would work on CD or MP3. In any case, it's not our problem. We write the content. How others handle less common titles, etc. is their issue. A book may contain an index, or a glossary, for example. But that's an editors or a publisher choice. Stick with our policies and leave editorial decisions like that to the publishers of our content. Including what ever form of "redirects" are suitable for the particular medium they are publishing the content through.
The eventual "publisher" may not even be that sophisticated. It may be a teacher cobbling together prints out in an African village. We don't burden them with the need to print out "redirects" too so we just cut straight to the WP:COMMONNAME and don't rely on technological aids that may not exist in the real-world application of our collaborative efforts. --Tóraí (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of second-party redirects, when you Google "Bradley Manning" it takes the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article and titles it "Chelsea Manning.
If you look up "Cat Stevens" it takes the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article and titles it "Yusaf Islam".
If you look up "Ivory Coast" it takes the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article and titles it "Côte d’Ivoire".__Elaqueate (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It ain't pretty. Perhaps now you might understand why I was proposing that we work on a consensus version first before starting the RM. In any case, now that we're here, any objection to me continuing to edit my little "reasons" section up above? My preference, of course, would be to have a shared, and neutral header - neutral because I think we should consider opening this as an RFC to get broad participation on this rather important issue - but it may be hard to get there quickly during this discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Not recommended Obiwan. Kww said that if you edit that section at all, he'd restore your block. Just let it go or propose changes here.--v/r - TP 21:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Yup, I just read that after my q above. I've asked Kww for clarification.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I am just a passerby here, other than the fact that I did "vote" in the last RM (but will probably sit this one out) and I also just fixed minor grammatical errors in both yours and Josh's statements. (Hopefully nobody will object to that. It was the same error, in a sentence obviously cloned from one statement to the other.) As ugly as it is with the two statements, I would just leave it alone - even if you get clarification that you are permitted to work on it. This is the way it is, it is becoming "stable" this way, and changing the header statements at this point would threaten the legitimacy of a process whose legitimacy is already hanging by a thread, IMHO. And besides, when people go to the Table of Contents and click on "Survey" so they can "vote," the vast majority are probably never even going to see those statements, separated as they are from the "Survey" by those three hide/show boxes. That's probably not what you wanted to hear, but I think it's true. Neutron (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the discussion before the move had at least 2 or three people suggesting we should start the move and tweak the header as we went. When I tried to do that, it started an edit war. I agree it's now water under the bridge, but I nonetheless never had the change to put together the case. Could someone please just remove my section in the header, and I will cast a !vote like the others? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to not solicit edits to the header at this time, even if looks slightly awkward. __Elaqueate (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking for my reasoning to be removed, so I can just cast a !vote - it's confusing people as it is now and is awkward. Could you remove it for me? I'm not allowed...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(Sigh) done. bd2412T 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It would have looked a little more co-operative if Obi-Wan Kenobi had shown some interest here in what Josh might have preferred, but you got someone to make the change you decided on, so I guess that's the way it goes. __Elaqueate (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Obi worked for a month gathering up things through consensus and made a bi-partisan move request from that, It is hard to assume good faith on Josh's part on the fact that he ignored it. Anyways this should be dropped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Um, I've worked on this draft RM proposal for as long as it has existed and I am one of its major contributors of relevant sources. Obiwan was an active participant in discussions, but I don't really remember him collecting sources. I've not ignored anything; this is the agreed date and I actually waited quite a number of hours without seeing anyone else start it. We don't need a long-winded proposal anyway, just a brief statement per the instructions on creating RMs, and RM proposals are not supposed or required to be "neutral" or (co)-written by those opposed to the proposal. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Josh' preference was clear, given he edit warred to remove all traces of my contributions, which were really just refinements of his own. It's water under the bridge now anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I have created an RM closely following the instructions on how to do so. If you had proposed those changes to the rationale in a civil way instead of edit-warring, completely against procedure, I could probably have agreed to most of those changes (although I think some sentences were unnecessary long and complicated). If the matter was that you wanted your name in the proposal section, somewhat surprising to me as a proposer of the opposite of the view you advocated last time, I would have no problem with you adding your signature to such a proposal after having discussed possible amendments. If you had behaved in a more constructive way, all this trouble would have been unnecessary. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Question. What constitutes a "source"? Is an article from a newspaper a source, or is it the newspaper itself? Eg the NYT may have written 500 articles about Bradley Manning and 10 about Chelsea Manning after the switch. Yes, I'm aware we should give more weight to newer sources. I've asked this question before and had no response. It would be helpful to put things in context. Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It's an interesting case. In putting together the evidence, we generally considered that a "source" was a newspaper, which has certain editorial standards for how they refer to someone or something. Now as it turns out, even newspapers which have put forth strong editorial standards calling her Chelsea have nonetheless been "caught" using Bradley, even a month after the name change. As such, we will eventually have to revert to commonname - e.g. in the majority of materials from high quality sources, what do they use? I note that encyclopedia brittanica moved to Chelsea, which I think is significant, and many papers came out with guidelines suggesting use of Chelsea. It will be interesting to look at this issue in a year or two, and see if "Chelsea" sticks. If it doesn't, it's possible COMMONNAME could revert back to Bradley - an example of same is John Mark Karr, where she changed her name, but a few years later, the name change was forgotten. This is unlikely to happen in this case however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not quite snowing, but it's definitely a solid rain here in favor of NO SNOW CLOSE of this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 2 October 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 would like to request that this discussion not be subject to a SNOW close. Everyone who wants to express their view should have the usual time to do so. Cheers! bd2412T 21:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, not sure why that couldn't be linked in the section title. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd SNOW close it earlier than that. The debate has been constructive and there's very clear consensus to move the article to Chelsea Manning and I say that as the only person at this time to oppose the move. Given that the consensus is clear, I don't think there's any real value to keeping the move request going when the downside is it exploding into an unpleasant situation again. I believe consensus is clearly established and on the basis of community consensus, we should quit while we're ahead, change the title and let everyone move on (with the exception of the pending arbitration matter, obviously)CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, those who have been involved in the article should have responded already. For what it's worth, not everyone needs to vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so there is not a final tally of any kind and we need not prolong voting when it is all but over. Consensus has made itself quite clear here. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 22:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
We need to give it some time to see if the current trend holds. If after a day or two its 100 to still only 1, then sure, but given the past controversy, best to be cautious. Monty845 22:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there's a chance that "support" !voters were waiting to cast there !ballot. Whereas "oppose" !voters may come to the table later. So let it run. There's no rush and a full, clear, indisputable consensus is better than WP:SNOW any day of the week. --Tóraí (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed I think we should let the move discussion run it's course. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I for one would like this to be done quickly, but we all need this to be done fairly, and allow all sides the chance to air their views. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I think if we're still running at a roughly 36:1 ratio in a day or two we can probably declare that the Process Gods have accepted our tribute and blessed us with rain, or whatever. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion should be left open for the usual seven days. During the first move discussion, several users complained about process not being followed, or actions being taken too quickly. -sche (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would anyone close this per WP:SNOW? Just because there's an initial flurry of support now doesn't mean it's going to remain so one-sided throughout. The original RM attracted a broad variety of opinions on the subject. Kurtis(talk) 01:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this should just be left to run it's course, we're only doing this weeks down the line because of the impatience and hubris of the initial move, so let's learn the lessons, take our time, and leave no doubt that the consensus is solid. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 09:47, 1 October 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.
Concerns about whether the RM should have been framed neutrally or not
Comment The RfC is not neutrally worded and thus its legitimacy is compromised. I suggest someone just closing this and starting another RfC that is neutrally worded. Also, this is bad timing considering that ArbCom is in the middling of finalizing their decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This move got started before a definite RfC was agreed on, so I feel editors should be free to alter the RfC to make it more neutral. As well, ArbCom had the opportunity to block a move before the resolution of their case, and had no consensus to do so. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree if you feel that this is non neutral then feel free to alter it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it really worth stirring up a hornets' nest over the wording of the RfC RM when the result looks a foregone conclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is tainted, we need a firm consensus not someone down the line going at "but josh and obi edit warred and so..." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I really did not want to get involved in this page, but this is not an RfC, it is a Requested move, and it is not supposed to be "neutral"; the instructions for creating a requested move specifically ask the requesting party to make their case in favor of the move. Cheers! bd2412T
See WP:RM/CM and pay attention to this part: "Note: Nominators should usually not add a separate bullet point to support their nomination,...". TMCk (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that anyone commenting here knows "this is the discussion about whether it's 'Bradley Manning' or 'Chelsea Manning'" and that's the entire important information. I don't think the precise wording in the header is going to make any difference - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It's true that RMs (as opposed to RFCs) do not have to be neutrally worded, but in that case the requester should not be included in the survey of !votes. StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This is too long a discussion to be in the voting section. Would someone care to move it to the discussion section? bd2412T 21:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is an RfC or MR, the principle is the same. The wording should be neutral so as to not unduly sway the !voting or the consensus building process. Imagine voting in a presidential election and the voting booth contained a long list of all the great things Obama is doing for America and how terrible McCain is (or vice versa). Such a scenario would be completely unacceptable. That's basically what we have here. Further, it should be an RfC so as to better reflect community consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, the whole point of a move proposal under the RM procedure is to make an argument in favour of a change, not to be "neutral" on the question. As it happens, the proposal is actually fairly neutrally worded in its summary of the related evidence. Advocating a particular change is required. Editors opposed to the proposal can state their opposition in the oppose or discussion sections. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge, it sounds as if your disagreement is with the RM process itself. If you think that RM discussions should be presented in a different way, that is best taken up at WP:VPP. bd2412T 02:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that the last discussion was so contentious that it required an ArbCom case to sort through and that several editors face topic-bans and admins face desysopping, one would hope that we follow best practices. Unfortunately, since the legitimacy of the discussion is now is serious disrepute, I fear that we're just guaranteeing that the matter be left unresolved and we'll just have a third discussion on how to handle the article title. Is that what everyone wants? I don't think so, but that is the risk that we run if the MR continues down its current path. So I guess what I'm saying is do we want to resolve the content dispute, or prolong it? The only way to resolve it is to do it the right way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Asserting that "the legitimacy of the discussion is now is serious disrepute" is a serious charge. Do you have any evidence for this, besides your personal opinion? bd2412T 03:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure. If you want to search through the WP:V talk page archives regarding "truth, not verifiability", you'll find that than entire RfC was rejected in part because the wording wasn't neutral, and the wording wasn't nearly as biased as this MR. We spent several months, perhaps close to a year, trying to build consensus. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news. Perhaps this issue isn't as contentious as "truth, not verifiability", who knows, but again, we should be following best practices. HTH. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: I had been hoping to pull together a consensus wording for the RM, and to issue it as an RFC, but I didn't act early enough, so I accept some blame; I should have proposed this earlier, but I wasn't paying attention to the ticking clock (and it started to look like Arbcom was going to force an extension). I think for an RM like this one, it definitely would have been better to have each side put together a support/oppose paragraph, word the whole thing as neutrally as possible, and set it up as a formal RFC (but still just run for 7 days). But it's too late for that now; I think people are !voting based on the evidence, not on the framing statement. Let's see where consensus lies, but I suspect it will be pretty overwhelming in favor of Chelsea, even though we tried hard to put together fair and even evidence from both sides.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Re "an entire RfC was rejected in part because the wording wasn't neutral, and the wording wasn't nearly as biased as this MR": as has been pointed out, RFCs are supposed to be neutrally worded, while RMs are supposed to make a case to move the article. I don't think it would have been necessary for this RM to include a rationale at all if including a rationale hadn't been required, but a rationale was required, so one was included. :) If you think RMs should be held differently, and more like RFCs, WP:VPP and WT:RM seem like the best places to propose that. -sche (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The RfC is fundamentally flawed. Let's wait for ArbCom to do something before making the situation more intractable. Collect (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
First, this is not an RfC. This is an RM, a different process. Second, ArbCom does not settle content disputes. Nothing ArbCom does will resolve the dispute at issue here. bd2412T 00:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, it has been agreed by consensus for about a month that we would have this RM starting on this date, this has been well known to everyone. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you maybe point to which fundaments of the RM are flawed? It's rather hard to argue with, or understand the reasoning for something so vague. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the collapsed sections at the top, this is the least neutral worded RFC I've ever seen on WP and should be scrapped right away and replaced in favour for a neutral one that doesn't mentioned anything about this one at all. This one is pushing a certain result under false pretense. One editor already retracted their support vote due to this. Some uninvolved and "detached" editor should phrase a new RFC. TMCk (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
See bd2412's post above in the 'neutral' section - ' this is not an RfC, it is a Requested move, and it is not supposed to be "neutral"; the instructions for creating a requested move specifically ask the requesting party to make their case in favor of the move.' AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
People forget too often here that This is an RM, not an RFC. RM's are definitely not supposed to be neutral, rather the opposite. we shouldn't throw away the entire discussion because the proposal actually follows the rules. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 22:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
See WP:RM/CM and pay attention to this part: "Note: Nominators should usually not add a separate bullet point to support their nomination,...". TMCk (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The "separate bullet point" refers to a separate !vote, which is why Josh Gorand's vote was discounted above. It has nothing to do with the content of the proposal itself. bd2412T 22:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Josh wasn't the nominator which the excerpt I quoted refers too. TMCk (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Josh moved the entire discussion, which was just a draft before that. All of this is besides the point, which is that this is an RM, not an RFC, and the RM instructions specifically state that the nominator should provide their reasons why the move should be made. There is no call to present an RM in neutral terms. It is, by nature, a form of advocacy, just like an AfD. bd2412T 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree in principle but I was going to propose (didn't have time in the heat of the action) that we frame this as an RFC instead of as an RM, for exactly this reason. I don't know if it's worth it now, but at the beginning that was my thought, that this should be broadly advertised via the RFC process and have a neutral statement (or, alternately, each side would put forth their best arguments) - in order to have a clean process. But it's probably too late for that now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It has been agreed by consensus for about a month, well known to everyone and especially you and me, that a Requested Move would start on 30 September. There was ample time for any editor wishing to discuss procedural questions (I don't really see why a requested move should not follow the requested move procedure that we used last time and that is always used), and also for any editor wishing to prepare any other proposal. I made this move proposal late in the day, on the day agreed on for a month. I don't see why we need a more complicated procedure, when the evidence now is that clear. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would say that this feels unnecessarily rules-lawyerish and like an attempt to silence one of the more vocal participants in the discussion. I recognize that this is not the intent at all, but it does kind of come off that way - I hardly think the entire process would be gravely tainted if Josh's support were also registered with a bullet point. Indeed, in quickly evaluating numerical consensus I would suspect it's easier to not have to remember to add one more !vote from the person proposing the move than it is to do it this way. Is this really such a big deal that we need to be slapping Josh around over it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Leaving Josh's "separate bullet point" struck though at the top of the "Support" section is confusing. Anyone not reading all the way down here could be left with the impression that the RM nominator might have changed their mind. Can we either let Josh remove it entirely as unnecessary and confusing, or add a parenthetical note explaining the strike? -- ToE 14:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Just stating for the record that I have no objection to this. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I am inclined to move the first two "Neutral" !votes by User:A Quest For Knowledge and User:Collect to this section, as they are addressed solely to the process, and not to the merits of the discussion. The third and fourth !votes by User:Carolmooredc and User:Sphilbrick are examples of !votes that actually weigh in on the topic at hand. Disputes about whether this should be conducted as an RfC rather than an RM (or disagreeing with the rules governing the RM process itself) should be limited to discussion sections. bd2412T 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that's a good idea bd. Such a move will likely cause much more drama than it will do good. I trust that the closing admins will take such issues into consideration, and moving these votes is very likely to stir up a storm, that we can very well do without. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I grant that in the great scheme of things, my concern here is not particularly important. bd2412T 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment. The instructions for a move request say to provide "evidence in support where appropriate." Notice the last two words. It is inappropriate to provide mounds of one-sided evidence, while assiduously avoiding and omitting evidence on the other side. WP:NPOV is greatly undermined in this way. To provide all this evidence while omitting a simple Google News Search is obviously deliberate and obviously intended to produce a skewed result. No instructions anywhere prevent inclusion of non-supporting evidence, and it is never "appropriate" to deliberately omit non-supporting evidence from mounds of supporting evidence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Google News is not itself a source, it is an aggregator of news articles. The Evidence section of this page also aggregates news articles. The difference between the two is that all the Google News links you've provided as if they were aggregations of news sources that are still using "Bradley" after Manning's name change actually contain articles from months ago (before the name change), articles which primarily use "Chelsea" and only mention "formerly known as Bradley" in passing (and vice versa), etc... whereas the opponents and supporters of this move request who compiled its Evidence section were careful to use only post-announcement materials (it being trivially obvious that all pre-announcement materials use "Bradley"), to sort sources based on their primary use, etc. -sche (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
And evidence was provided for reputable use of Bradley Manning. There are editorials supporting its use, and evidence of which news agencies and other sources have used Bradley Manning as the more prominent reference. Most sources just started switching over over the last month as the name became more familiar to people. I don't think a pool of evidence that invites people to read an editorial from The Washington Times can really be called "one-sided". The header expresses support for adopting the move; the evidence was supplied by people both for and opposed to the move. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how one could present such a huge amount of evidence here in a neutral fashion, without a Google News search. Such a search is already highly skewed toward "Chelsea" since that's been the big news about him/her lately, rather than the espionage or what have you. And yet the search still shows three times as many Bradley hits as Chelsea hits. Even if we just search Google News since August 22, 2013 the results are even, with 63 hits for Bradley versus 64 hits for Chelsea. Even if it were okay to present evidence primarily to support the move, the heading should reflect that, instead of simply saying "Evidence" which gives the idea that all the relevant evidence is included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, again, this is an RM. The entire thing is supposed to be one-sided. The unusual thing about this one is that it actually presents an evaluation of evidence from both sides. You may think that it is an unfair evaluation, but it was basically created by community consensus, with many discussions about what to add and how to categorize those additions. bd2412T 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the evidence was selected to emphasize one side more than the other, or not? If so, the heading is misleading (additionally, my view is that slanting the evidence is not "appropriate" per the Move instructions).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Chiming in as someone who (1) opposed the original move and (2) am opposed to any such move on the basis of BLP alone and (3) actively participated in the collection of evidence, I can assure you that the production of evidence was bipartisan and was not intended to be tilted towards any particular perspective, and there were editors on both sides of the discussion adding/deleting/disputing sources. I myself added many sources for Bradley and Chelsea, and moved some sources from Chelsea to "undecided". There were multiple discussions about sources and where they should be classified, and I think what you see above represents a pretty solid consensus of a number of editors who worked on it from both sides of the issue for a good month, and we invited comment on the main Manning talk page and elsewhere several times, so there was also no intent to keep the discussion secret. (I personally consider myself to be on the "what is best for wikipedia readers" side, and don't align myself with any particular camp). Many of those discussions have been archived on a page linked below, so feel free to peruse them to satisfy yourself that we did indeed debate this and it wasn't one sided, and you can also check the history of this page to watch the play by play if you're really bored. The interpretation of the evidence is up to each individual of course (as evidenced by both sides citing commonname for their case); some have stated that "Chelsea Manning, previously Bradley" in many articles is still evidence that Bradley is more common, while others feel that the use of "Chelsea" in titles and in the first use when introducing the subject is sufficient to count as commonname. You should also feel free to add any new sources above you have found that use Bradley or Chelsea, or even move sources from "chelsea" to "undecided" if you find evidence they have reverted to using Bradley, but I would suggest that you don't add rough google news searches, as they are not nearly as reliable in terms of capturing what actual sources are using compared to the methodology we used, which is to look inside each article, in each source, after August 22, and look at exactly how the words "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" were used. For example, if an article says "Army private Bradley Manning (who prefers to go by Chelsea)" then it was put under "Bradley"; whereas "Army private Chelsea Manning (previously Bradley)", we put it under "Chelsea". A hit count in google doesn't give you that nuance. In addition, any google searches that don't click through to the last page of results are meaningless, as the actual number of results can sometimes be off by one or two or even three orders of magnitude, so comparing 9,000 hits for Bradley vs 3,000 hits for Chelsea is useless when the stick you're measuring with has a variance of tens of thousands (those hit results are estimates, not actuals). For an example of that, see this search which returns 23,400 results, but clicking through to the last page and even having google return all duplicate results give 103 actual hits. Because of the circumstances here (unlike something like "Ivory Coast" vs "Cote d'Ivoire"), we really wanted to measure to what extent sources were actually changing their usage in real time, which is a strong signal for us to change. We don't need to list sources before Aug 22, as I will grant you that almost 100% of them used Bradley for the trivial reason that Chelsea was not known at that time, so everyone will have to weighh that rather obvious fact in their decision. Honestly, though I don't think it will make much of a difference. The header of the move that Josh Gorand wrote was one-sided, and I would have preferred in this case to have a neutral wording at the top to avoid exactly this whole discussion we're having and which I, in my infinite jedi wisdom, predicted would happen with a non-neutral header - but non-neutral headers are not required of RMs. They are required of RFCs and I personally think this should have been an RFC, but the cat was already out of the bag due to Gorand's pushiness, and I got in trouble for tinkering with the header so I dropped it. I think the result here is going to be clear-cut, but sources can change, so if the (soon-to-be) article title bugs you I suggest you start collecting sources going forward, especially looking at those sources in the "Chelsea" camp, and see if they, when talking about stuff other than her gender, go with Bradley - I've already seen a few sources start to do this. In 1 years time, it's possible that sources will have forgotten about Chelsea, in which case we could start another massive RM and rile up the whole wiki once more. Whether you want to do that is up to you, I'm not personally motivated to do so, and even if all sources switched back you may still have a hard time convincing the BLP-violation crowd.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
If you click on the Google News search results that I gave a couple comments up, you'll see that I did "click through to the last page of results" as you recommend. And the search was only since August 22 despite WP:Recentism. Any half decent Wikipedia editor should be able to understand and interpret these search results without any trouble at all. Omitting them only undermines the purported neutrality of the evidence presented.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Your search page for Bradley Manning includes articles titled "Chelsea Manning needs respect, not neglect", references to "Chelsea Manning, the soldier formerly known as Bradley Manning" and "Letters to the Editor" (which seem like we should consider usage in random comments sections as well?). If I click on "Show omitted results" I am greeted with a Bradley Manning article titled "Buy Orgasm Enhancer Without Prescription" which seems not reputable as a source of human use, somehow. Looking back over the six pages, some sources are repeated as if they were separate hits. Google points at sources, it's not a good source by itself. __Elaqueate (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"Chelsea Manning deserves respect...." shows up in both searches, so it's a wash (the piece only uses Chelsea for recent events, and begins "A day after U.S. Army Pvt. Bradley Manning was found guilty of 20 charges, which included espionage...."). And, of course, I never suggested to click on omitted results. The point is that if the evidence is purportedly neutral, then a Google News Search should have been included, because Wikipedia readers are more than able to sift through it. I didn't notice duplication, but any such is likely the same for both searches, as they were performed by computers that have no POV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The "Buy Orgasm Enhancer Without Prescription" site pops up as the second hit on the first page of your search, without being omitted, it turns out. Completely unfiltered data noise is not the same as being neutral and evaluating sources individually. __Elaqueate (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If you actually click on that link in the search results, you'll see that it's actually an interesting and relevant piece by Vijay Prashad which also appeared in CounterPunch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec)One of those which shows up under your Bradley search is this: , from the NY Times, but if you read the article, they use "Chelsea" on first use. this is another example - an opinion piece from a small college newspaper  - again it has the string "Bradley Manning" in it, but not in the way you want it to be (they address her as Chelsea). There are even sources that have "Chelsea (previously Bradley) Manning", and your searches would miss those. There are also hits where they mention the "Bradley Manning support network" even if they identify the person as Chelsea. And there are blogs and other non-reliable sources included in those hits. So, that to me is more evidence that such searches, esp in this particular case, don't add anything useful and sort of miss the point - so you haven't convinced me to add them to the evidence section, and I bet others would be opposed to adding them for the same reason. I had to get consensus for each source I added, and I was sometimes reverted, and I sometimes reverted others, so you now find yourself in the same position - with 24 hours left to go, can you get a rough consensus here to add google search results which several have claimed are biased? And more importantly, do you really believe it might make a difference, and a flood of people will switch their votes?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
To me, the Google News search, even if limited to the time frame most sympathetic to Chelsea, clearly shows that there is no consensus among reliable sources to switch our article title. It also shows that the purportedly neutral evidence section in this requested move is skewed. The two sources that you cite are a wash; each is in both the Chelsea and the Bradley search results. Of course, you specifically selected them for a reason, and someone with an opposite reason could select another two sources. Your latter source is titled "Why one little word matters for Manning" which indicates to me that the publication (which chooses the title) did not feel obliged to go with "Chelsea". Likewise, your NYT example says: "Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning" which suggests the author was not comfortable using either name exclusively in a single sentence, and also suggests that Manning no longer has any rank (which I think is erroneous). These two articles are in both sets of search results, which seems appropriate since I don't think they should weigh one way or the other (given the publication's chosen title, and the erroneous implication about rank). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's just wrong. That particular google search fails to turn up many of the articles that we found during the evidence phase, so your assertion that the google news search shows no clear consensus ignores the copious sourcing above that does show a clear majority amongst the RS we found for Chelsea. You are welcome to interpret the evidence as you wish (for example, you can say "well, if the source says Chelsea, previously Bradley, that doesn't count" - and !vote accordingly. Other people may interpret that in a different way. But that was the consensus for those working on the evidence portion of how to classify the sources. Those google news searches are rather buggy in my experience, and do not represent all of the coverage that is out there. In any case, the time to have these debates was several weeks ago, and I'm sorry you've just come into it too late.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I never asserted that the Google News searches that I did for "Bradley Manning" and "Chelsea Manning" would turn up everything. It is simply a great way to sample the news, using inherently unbiased computers to do the work. Yes, it omits articles that only say "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" as well as articles that say "Bradley E. Manning". Perhaps those could have been included by tweaking the search, and perhaps not. The move instructions say that any Google News searches are supposed to be presented up front, and the idea that they should be presented nowhere at all just strikes me as implausible in the present context. The evidence is being presented at the top of this RM as neutral, and I don't think it is neutral. I don't pretend that this opinion of mine will change the outcome, and that's not my intent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Nobody was prevented from presenting their personal Google searches but that doesn't mean they're reasonable gauges of use. They weren't presented "nowhere at all". But I think it's strange that you still want to include the hit counts of searches when they are a mixed collection of useful sources and spam and repeats and unrelated uses in completely unknown ratios. The evidence that you say is skewed is actually just skewed against completely useless sources, for both Bradley and Chelsea. __Elaqueate (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree for the reasons explained elsewhere on this page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said, people with differing views proposed evidence to be included and came to a consensus through discussions about what evidence should be included. This is unusual for a move request, which usually involves the person advocating the move presenting the evidence supporting the move, and opponents of the move raising opposing evidence in the discussion (as you have done here). Some discussions are apparent in the history of this page, and some have been preserved here. bd2412T 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think that a presentation that incorrectly purports to be neutral is a much bigger problem than a one-sided presentation that correctly purports to be one-sided.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Keilana as closing admin
Keilana has recused herself
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.
Keilana has been proposed as the closing admin for this move request, as per this discussion. However, her comments on Wikipedia Weekly on YouTube suggest that she strongly favors one side over another in this dispute. Therefore, while I do not doubt Keilana's integrity, I think that it would be more appropriate to find somebody who has not yet commented on this case.
Unfortunately, links to YouTube are blacklisted on Wikipedia, but anyone can find them easily. The first video is titled "Wikipedia Weekly #99: Bradley-Chelsea-Bradley Manning", and the relevant discussion takes place over the first 16 minutes. The second video is titled "Wikipedia Weekly #100 - Century Mark", and the relevant discussion begins after 13 minutes. Edge3 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: I just learned how to circumvent the blacklist on YouTube links. Video 1 (first 16 minutes) and Video 2 (after 13 minutes). Edge3 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
ruhroh. I'm going to have to agree with you - she has publicly come down very hard on the side of Chelsea. The discussion will almost certainly go that way anyway, but in the interest of making this a clean close, we should consider another closer. @David Levy:, what do you think?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of preselected closers. While it may sometimes be needed in extreme cases, (usually triumvirate closes) it should be avoided whenever possible. As far as I know it hasn't blown up as a big issue yet, but giving anyone the ability to choose the closer (and it is often the proponents of the RFC who choose) will likely end in a major controversy one of these days. (no reason to believe it will be this time, but still) Monty845 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The only issue I see here is that we've already preselected Keilana as the closer, so it's hard for us to cancel that appointment without consensus. Edge3 (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, this was not an "appointment" - we discussed some possible closing admins who were respected for closing contentious discussions; Keilana's name came up, and she volunteered, which is commendable. However, nothing is set in stone here. bd2412T 01:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) To the extent that we preselected her, we selected her as a closer (to be helped by two others), rather than as the closer. I think it would be appropriate for her to remove herself (or for us to change and not use her), not because she has done anything wrong or would be unable to close the discussion fairly, but simply because this matter is very contentious and would not be helped by the perception that there was procedural impropriety in the close. (Indeed, it might be argued that the first effort to move [[Bradley Manning]] to [[Chelsea Manning]] failed because of the perception that there was procedural impropriety in the move.) -sche (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Being a contributor to The Wikipedia Weekly, The Wikipedia Signpost and so on shouldn't disqualify an editor from closing a discussion. The close is based on policy and consensus, not on the editor's personal views. Also, it doesn't appear that the close will be controversial considering the vote currently being 40–1, so it probably won't matter that much anyway. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
this has nothing to do with contributions to the signpost, it has to do with the fact that she has clearly stated a preference for one side of the discussion on a public YouTube video attached to her Wikipedia screenname, so in a way she is involved. When choosing potential closers we searched for ones who hadn't yet weighed in anywhere on this topic - now that we know she has, we should choose another or ask for another volunteer. Note that I voted for her earlier, but now this has been revealed I don't think it would be proper. Watch the video so you see the strength of her preference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm proud of my ability to stay impartial in controversial situations, including the other RfCs I've closed. I had very strong opinions about the Muhammad images and Jerusalem cases, and in fact disagreed with the consensus in one of those situations. I have also been in similar situations with AfDs, where I have ascertained a consensus that I personally disagree with. If there's a consensus that I'm unsuitable, that's fine, but I think that given my ability to read consensus despite my personal feelings and the fact that two other admins would be involved, with their own opinions (let's be honest - no one has no opinion whatsoever on this topic), I would be an acceptable closer. But it's not up to me. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
But you've already made your opinion known. So if, by some miracle of contraryness, this thing comes to another no consensus and you have to decide, then if you go with Chelsea, you'll be accused of bias, and if you close in favor of Bradley, you'll be accused for overcompensating for the perception of bias. Either way, you're now controversial because of the video.--v/r - TP 02:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
@TParis, maybe it is best if we let arbcom select uninvolved closing admin canadates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Keilana seems to be well suited to doing the close and if joined by two others I think it will be fine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If you were the last admin alive, I'd have no doubt you would be able to judge the discussion fairly without regard to your personal opinion on the matter. However this isn't the case and your opinion is now known. I didn't watch the video FWIW. My view is that you should recuse as the closer. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Since a few people think I should recuse, I will. That's fine. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Object I don't think an editor who curses and calls people bigots who disagree with her opinion on this move (and I favor the move) should come anywhere near to closing it. Actually, I find it amazing she is an admin at all. After watching the video linked to above, I think she's an example of the worst in unobjectivity at wikipedia. Find someone else. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You know, I'm somehow not convinced this is going to be a contentious close... Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:29, 1 October 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.
Choosing a closing admin panel
I would be willing to join with 2 other admins and come to a closure opinion, if agreeable to those discussing the issue here. I have played no part in the discussion and in fact have avoided reading any of it, as far as I am able (though obviously as an active reader of WP:AN and WP:ANI I'm aware that this has been going on for a little while!). Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 10:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
PS: I do not have this talk page on my watchlist. I'd rather not see edits popping up as a drip-feed on my watchlist, preferring to come to the whole thing cold (if I come at all.) Please if anyone has questions that need my response, wikilink my user name so I get a notification. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No objection from me, either. Now we just need to find two more. C'mon, admins, don't you want people to fill your talk page with shouts that you made the "wrong close!!" for the next month (no matter what close you make)? ;-p -sche (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who is on the admin panel, Obi-Wan Kenobi can use the force to get the outcome he prefers. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
These aren't the admins you're looking for. You can go about your business.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A bit off-topic, but I find myself spending altogether too much time on this issue. I am unwatching all pages having anything to do with this case. Cheers! bd2412T 02:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Omg, I should have thought of that. Sign me up. I'm outta here. Ping me if y'all need the force. !plonk!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe this thread will continue to be smoother than the last move. The August move discussion: you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Still, we must be cautious. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I stated this on the other page, but I will place it here too. I would be willing to join with Kim and another admin with the closing of the RM. I feel that I am uninvolved with this matter in my personal capacity. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Guerillero's involvement with the topic has mostly been in putting in other editors' comments at their request (e.g. , ), patrolling and removing comments that violate BLP (, ), and semi-protecting the talk page (). I do not think this activity would preclude Guerillero from being able to assess consensus fairly. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless the numbers change drastically, does it really matter, anyway? This has such an obvious closure... Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Only if you count !votes. WP:COMMONNAME (a policy) seems nearly neutral, leaning toward "Bradley"; WP:DIGNITY (an essay) appears not to apply, based on the current statements (she hasn't yet said she prefers to be called "Chelsea", as far as I can tell); MOS:IDENTITY (a guideline) takes a clear position in favor, although the guideline is under discussion; and I can't see WP:BLP applying. The "name the person was most notable under", although denied by some as a factor, leans toward "Bradley", and WP:LEGALNAME has no relation to a policy or guideline. I can see that WP:COMMONNAME will probably eventually lead toward "Chelsea"; when that occurs, I would support the move. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Do we actually need to select three admins here? I mean the consensus forming above looks obvious. This strikes me as WP:SNOW close. NickCT (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
If the two admins agree, there's no need for a third. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems odd that a "no snow" proposal was made so early in the game. Predicting SNOW is a difficult task (ask any weatherman). Supporters outnumber opposer over 4 to 1. Very few proposals achieve that level of apparent consensus (particularly with so many editors weighing in). How much more conversation does this shenenigans merit? NickCT (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The result may seem obvious, but the interpretation of policy is not. It is good to have at least two admins agree on the application of relevant policies. Edge3 (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
(sigh) Very well very well. I guess no one's for bringing this to the obvious conclusion in a rapid manner...... Let's have some more interpretation of policy. Doing that will have some important practical consequence (sarc mark). NickCT (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
With the amount of interest this RM received, this may well be one of those events where consensus defines policy, rather than policy is being used to determine 'validity' of opinions. Remember policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Have the uninvolved admin been chosen? I see one potential one above, I feel that arbcom should at least choose one of the admin though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Other than a couple of procedural things and my "vote" in the first RfC, I have stayed out of this one; but as someone who gets concerned about "procedure", I just wanted to make a comment. By my reading of the "Closure" section below, this RfC may be closed any time after 19:15 UTC, October 7. By the time I finish typing this, that will be approximately 17.5 hours away. At this point, User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero have been discussed as part of the closing "team" and each has said they will do it if asked. I have not seen any objections to either of them. As far as I can tell, they have not actually been "asked." As for a third person, right now there isn't one. As for the ArbCom, they had a motion pending in which they would appoint the closers, but that motion has failed. I propose we take the bull by the horns (is that an Americanism? If so, apologies) and officially ask Kim Dent-Brown and Guerillero to be the TWO closers, that they try to close this as soon after 19:15 UTC as would fit in with the rest of their lives, and that their decision must be unanimous, otherwise there is no "close" and someone needs to come up with Plan B. I don't think it's my place to ask them unilaterally (especially since I have added the two-closer and unanimous parts myself), but I am hoping we can get quick agreement on this and that someone can do the asking. Neutron (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: This discussion is continuing under "Closure", below. Neutron (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Policy on name changes in general?
Looking through the various applicable policies, I didn't notice anything explicitly addressing how name changes should be dealt with as a general issue (independently of any gender issues this particular one is enmeshed in). If Wikipedia had existed at the time Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali, at what point in the process would the change have been applied to the article? Would it happen as soon as he said that this was the name he wanted to be known as, or would it have to wait until more people knew him as that than his former name? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It depends on the article and prior precedent. Articles for royalty are often changed immediately upon their assuming a new title, while other articles will have a lag between the name change and the move taking place on Wikipedia. Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:AT states that when a name changes, you give priority to sources *after* the name change in order to determine the common name (for obvious reasons). That said, we do not always change the article titles after an "official" name changes - Cat Stevens being the most famous example, but Ivory Coast is another well known one. There are many other people who have changed their name, but we generally don't rename article until they are commonly known by that new name. some proposals to tweak this are at the talk page of WP:AT, which would balance subjects preference against commonname - I personally would like to see one of these pass, so that you wouldn't need 51% of sources in order to move to a new name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Most notable under *name*?
I would suggest avoiding such a standard. I think listing people under the names they're most notable under could be deeply, deeply, wrong in certain cases. Not just the disrespect for Chelsea Manning, but also, let's consider the disrespect that would mean for David Reimer, since he was known as "Brenda" at the time of Money's work, and was described as "Joan" in early works. I suspect his case is now better known as the David Reimer case than the John/Joan case, but if it weren't, it would still be wrong to title his article "Joan" or "Brenda"... Ananiujitha (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Lets not go here if the majority of sources are using one name and it is the most notable it should be used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Virtually all sources mention "Bradley" because that's the common name known and used by readers. There may be a time that "Chelsea" can be used without an explanation that the new preferred name is the same person people known as the common name.
It's incorrect to say that the transition name is currently the common name. Notice that there are sources that use only Bradley and none that use only Chelsea. --DHeyward (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There is misinformation here. There have been several sources that have run articles that mention Chelsea Manning alone at this point. Also, a clear majority of reputable sources use Chelsea as the primary reference. __Elaqueate (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct that there are a few that have used only "Chelsea" and as MOS use "Chelsea" after informing the reader that they will be using the new name instead of the common name. Just from memory, I don't recall news sources doing, rather reliable third parties or press releases. Contrast this with established common names that require no introduction that the article will using the non-common name for the piece. New name introductions are true for people with routine name changes due to marriage/divorce as well as transgender name changes. Julia Serano for instance has a "Born as" name but it is neither in our article or any reference. We could add it, and even create/add a redirect, but it misses the point that her name is the common name and other names are irrelevant in her case. At some point, when a name becomes common, there is no need for a "and to refresh your memory as to who this person was" type of statement that is currently in majority use for "Chelsea Manning". In six months, if the introduction is still necessary, I would think the common name argument is rather weak. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Some news sources use Chelsea Manning in references without introductory phrasing or mention of the name "Bradley" at all. That happens now. It happened over two weeks ago. In hard news stories about spying and here, too. There are many people using introductory phrasing still, but it's not fair to say it's always used at this point. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this follows. Such introductory phrasing is intended to function to provide clarity to the reader/viewer/listener/etc., as they may or may not know about the situation with Manning's name. It does generally indicate that the source feels there will be some potential for confusion in some percentage of their audience. However, it cannot really be used to judge what percent of the audience the source feels actually needs the information and certainly cannot be used to judge the actual percentage that would need it. All I think that we can really gather from it for the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME is that said source has made the editorial choice to use Chelsea instead of Bradley, and I think that is the same for material created now and that made 6 months from now. This seems to be the best fit for the instructions "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" Simple Sarah (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the "most notable under name" standard, at least as a factor toward selecting the article name, along with WP:COMMONNAME (which still does not support "Chelsea"). WP:DIGNITY does not automatically apply, as I know at least two "completed" female-to-male trans people who refer to their female self in the third person. It might conceivably apply if Manning made it clear she does not want the name "Bradley" used, which she hasn't. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 04:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Even ignoring the fact that we need to be careful about putting much stock in purely anecdotal evidence (especially on Wikipedia), I'm not sure your anecdote even supports what you are saying, at least assuming I'm understanding you correctly. The fact that the two trans men you mention would refer to their pre-transition selves in the third person seems to indicate to me that they are viewing that older existence as another person entirely (i.e. Not them). My reading of that would be more along the lines that they want to leave that part of their lives behind, not that they'd be OK having an article about them titled with their old name (Although it may indicate that they would be OK with, or even prefer, that their old name and pronouns be used to refer to them prior to wherever they draw the line of becoming who they currently are). Quite the opposite, actually. Simple Sarah (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "most notable under name" even means anything. Best known under, maybe, was known as Bradley while she did the things she is most famous for, possibly, but "most notable under the name" has no meaning. Sloppy language tends not to be very problematic, but in this case, by using notable here, it implies that the notability guideline has anything to do with it, which is patently false. The notability guideline only deals with criteria for inclusion, not article titles which we are discussing here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Two people are both best notable known under the name "President Bush", yet neither article use that as title. "most notable under name" standard has thus some very clear faults when dealing with living people, mostly because they continue to live on. Using common sense, I would only use the "most notable under name" standard for people who no longer is alive. Belorn (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Chelsea Manning will continue to be notable long after the trial, so I don't know why "she was most notable under this name" continues to be a popular argument. See WP:NOTTEMP. Chelsea Manning will, and has been getting a great deal of publicity and it won't stop now just because she changed her name. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 14:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Survey, poll, discussion, what is this?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm somewhat confused by the instructions. They read: "Add # Support or # Oppose on a new line in the appropriate section below, followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using. Please remember that this survey is not a substitute for discussion, and please provide a brief explanation for your recommendation. Responses to statements made in the survey sections should be restricted to the discussion section." If this is not a poll but a discussion, then why do I have to add a # Support or # Oppose, and why does my explanation need to be brief? If it is a poll, why is an explanation required? Should there be discussion? Or is the idea here that we just voice our opinion without talking to eachother here? If so, where should discussion take place? What is the validity of a poll/survey? How will it be used in determining consensus? For something that had a month op preparation time, this seems rather ill thought out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty much the standard RM format (albeit split into two halves, which I don't really favor). No one is going to enforce brevity (note Obiwankenobi's contribution, which is brief only compared to the US Constitution), and you should feel free to engage any voter in discussion (note that I've responded to SmokeyJoe above, because I thought his idea needed probing).—Kww(talk) 07:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not helpful at all. Wikipedia:Requested moves has a whole lot of suggested formats, and none of them include the instruction to be brief. StAnselm (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the instruction about being brief. StAnselm (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It was added here by User:BD2412. I have posted a note on BD2412's talk page, asking where the text came from. StAnselm (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I replied there - I don't remember, as I copied it from another discussion somewhere long ago, and have had it sitting on a notepad for occasions like this. However, I do think "brief" is generally good advice, even if likely to be ignored. Cheers! bd2412T 11:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Add back dates?
Consensus to keep numbers, not dates reached on 2 October. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This requested move must be divided into 3 sections, support, oppose, and neutral. Each section should have its own list. With dates added, the move will have 4 sections, and the sections separated by date will be treated as separate lists. Vote #34 should be treated as the 34th vote, not the first of a new sequence. Georgia guy (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In the prior RM, dates were added due to huge amount of votes. Why can't this RM? Also, how do dates affect significantly a number of votes? --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Kww: if it later proves necessary to add the dates, we can add them; for now, eh... some people have objected to them, so leave them out; they're a bikeshed anyway. -sche (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Because they chop discussion flow and make it very confusing when people reply to and discuss entries. If we have to chop it because of size problems, fine, but let's not do so in advance of trouble.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Navigation issue is irrelevant then? If so, would replying to a vote be more difficult without dates? --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I for one don't think it's all too troublesome when the counts get messed up. It's not a count anyway, and shouldn't have been there in the first place IMO, but opinions differ there. If our closing admins can't get a rough impression of whether there is a strong numerical lean either way in a discussion, or if it is roughly equal, we have bigger problems than the vote tally being broken IMO. At the same time, I feel this is a bit of a bikeshed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I find the numbers dates here even a bit confusing in this case anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
So then let's remove them. I'm the one who got them started in the first place, so someone perusing the discussion could quickly calculate the support/oppose ratio. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I meant to say dates as that's what this refers to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
As for the numbers I feel it makes the posts easier to find while adding the dates that break up the sections add to the confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A vote on whether to recognise someone's gender transition
Enough. Stay on the RM, not meta issues. We probably do need to have a policy discussion on when we do and when we do not accept self-identification, but this doesn't seem to be the place.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just to note that we are in fact here again having a vote on whether to recognise someone's gender transition (what looks like a vote, walks like a vote and talks like a vote is a vote, even if Wikipedia editors often insist we are not voting). This was an issue brought up in press coverage and that provoked significant negative reactions in external media (see eg.  and ) and social media the last time. Having initiated this vote this time, I would like to note that I was and am very much uncomfortable with the fact that we are holding such a vote in the first place and that I don't think it's ethical or compliant with how we ought to treat biographies of living people, but alas, this is how things apparently works on this website, for now, and thus the only available method of getting the article moved from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia editors prefer to say that, but this is not how it looks to the outside world, which was the point brought up here. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Your framing is not helpful. What does it mean for us to "recognize" the transition? Surely we must treat it fairly in the article, but is choosing to retain the old name, the name manning was most notable for, refusing to recognize the change? I'd say it is not. Now I also happen to support renaming the article, but I'm opposed to making the name of the article some symbol of our opinion on gender identity. Further, raising your above point here, and now, looks unlikely to change the outcome above, but is likely to inflame the debate... why? Monty845 22:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the same process Wikipedia would do for any other article title change, the reason why Wikipedia made the news in the first place was because we jumped into it head first, something a neutral encyclopedia shouldn't do. Had we waited a bit we would have most likely changed the article to Chelsea without a ripple and none of this would have happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Josh, this is an incredibly lame thing to bring up at this point in the debate. This is our chance to demonstrate to the "outside" world that we aren't voting on Manning's IDENTITY, we are discussing the TITLE OF THEIR ARTICLE. THEIR IDENTITY is not the same as THE TITLE OF THEIR ARTICLE. Why don't you try repeating that, 100 times, and posting it on all of the social media, until those outside get a clue (maybe we need clue-bats?) that that is how things work here. And yet, you here open up a section saying that we are, in fact, voting on whether we "recognize" Manning's gender transition, which is a massive steaming pile of horsesh*t - that is not what is happening here. We make NO CLAIMS as to Manning's identity, we are only trying to find the best title for the readers. I think y'all need to stop worrying so much about external media, they are very fickle - one moment they love wikipedia, they other they hate us. We should just keep slogging on and ignore them, especially those who are too lazy to study how wikipedia actually works and instead just go by their "impressions" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in defending Wikipedia against the (correct, IMO) perception held by many in the wider world regarding its treatment of trans people. I am just stating for the record, in a debate with many internal and external readers that might be important for future considerations on how to improve the situation, that I and many other people consider the requirement to have this de facto vote to be disrespectful to Manning and other trans people and to be very problematic, and that those reading this page should be aware of this concern by many people including some of its participants. I'd rather record being uncomfortable with this here in the discussion section than the proposal section. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Then allow me to record, for the record, my discomfort with you using this discussion page to grandstand for the media and attempt to personally cleanse yourself of the dirtiness that is wikipedia. Wow. I hope you realize, Josh, this isn't all about you. It's quite easy to point the finger of blame at wikipedia when it produces a result you don't like, but those critics in the media who dislike the idea of a consensus-based discussion on a controversial issue would best come up with a better solution, or just go away and stop whinging, as I'm not interested in their complaints about our processes unless they have a better idea, and then show up and help make it happen.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
As many here are aware, it was believed until the last attempt to move this article to Chelsea Manning, that Wikipedia already had a policy requiring us to respect the latest expressed gender self-identification of an article subject. This was for many years the practice at this project, but the last debate on Manning's article seems to have ended that. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This is obviously a controversial issue, what do you propose besides a vote? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This whole situation is disrespectful to Chelsea Manning, and to trans people generally. To me that looks like a good reason to reconsider the practices that create this situation. There could be a stronger emphasis on respect and on harm, which could avoid similar situations and perhaps help with other unrelated issues involving biographies. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There a reason why we are restarting heated debates here? The move discussion is ongoing its how Wikipedia works please WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Huh? What does your comment have to do with anything I've said? Ananiujitha (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No, this is not about "recognising someone's gender transition". That's bullshit. We are deciding on an article title. People making declarative statements that "she is a a woman" or "he is a man" miss the entire point. No one here knows. The only thing we know is that Manning has requested that people use "Chelsea" and feminine gender terms when we refer to her. That's it. Affirming her gender is not Wikipedia's place nor do any editors have the expertise to do so. None. Whether her statement "I am female" bears out as true or false is irrelevant and not part of the discussion. If an editor thinks they can absolutely affirm her gender, I would ask why they have violated her doctor/patient privilege. Chelsea is in the unusual position where she can't express her desired gender identity publicly so she made a statement about how she feels and a request for a name and pronouns. That's it. Our decision is only whether acknowledging or not acknowledging that request is harmful and weigh that against encyclopedic value that such a decision carries. No more, no less. If editors feel this is a crusade for transgender rights or that a decision, one way or the other, indicates how WP views transgender people or transgender topics, they probably shouldn't be here. This is one article about one person, not a referendum on acknowledging any transition, transitions in general or anything else other than the name of this article. There are many, many views on what "I am female" means and it is not going to be solved here or help the debate to affirm or deny it and it's completely irrelevant to the title of the article. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Closers will close as closers need to close. No need to continue this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well I saw that this has already been brought to WP:ANI regarding a closure request based on consensus by numbers. Consensus works by strengths of arguments not by numbers so I just want to put that out there first. Anyways is there a timeline for when this move request is to be closed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a week old. I suggest it's time to close it now and move the article. The supporters outnumber the opposers by nearly 100. Georgia guy (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this is correct. (Also, consensus is fairly clear here; this is more than 3 to 1.) Cam94509 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Again consensus works by argument strength, 25 people can be saying the same thing but one person on the other side says something that counters it that holds more weight in their argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Knowledgekid, please. This is silly. There is clear consensus here (heck, you're even in favor of the consensus!). Ultimately, !votecount may not be the only thing that matters, but at a certain point (and I'd argue that much beyond 2 to 1 is that point) it becomes sort of overwhelming in determining consensus. Cam94509 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Im just saying I have seen move discussions go all ways even when it looks like it may go the way you think it will. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The idea that one shouldn't count !votes is often mooted in these discussions, and I agree in general; a 51%/49% majority may win an election but it shouldn't win a move. However, having closed and participated in a number of RMs, I disagree with claims that we should IGNORE the numbers. Ultimately, the job of a closer is to judge the consensus of the community based on the strength of arguments as viewed through the lens of wikipedia policy, but policy interpretation is a tricky beast, so when 100 people say interpretation of policy means X with reasoned arguments, and 20 say interpretation of the same policy to be Y with equally reasoned arguments, that 5-1 split is a strong signal that the bulk of the community supports a certain interpretation and the closer should heed that. tl;dr: Numbers aren't determinant, but they are nonetheless important, especially if overwhelming, and closers would be amiss to ignore them. The only cases where this would not hold would be theoretical situations that I've never seen where 10 people !vote to do something terrible to an article based on specious reasoning and one person stands against them with a solid claim - in this case the local consensus cannot outweigh the overall community consensus and the lone opposer may win the day- but again, I've yet to see this happen.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Canonically seven days, so today or tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
As an aside: is there someone in particular who is supposed to close this discussion? Cam94509 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero volunteered to close the discussion. We could try to find a third admin to form a triad, but I'm also OK with the two of them just closing it as a dyad, if they're OK with that (and don't lock horns in a tie, lol). -sche (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Technically, an RM is supposed to run seven days, so this one should run until 19:15, 7 October 2013. There was a rough consensus against a SNOW close in a previous discussion, although that was really aimed at the first day, when it was 20+ to 1. Also, there has been some discussion about selecting a three-admin panel to formally close the discussion, and I believe that two out of the three have already been agreed to. A third is needed, but I would recommend waiting until the time has run, convening the panel, and evaluating and enforcing the close at that time. bd2412T 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, that's right, there is no September 31st, so Oct 7 would be 7 days after Sept 30, not Oct 6. (I feel stupid now.) Cam94509 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on the consensus not to WP:SNOW this earlier in the discussion, my view would be that we should lock this debate on Monday night (UK time) while User:Guerillero and I, and a third admin if one is deemed necessary and can be found, work up a closure decision. I would hope we would be able to do so within a couple of hours of locking the debate, depending on Guerillero's timezone. As you have asked us to come in and make the decision, it would probably be good not to engage in speculation about what our decision should be/is going to be/must be/cannot be. We're going to look at the arguments for and against a move, not the meta-arguments about how consensus should be judged. I suspect that going down that path will only reopen a number of painful disagreements. You'll get our decision soon enough. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 21:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Last time we templated the discussion as closed at the closure deadline, with a note that the decision was pending. I think it makes sense to lock it at that time, as it is on a subpage this time. Discussion can proceed on the regular article talk page, if editors still have points to debate, but the full seven days is long enough for everything that needs to be said to come out. By the way, the last discussion was ripe with prognostication about how the closing panel would interpret the consensus of the discussion - much more so than this one has been. ;-) bd2412T 22:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's leave the definition of consensus up to the closing admins. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As I pointed out at ANI, while Wikipedia doesn't provide any hard and fast rules as to what constitutes consensus in general, but the one place that it does is WP:RFA where consensus is defined as somewhere between 70-80% where !votes towards the lower end of that spectrum may be rejected.
The current !voting stats are this:
131/180 = 72.7%
I'll note that the longer the discussion has gone on, the less support the MR gets and it continues to drop. Given that this entire discussion has been tainted by off-Wiki-canvassing and its legitimacy is in doubt, I suggest that it be closed as no consensus.
What I recommend is that after the current ArbCom case is closes, an RfC be opened with neutral wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You keep banging this drum and I'm not sure it's constructive. This is not a RfC and this is not a RfA. It's a RM and it should be treated as such, not given special rules on what constitutes consensus. Simple Sarah (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's a general rule, bd2412. I only use the percentage to guide how strong the minority opinion's policy argument has to be. If 80% or 90% of editors want to do something, the 10% or 20% need to have a nearly irrefutable policy argument before I will discount the majority. If it's 55/45 or something like that, the minority position only has to be moderately better than the majority view. I'm glad I'm not determining consensus on this one, because I think the policy arguments of the minority are still fairly strong, and too many of the supports are based on essays or extended readings of BLP. Numerically, this is a slam-dunk. By weight, it's a closer call, especially considering how many of the supports are simply "per WP:COMMONNAME" when the oppose section makes a reasonably persuasive argument that WP:COMMONNAME still favors "Bradley".—Kww(talk) 02:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the arguments themselves must be weighed. However, we correctly noted in the close of the previous discussion that BLP applies to article titles; although it does not mandate an outcome, it is a legitimate policy-based reason to favor a recently adopted usage, even if it remains less common than the former usage in sources. There are also a handful of "oppose" votes premised primarily on the "legal name" argument, which is bunk. As for the two-thirds, that is the rule of thumb for everything else being equal. My point was that A Quest For Knowledge's proposition that consensus is "somewhere between 70-80%" is way off base. bd2412T 02:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
See my note under "Choosing a closing admin panel" above. Basically I am proposing that User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero go ahead and close this together, without a third, and that their decision must be unanimous to "count". Neutron (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I am in the Eastern Time Zone and will get to looking at this, in the depth that it deserves, tomorrow (Monday) after class, work and rugby practice.--Guerillero | My Talk 01:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Although I think it's unlikely Kim Dent-Brown and Guerillero will deadlock in a tie over how to close this discussion, I've put out an appeal for a third admin to join them. -sche (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be willing to serve as a third admin if one is needed and there are no objections. I have no involvement with the topic and have closed a contentious move request or two in the past. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When I pointed out earlier the ethical problem of voting on whether to recognise someone's gender identity, I was told "we are not voting," as Wikipedia editors often insist, but here we are, with people talking about percents and votes. The oppose arguments in this discussion are mostly very weak, as they are not supported by solid rationales, often ignoring the evidence cited in the discussion and not based on policy (eg. a lot of claims she needs to have a legal name change or even "an executive order from his commander in chief" (sic!) (whatever that means) for us to move the article). Josh Gorand (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, as a soldier in the US Army, Manning's commander in chief is president Obama. -- ToE 02:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If the admin involved close this based on votes alone I am sure it will cause an upset, I trust the admin though to follow the standards when it comes to move closures as the last thing we need is this to goto move review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Are there any objections to User:28bytes being the third closer? Plus, could we please not have debate in this section over the merits of the move or the strength of the arguments? This section is about how to get this thing closed. Neutron (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion will be closed by me, User:28bytes and User:Guerillero. We will be locking this discussion very shortly, while we make our decision. We will give full reasoning for our decision, rather than just a blank decision with no rationale. This may take a day or so; please be patient in the injterim! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to the three of you. htom (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No productive result is possible. Even if Elaqueate was using an alternate account, most people would be willing to look the other way because of the sensitivity of transgender topics, and that's the ultimate reason for SPA tags. We don't insist that editors edit a variety of topics.—Kww(talk) 18:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A look at their edit history (new user as of August 28th) has them only editing within the topic of this move request. I have tagged their comments as such. Mike (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no, let's not go around accusing people of being SPAs. I, for instance, have only been active since this whole debacle started up, and most of my edits (except for fixing typos and grammar errors in the main space) have been in this kind of discussion. That doesn't make me an SPA, it just means I have a particular interest in this topic in particular.Cam94509 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't start witch hunts here. I noticed you tagged every little thing he said with spa. That's cruel and unusual punishment. Let's not promote going around tagging half the editors on the page. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec)What is the merit of tagging all his discussion points with an SPA signature of shame? For the !vote itself that seems reasonable, but why the discussion should note that this is a new user and possibly an SPA is beyond me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Honestly this seems to me to be a classic case of biting the newcomer. Also known as "the reason this account has so few edits on it and is named what it is", as the first time I tried to get into Wikipedia, someone accused me of being a meatpuppet for !voting that a page I had put a substantial amount of effort into (and the only page I had yet put any effort into) shouldn't be deleted. (I still hold that Wikipedia should have a page about Pokemon glitches, as the Missingno glitch is unquestionably notable, but that's neither here nor there, and I honestly don't know if Wikipedia has such a page again. Doesn't really matter, that's not the point of the anecdote)Cam94509 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Cam94509 and everybody. I can see his argument as I have been interested in discussing this topic. I thought the actual running discussion would only last a couple of weeks at the most, and then I would add other topics to my watchlist. When I started editing this was the most lively conversation I found, and I started by just adding some supplementary evidence (to both camps and usages) to the move talk page. It wasn't until about three weeks ago that I felt comfortable engaging in talk page discussions, and the few actual, non-talk-page edits I've made have mostly been not related to this topic. Otherwise I've mostly been responding to discussions as they popped up in my watchlist. I didn't know that talk page discussions were considerd "edits" or maybe I would have contributed less. Nobody's shown me where to find what other pages that need attention (not that anybody's obliged too, of course), and, I've not gone looking to make edits on pages that look stable. If my comments must be branded and singled out across the board, I don't think it interferes with my arguments, which I made with the intention to make the Encyclopedia better and more rigorous with its sources in what seemed a cloud of pretty uncivil pre-judged opinion. But I will admit that it might have been nicer to get some advice from more experienced editors than to have all my contributions framed as suspect as the first step. I recognize that's not my call, ultimately. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, just as a note, Elaqueate hasn't even !voted, so there really weren't any posts that really required the SPA tag. I don't know if it's vastly procedurally out of line to remove SPA tags, as I don't know if BRD basically applies, but if someone else knows the appropriate procedure here, I'd love to know. Cam94509 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry not a case of WP:BITE rather a majority of their edits are on the specific topic with far more knowledge than your new Wikipedian would have. Mike (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe that's just a case of being smarter than the average bear. Some people come to Wikipedia with prior knowledge from other wikis or wikias. Konveyor Beltexpress your horrorat my edits 16:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm honestly flattered. I've never edited Wikipedia before August and I've never had an account other than this one, for what it's worth. When people made specific claims about Wikipedia or cited policies, I researched them. I'm not bad at research, when motivated. But thanks for the encouragement! I'm still confused about whether talk page contributions are "edits". __Elaqueate (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Elaqueate, may I reccomend you let us handle this on your behalf? As far as I can tell, you've done nothing that is actually wrong, and I find it reasonably distasteful that you've been labeled an SPA. Cam94509 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I don't know what I was supposed to do here. My first reaction to being questioned was to try answering, but I can take your recommendation. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No, your behavior is perfectly reasonable, and I think your answer was needed at first, and if this whole thing doesn't bother you too much, you shouldn't avoid responding too much, I'm just offering to have the rest of us handle this because I don't want you to have to put up with this if you don't want to, because I personally might consider quitting if someone did this to me. Cam94509 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You and other should do as you see best. I don't know if I like contributing while under a cloud I wasn't expecting, but I don't mind explaining myself if and when needed. Maybe somebody can let me know or I'll just check in later. I'm going to go get some cookies. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a classic case of WP:BITE, including that it is ultimately well intentioned and merely poorly thought out. Many newcomers feel very uncomfortable going into a place that they don't understand, and do a great deal of research on policies before they start editing. I do understand that you MEAN well, Mike, but you need to avoid doing things like this. Talk to the user first, try to do so in the most positive way possible, and then and only then if you are convinced a new user is an SPA you should tag them as such. Cam94509 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Appropriateness of discussion of gender
This comment was removed above with the justification that it is not relevant to discuss Manning's gender. However, there have been other comments supporting the view that Manning is a woman and using that as a rationale. (, , .) If editors can use this as a rationale, is it not valid for this to be discussed? This article may end up being moved to "Chelsea Manning" partly for the reason that he/she is a woman, and no discussion of this point will have been allowed. For the purpose of neutrality and the appearance of a fair discussion, I recommend that such comments be removed as off-topic. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Other comments, archived comments, and comments on the discussion guidelines
In this blog from fair.org Peter Hart quotes a Time magazine piece dated 30 September 2013 "Unchecked Aggression" by Mark Thompson. The graphic provided in the blog and the quote use "Bradley" exclusively (the blog uses Manning while "Time" uses "Bradley"). The quote is: "Here is the world's worst-kept secret: The military's security-clearance system is utterly, tragically broken. Army Major Nidal Hasan, armed with a secret clearance and an FN 5.7 semiautomatic pistol, showed warning signs well before he killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, arrested in 2010, and NSA contractor Edward Snowden, a fugitive since June, had top-secret clearances before they absconded with the nation's secrets and shared them with the world." The graphic provided is captioned "Bradley Manning." I can't get past the paywall at "Time" to check it though. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
AP has a number of hits across all major sources with this title "'Today' show rebooting with Daly, studio revamp" written by AP reporter David Bauder. Definitely "Bradley Manning" and even using "avoided" terms. Google the title for a ton of hits that are all the same but sourced to AP. Here is one (12 September 2013) but it's also hosted at AP.org though it wouldn't load.
"Today" is devoting itself to a mission statement that involves substance, making connections with viewers and offering people who watch something uplifting, Turness said. She pointed to stories in recent weeks involving Bradley Manning's sex change, interrogation footage of Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro and Matt Lauer's interviews with Paula Deen and Alex Rodriguez's lawyer.
Given AP has made a statement about their editorial policy here, and this really sounds like a transcription of a quote from a Today host that used Bradley, and the fact that this is a TV blog, I'd still be inclined to leave AP at "Chelsea" for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
They can say their editorial policy is anything they like, but this isn't a blog. Either it's the show and reporter that broke the "Bradley is Chelsea Manning" story on this show, or it's an AP reporter. Both are notables.
I can now access AP and confirmed it is an AP new article released to be republished by all their subscribers (and Google confirms they did): http://bigstory.ap.org/article/carson-daly-join-today-newly-created-role (12 September 2013). It's hosted by AP in their article section and has a tremendous number of reprints with verbatim Manning reference "Bradley Manning's sex change". It's in news space as an article. Where their subscribers put it, I can't tell but the number of reprints is massive and I haven't seen a correction or retraction. The reporter is here David Bauder contributions. There is an "Editors Note" at the bottom implying there is editorial oversight. It said nothing about the Manning reference. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
US Finance Post / aka / US Financial Post / aka / Finance Post
Does anyone want to vouch for the editorial oversight of this website? DHeyward wants to include them as a reputable source. He has reverted their deletion.
It's corporate address and telephone number are also currently shared by Excel Living.com, Sophia's Collections Gifts, Smart Dreams Inc., "bgp.he.net/dns/thedailycentral.com", and Florida Termking Senior Life Insurance. The address in Pflugerville, Texas is above a Sushi Restaurant.
Their terms of service claim that the (multi-newspaper-and-television-station-owning) Scripps news service is one of its subsidiaries. It looks like it's the same TOS as Scripps.com, except the first two names have been changed. Scripps (the publicly traded company) doesn't seem to admit in any of their financial filings that they are owned by Florida Termking Insurance or US Finance Post/US Financial Post. I would love to see any evidence outside of a copy-and-pasted terms of service that Scripps has anything to do with this site at all.
The website is given high reliability ratings by Adsense-scam "verification" sites, which are themselves, proven scams which give high ratings to the dodgiest sites. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason for the heading here is that the website doesn't use their own name consistently on their web page.
An example of their standard of journalism: "News has become an essential part of the day for every aware and educated citizen. Right from being serious & entertaining, new & old, fast paced update to in-depth analysis, the craving to remain updated and ahead in life is satisfied by knowing what’s happening in and around the society and world at large." __Elaqueate (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I can no longer find the reference from Scripps or perhaps misread it. It appears they have the listed the same statutory agent in the TOS which is part of the original reason for affiliation. Absent no other verification, I can't justify their inclusion. Listing the Scripps stautory agent appears to be a poor copyright violation if it's not legitimate. I am also notifying Scripps if they wish to take action (or affirm relationship) but it appears dubious at this point. --DHeyward (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Good work on notifying Scripps. There are a whole class of bogus news sites which hire people minimum wage to rewrite AP stories in attempt to click-fraud Google AdSense. I'm not specifically saying this site is necessarily one of them, of course. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Break-out of sources
We have "Chelsea" and "Bradley" but these are very broad. Post-announcement is probably the only relevant ones to consider for changing. I am more concerned that tangential references to Manning in articles are being handled differently than articles generated by actions of his lawyer (i.e. interviews with Coombs regarding her pardon request or her current condition given last week). For example stories about Snowden often mention Manning and ignore style guidelines for her gender and name reference. Articles about the Navy yard shooter that mention Manning w.r.t. security clearances, too. There was even a widely carried AP article I mentioned previously about the Today show that highlighted the Coombs interview in reference to how the interview was a coup and marked a change to the show. They ignored the AP styleguide and statement. The Sept 30 Time magazine piece is another example. I'd almost want to see "Articles quoting Coombs" vs. "Articles not quoting Coombs" to see if the references are to maintain access to a source or editorially enforced MOS's. There's a non-random dichotomy of use that's influenced by whether Coombs' announcements or interviews are in the current news cycle or not and it appears a stronger indicator (to me at least) than MOS. Thoughts? --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
We aren't counting direct quotes from Coombs. Everything else is speculation about motives behind use. We list many tangential references here and actually give them as much weight here as pieces about Manning specifically. AP has used Chelsea overwhelmingly, including tangential references, with the one tangential exception you mention. There is no empirical test that proves a source used "Chelsea" because they wanted to "maintain access to a source". __Elaqueate (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that moving a bunch of sources that have eight Chelsea uses and one Bradley use into the "Undecided" column is not a useful thing to do. Many of the Chelsea Manning sources haven't been updated with every instance from the last month because we were only looking at significant changes. I don't think anyone thought that someone would consider AP and the New York Times being "undecided" at this point. If we give little weight to what "undecided" reasonably means, it would also have the effect of moving more sources that have last used Bradley, but have used Chelsea, into undecided, sources such as Vanity Fair, the Wall Street Journal, World Socialist Web Site, etc. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
My point was that coverage that is primarily about CM (i.e. the spike last week due to Coombs talking about Chelsea adjusting and making friends and his tour of the facility) vs. coverage that mentions Manning but isn't specifically about her (i.e. both AP and NYTimes have independent stories that use BM despite their MOS.) This was noted above by OWK above and is really the bulk of a lot of the BM-only since announcement. Simply listing CM vs. BM this close around the announcement may not ultimately be how she is referred to in reliable sources as the news cycle transfers coverage as a human interest story generated to subsequent stories on broader issues. We don't have to speculate why, but noting that is occurring might be good a year from now or two years from now if she remains in the news as a reference rather than the subject and the reporters are writing about the leak rather than the person. For example, a google news search of "Snowden Bradley Manning -chelsea" for the last 30 days list a number of hits (can't evaluate them all for how they relate). But "Coombs Bradley Manning -chelsea" over the same time period yields nearly 0 english language sources. The Snowden affair isn't related to Manning except through their notable actions so conceivably there are more tangential references that link actions but aren't primarily Manning articles. I don't think that's an irrelevant dichotomy that shouldn't go unnoticed. --DHeyward (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Google searches that use "-Chelsea" (to eliminate even a single mention of "Chelsea") from the last month get some amount of unknown-quality origin or no results. I don't think I'd lean too hard on that kind of research. All you seem to have found is an article about the changing of the Today Show TV set that has a passing mention of "Bradley Manning" at the end of the article that made its way into two prominently Chelsea-using sources. In other sources, there are plenty of example of Chelsea being used in both Chelsea-specific and non-Chelsea stories, and we have sources under the Bradley column that only use Bradley in a very tangential way. I don't know how significant your tailored-to-not-include-even-a-single-mention-of-Chelsea unexamined-for-quality sources are here. And as for "may not ultimately be", well, that sounds like crystal balling. People also predicted nobody would change to Chelsea at all for future stories, and that's not the case now. __Elaqueate (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to do another move request in a year's time, especially once several news cycles have passed, to see if "Chelsea" has stuck. It's possible, like John Mark Karr, that the new name won't stick, and even sources which were first to switch will go back to what is most likely to be recognized by their readers. But for now, I think we should lean on preponderance - if a source has 8 Chelseas and one Bradley, I wouldn't use that to switch them to the undecided column.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This was a weird bug, which was resolved.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Somebody (I could find out who, but I don't want to take the trouble) "flattened" signatures by removing all Wikiformating other than links, and HTML formatting. I would like to know why that shouldn't be considered vandalism or copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 19:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Eh? I can't find anything in the revision history that suggests that occurred, and it seems to me that plenty of the signatures on this page are still formatted. Even if signatures had been flattened, I see no reason why it would be copyright violation, although I will grant it would be a pretty weird thing to do. Cam94509 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Here. And no, I don't understand it either. But it's arguably disruptive with no benefit I can see. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. That's really weird. User:Anythingyouwant, did you do this on purpose, or did you have some reasoning I missed? Cam94509 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No, as I just said at my user talk page, I have no idea how it happened. Obviously, it's some kind of computer glitch, either involving my computer, or Wikipedia's, or both. I tried to undo it just now, but was unable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you had an edit conflict or something, and you copy pasted a section? Honestly, that's a really weird bug, but it's cool to know you didn't do it intentionally. (I assumed as much, because that's such a weird thing to do.) Cam94509 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Something similar happened to me recently and it turned out to have been because I had copied the page source to a text editor, edited it there, and then pasted my version back into the edit window. At some point in that process, unicode-type markup got eaten, and after it was pointed out to me I had to go back and hand-fix every signature that had been affected. Not a fun time! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at these edits, it looks like the only crucial one un-struck-out a !vote, and I will go ahead and re-strike.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Problem solved then, I guess. Cam94509 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Technically, you should thank Arthur Rubin for noticing and Elaqueate for tracking down the edit, I didn't actually do anything that mattered. Cam94509 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No thanks necessary here. I'm glad it was unintentional. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I meant thanks to everyone (Arthur Rubin, Elaqueate, and Cam94509).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Decision by closing administrators
The time has come to draw this move discussion to a close. I suggest that any further discussion which is necessary should be conducted at Talk:Chelsea Manning but I would ask editors to question very hard whether any further discussion is actually necessary at all at this time. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 13:19, 10 October 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.
Note: The decision was moved to live within RM above per standard practice.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You know, if ya'll are going to go all kumbaya-ish here, you really ought to give shout outs to the sandwich, @KWW: and any other of the imperfect who help kept this from descending into yet another wiki-kerfuffle. NE Ent 01:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Add Obi and BD42 who did an admirable job of preparing the RM.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not participate in this round. I generally find the decision to be reasonable, but am a bit alarmed by this statement, especially the last sentence:
The core of the debate comes down to differing interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME, part of our policy on article titles. Both sides cite COMMONNAME as supporting their positions: those supporting the move see the intent of the policy as "what do the reliable sources use (now)?" and those opposing the move view it as "what name does the average person recognize?" Both of these interpretations are reasonable, but we conclude that the supporters' interpretation is closer to the letter and spirit of the policy. The guidance that COMMONNAME offers is that editors base their article titling decision on which name is predominant "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources".
"As determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" is relatively new language in COMMONNAME. I remember when PBS (talk·contribs) inserted it. The idea, as I understand it, was that COMMONNAME did mean "what name does the average person recognize?", but the problem was with determining what that was. In general, we look at common usage - because usage can be seen (in contrast, we can't see what people recognize), and we expect a high correlation between usage and what the average person is likely to recognize. But PBS and others were concerned that indiscriminate reference of usage could lead to non-encyclopedic choices, or choices influenced by usage in non-English sources, so he lobbied for specifying that the usage relevant to determined was is likely to be recognizable to an English speaking user was usage in "reliable English sources". In other words, usage in unreliable sources and usage in non-English sources was not to be considered. But, ultimately, all this looking at usage in "reliable English sources" was to ascertain what the average person was likely to recognize. I don't think the case was even considered where what the average person would recognize and usage in "reliable English sources" would conflict. but, if it were, I believe the intent was not for usage in reliable English sources to trump what the average person would recognize... the goal of COMMONNAME always was, and still is, to reflect the most commonly used name, because it's presumed that that is what most people will recognize.
I'm only pointing this out to inhibit this view from being referenced in other RMs. If the latest sources are using a new name, but most people are still more likely to recognize the old name, COMMONNAME indicates that we stick with the old name.
It is also my view that other considerations like DIGNITY and HARM should not be given any consideration in title decisions. After all, those considerations, among others, are assumed to be taken into account by the editors of reliable English sources, and are among the reasons why we strive to follow their usage. In other words, those considerations and others are inherent in COMMONNAME. --B2C 06:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
By this logic, only sources that consider DIGNITY and HARM would or should be considered useable reliable sources. Otherwise your assumptions fail. __Elaqueate (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. The logic assumes all reliable English sources consider DIGNITY and HARM to a reasonable degree, at least on average. The point is to effectively delegate that responsibility to the editors of reliable English sources - so all we do is follow their lead. Otherwise we're making those judgments, and making judgments like that is not our forte. The underlying principle is the same as that underlying WP:NOR. We do not publish original thought. We should also avoid original thought when it can be delegated to publishers of original thought, like in making judgments about DIGNITY and HARM in a situation like this. Why should WP editors be better at making these judgments than the publishers and editors of the reliable English sources that provide us with the material in our articles? --B2C 06:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
We still have to judge what a reliable source is, case-by-case. The judgement is always there. Otherwise your logic is tautological: A reliable source can be assumed to consider DIGNITY and HARM because the definition of a reliable source is one that we assume considers DIGNITY and HARM. You can't completely delegate editor judgement here by saying we should only listen to expert opinion. How do we choose reliable sources? Only by asking other reliable sources? No. we judge. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
We don't delegate all judgment, of course. But we delegate what we can. You're right, we must choose reliable sources. But once we choose them, in terms of content selection, we then look and see what the reliable sources have to say, and publish that ourselves, appropriately cited and balanced to accurately reflect corresponding coverage in those sources. We follow their lead.
Similarly, in terms of determining COMMONNAME, we look at usage in our chosen reliable sources. We don't choose the sources that reflect our personal preferences; we choose the sources which we deem are reliable (and English) and, again, follow their lead, whatever it is. --B2C 07:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
We generally follow their lead. As per the actual text of COMMONNAME. And we don't assume a source is accurate in all things, because it is accurate in some things. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we generally follow their lead (not usage in any one source). Using sources for determining COMMONNAME is quite different from using sources for article content. The main difference is that there are usually many more sources to look at for the purposes of determining COMMONNAME than for finding content. When you find content you usually rely on maybe up to a handful of articles; often only one or two. But when looking at usage often we're considering usage in thousands of articles. The inaccuracy of any one source is lost in the noise; it doesn't matter. What we are looking for is predominance of usage among all the sources.
We might have an opinion on how much to weigh, say, DIGNITY, in a given case. But if only a small percentage of the sources are reflecting that much weight in their usage, then we should follow their lead (that is, the lead of the majority of sources). If the high DIGNITY consideration (or whatever) becomes predominant in reliable source usage, then we should reflect that. But not before.
Now, I did not participate in this round because I did not review the sources to see what usage now indicates. If the Chelsea usage is now predominant, that should be the article title. But if Bradley is still more commonly used in reliable sources, that indicates editors of reliable sources, overall, taking DIGNITY and all other relevant factors into account, still judge Bradley to be the appropriate choice, and that's what our readers are most likely to recognize and expect. It is not our place to second guess the judgments of reliable source editors by superimposing our judgments about DIGNITY and how much consideration it should be given in this case, etc. --B2C 08:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I meant by generally. We prefer the predominantly common name most often, but we sometimes use a less common name if there are issues of accuracy, ambiguity, neutrality, vulgarity, pedantic-ness, or other problems, per COMMONNAME. We still judge those issues in all cases even if we generally decide the most common name is usually the best fit. ___Elaqueate (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I too did not participate in this round as I have not had time to evaluate all the evidence. However I feel it important to endorse Elaqueate's comments regarding the meaning of "generally" with respect to COMMONNAME. A very good example is that we do not title articles about killings as "Murder of X" before it is neutral and factual to call the event a murder (which is extremely rarely before somebody is convicted of murder), even if the most commonly used description of the event is "murder"; and a significant number of the articles listed at Mercury are not at their COMMONNAME title. Just because in most cases the concerns listed above are not an issue does not mean they are not considered when they are in play. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"Murder of X" is not a COMMONNAME title - it's a descriptive title.
The disambiguated titles listed at Mercury, like Mercury (planet), reflect their COMMONNAME, and are disambiguated.
Neither of these points demonstrate that we ever use judgement instead of COMMONNAME. That does not mean we never do, but it's so rare that invoking IAR (for good reason, of course), should be quite adequate. I'm aware of no good reason to apply IAR to COMMONNAME in this case. --B2C 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
While I do believe that the closers did a good job, I agree with b2c that the dignity and harm aspects were best left out of the decision. These are subjective concepts which will, in practice, devolve into a vote amongst editors (and we all know that Wikipedia editors are in no way representative of the real world!) rather than into the study of sources which is the lynchpin of this project. How would we know, for example, that Manning was harmed by retaining the page at Bradley Manning? Or that Manning's dignity was offended? All we know is that there are many Wikipedia editors who think that is the case. The reason we always go back to sources is because we leave these judgements to others and assume, for example, that The New York Times, along with other considerations, has included dignity and harm in its judgement. If it hasn't, then perhaps these are not important. If it has, then they have already been taken into consideration. The bottom line is that we should not even consider them in our decision making processes. --regentspark (comment) 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Editorial Judgments are always made by Wikipedia editors: 1) What is a reliable source for this or that; 2) which sources present the matter most neutrally; 3) what implications of the sources are or are not original research; 4) what is harmful? And on and on. Usually it is a judgment made by one wikipedia editor (with tacit consent of others). Sometimes more than one. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between judging the quality of sources and judging things like dignity and harm. Since sourcing is the lynchpin of our encyclopedia, we must, and do, draw judgements about the relative quality of sources. But, Wikipedia is not a social organization and does not, and should not, be making judgements about dignity and harm. We hew to what reliable sources say precisely because we are not set up to make subjective calls of that sort. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Judgments about dignity and harm are far more subjective and subject to personal bias than is the evaluation of source quality. So we choose quality reliable sources and follow their lead on subjective judgments. --B2C 13:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Sources sometimes make explicit claims of harm, following sources means evaluating those explicit claims of harm in an edit -- what are or are not resonable implications, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that anyone assuming that RS think about DIGNITY and HARM in public discourse about transgender people is simply wrong. Normally reliable sources, when discussing individuals facing substantial systemic bias often do NOT take into account the basic humanity of the subject of their articles (One need only look at the way murdered transgender women are often treated in the media to see this).
I am therefore of the opinion that Wikipedia MUST do so in cases where reliable sources will not, at least in the case of Biographies of Living Persons, because we have a special calling to accuracy and human dignity in such contexts. Cam94509 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted, but seems contrary to the Wikipedia pillars. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem at all contrary to me. We are bound by the BLP policy and board resolution that underpins it to consider with every edit we make whether it could cause harm to a living person, either individually or in the context of an article. If it could cause harm then we are equally bound to weigh up that potential harm against the encyclopaedic necessity and other relevant policies. In extremely few cases do our sources make the same judgement - most are not bound by anything like our BLP policy, and even those that have similar policies will make different judgements because they are not writing an NPOV encyclopaedia and the context of the use will be different. For example just because a reliable source does not judge it harmful to include mention of a transgender person's birth name in one context does not necessarily mean that our including it in a different context is also not harmful - it may or may not be but we have to make that judgement ourselves based on our context, our goals and our policies. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, Arthur, I don't think it does in the slightest, and I think the argument that it does is ultimately a misunderstanding of the basics of what it means to be NPOV, and to be an encyclopedia. Cam94509 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The "textbook" case is libel. It does not make it not libel because some usually reliable source published it before Wikipedia does. It cannot be known if a particular instance of libel will cause any actual injury to the person. And its impossible to "know" its libel without going through the trial that has not happened, so wikipedia makes judgments on all that, both the sources and the implications, without anything but its own editor's judgment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with B2C. While I do not fault the admins for closing the move in the direction they did, their rationale is not compatible with COMMONNAME and should not be applied to future RMs. According to the policy, "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change". Exactly how much weight should be applied to reliable sources after the name change is not specified. However, it clearly implies that some weight should be given to sources published before the name change. My own estimate of the prevalence of the name "Chelsea" among all sources was 6%. In my opinion this is not enough to satisfy the policy's requirements. A closing rationale citing an IAR exemption to COMMONNAME in the interest of harmonious editing and other considerations would have been acceptable. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
On that particular question, the amount of weight to give those sources published before the name change, especially in a case like this where the "new" name was unknown until August 22 2013, leans me to give very little weight to those sources before the name change. Why should I care that there are 1,000 or 100 articles about Bradley *before* the name change? Should it make a difference? Especially if we have sources using both, I think anything pre-August 22 doesn't add any new information to the discussion at all, unless we want to add that 100% of sources pre-Aug 22 used Bradley. Once we've granted that, I don't think it helps us with COMMONNAME since we're trying to figure out what is the COMMONNAME now, and going forward, not what *was* the commonname on August 21.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"Very little weight" is fair. All I'm saying here that the policy requires that some weight be given to older sources. If this serves no purpose, then the policy should be changed. I do see some benefits in giving weight to older sources, mainly to follow the principle of least surprise. DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily the last RM
First, let me thank the closers... this was not an easy one, and I think they handled it well. That said... I hope everyone understands that this may not be the final RM on this article. I hope, however, that this will be the last one for a while. So far, our examination of sources (to determine COMMONNAME) has been focused on the news media print and website usage. What we have not examined (because they have not been written yet) are more serious non-news sources (especially print biographies and histories, etc). Any final determination on this title will have to take these yet to be written sources into account... and they may (or may not) change the picture dramatically. My suggestion... Both sides of the debate need to develope more patience... we should probably do a re-examine the sources each year for the next five years or so. THEN, once we have a clearer picture of what higher quality sources use, and we can reach a final determination (either leaving the title at Chelsea, or moving it to Bradley as indicated). Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I looked for books and scholarly articles that used Chelsea, but there were obviously few. I found one book (fiction) that was published shortly after the announcement, and the author had snuck in a last minute dedication to Chelsea Manning, so that's one data point. But when more books get written, what name is used in the title, what name is used throughout? In addition, what name will RS use - media or otherwise - when referring to this person. The experience of John Mark Karr is instructive; after coming out as a woman sources waffled for a while, but 2 years later, they had all but forgotten, and no mention of Karr's new name Alexis Reich can be found in any sources after 2010. I don't think this will happen to Manning, but if it does, there may be another RM and the pendulum may swing the other way. May the gods help us.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You still won't stop harping on the blasted Alexis Reich page, will you? We didn't change the title of the page. There isn't a consensus on the matter. Please stop saying that the example of "John Mark Karr" is instructive, given that we (I believe correctly) decided to keep the page at Alexis Reich. Cam94509 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about the sources, not the overly charged emotional discussion, that, admittedly happened at a bad time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
All I'm saying is you keep bringing up the case of Alexis Reich as if that page somehow implies that this page might be moved back, but that doesn't seem to be what it actually means. It seems to me that what it shows is that there's some policy disagreement about whether COMMONNAME or BLP is the appropriate policy for this matter. Cam94509 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I keep on bringing up Alexis Reich as a canonical example of how sources can "forget" a name change when they decide it's in the interest of their readers to use the name the person was known as at the time. What wikipedia decides to do about that is up to that fuzzy thing we call consensus. I'm not implying anything about this page, as I have no idea what the sources will do. But riddle me this - if in 5 years time, we have 500 new articles about Bradley, and 10 new books about Bradley, and the only "Chelsea" sources we can find are from the fall of 2013, do you really think it would be in the interest of our readers to keep at the new name? To be honest, I don't think that will happen, and Chelsea may indeed stick. This was one of the largest participations in a move I've ever seen, and there was no consensus that BLP applied, as judged by the closers (much more participation than into the drafting of the BLP policy itself likely) Thus, we cannot say that BLP does apply.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
We cannot say it doesn't apply either, the ruling didn't speak to the applicability or non-applicability of BLP. All we know from this is there is a persuasive argument to consider the wishes of a subject, barring "overwhelming" source usage against their preferences. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Then why not start an RFC, and ask the question "Does BLP oblige us to move an article about a trans* person to their new name immediately upon public announcement, in spite of what name reliable sources use?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not necessarily the best thing to make move requests and the like just because I wanted to make a point. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Can't do that. That's not exactly the neutral wording required for an RFC. Cam94509 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
To expand: Were I to write such an RFC, I would write it "Does BLP oblige us to use an individuals preferred name over an old name in cases where the reason for the name change was a change in public gender expression." I wouldn't mention RS, because they would be fundamentally irrelevant to the underlying argument, and would bias the discussion despite being completely irrelevant to the finding that was actually being discussed. Also, Elaqueate, I don't think it would be a violation of POINT, so it would be perfectly reasonable. Cam94509 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not talking about move requests. I'm talking about an RFC to get some community clarity on this point. This move was tainted in a number of ways by over emotionality, so the answer to the BLP question is weak for now and needs rethinking in the light of day and in an abstract fashion. I think we should start a neutral RFC and ask the question of the community - the claim has been made, others have disagreed, so we need to come to consensus before next time. Cam, you need to mention RS, because titles are chosen based on RS. The question needs to be whether BLP can trump all of the criteria in WP:AT, esp. COMMONNAME? The claim is made that yes, BLP *always* trumps, at least in the case of TG people. So, let's ask the community and see if they agree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we DO need to mention RS. The entire point is that BLP trumps common name, and that's basically set stone. I don't think anybody disagrees with that statement: In a conflict between two policies, BLP wins. The question is, does BLP apply. That's a question worth asking, and I think it's one we should move forward with. That said, I think we should give this a little while to settle down, get the arbcom ruling out of the way, get any bad blood about that out of the way, and THEN discuss an RfC. Cam94509 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this could have been avoided with a set of naming conventions regarding LGBT issues, sourced from reliable sources, instead of sourced from everybody's arguments from first principles. If this was a Royalty Naming issue, it would have gone smoothly and not like it was being decided by a majority vote of people who saw King Ralph once. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that an explicitly correct titling policy would be an even better way to handle this matter, but I've fundamentally begun to believe that such a thing might be impossible at this time. I thought there was maybe a chance last time around, but we started getting fundamentally immutable opposition to the ideas that we were working on there early enough on in process that it looked like it would fail (I also had to leave the discussion because I had other things to deal with.) That said, I have attempted to start a discussion on the ideas we were working on previously again at WP:AT, if anyone is interested in seeing if we can just get that right instead. Cam94509 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it'll be a frosty day in hell before this article title is ever any different from what it is at present. It may have taken awhile to get here, but it is time to drop the sticks. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're right. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:26, 9 October 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.