Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

let's fight about Manning's name again!

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

"I get that I'm probably the last person anyone wants to hear" <-- Then why do you insist on commenting here, you haven't added anything to the discussion that wasn't already mentioned. Space simian (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Salon.com

This piece at salon.com calls the above discussion "a key historical document of 2013". StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• The author of that piece for Salon clearly has a very exaggerated view of the importance of this little debate here on Wikipedia. I would hope that people would not consider Wikipedia talk pages to be historical documents, as that would detract from the real importance of ACTUAL historical documents. --Yetisyny (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Raised as a boy

“Raised as a boy” in the section “Background” #“Early life”, is confusing. It suggests that Brad/Chelsea Manning was born a girl but raised as a boy. Is it true that Brad/Chelsea has always been physically male but self-identifies as female, as suggested by the passage “Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood and released a statement the day after her sentencing identifying as female, taking the name Chelsea Manning....”? If Manning has always been physically male but self-identifies as female, the article should clearly say this.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

short of looking at baby pictures, we're unlikely to ever know, and it's not that relevant (or, really, any of our business) There is plenty of evidence that Manning was raised as a boy, eg raised with the expectation that he act as a boy and be treated as a boy - what is less known is the extent to which Manning felt like a girl, when these feelings came on, the extent of them, etc. It seems in these cases it can be quite confusing for a child for obvious reasons, so I assume our reporting on that will have to take that into account. I don't think the 'physically a male' part is necessary or even verifiable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase, "Raised as a boy, ...", was added as a result of this conversation, I believe. diff It's clunky, like a lot of the gender issues in the article because it was done hurriedly. Any suggestion for an improved copy?

Regarding the sentence beginning, "Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood", there is a related discussion above. --RA (✍) 23:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I read (correct me if I'm mistaken) Manning was raised as a boy because he was one (i.e., physically), even tough he felt a gender disorder : if so, the sentence should be rewritten because it is indeed confusing. One would think that he was raised as a boy because his parents didn't notice that he was a girl... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you suggest a change to the text? --RA (✍) 14:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have seen some coverage, like this [1] which suggests Manning is physically male. However, I still find it problematic - "physically" can mean all sorts of things, but in this case it seems to be code for "has a penis". I'd like to see if there is a wording we can use that doesn't need to emphasize this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a weird sentence, saying she was small "for her age" and then describing her adult height and weight, and them randomly moving on to her saxophone playing! Might I suggest for the entire paragraph:

Growing up, Manning excelled at the saxophone, science, and computers; her father told PBS that she created her first website when she was ten years old. She taught herself how to use PowerPoint, won the grand prize three years in a row at the local science fair, and in sixth grade took top prize at a state-wide quiz bowl. Manning was noticeably smaller than the average male, reaching a height of only 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) tall and weighing 105 lb (47.6 kg) in adulthood.

I would consider the context of the rest of the article sufficient in understanding that Manning was being raised as a boy at this point, and that she now identifies as female. U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't address the problem being brought as a boy - that "raised a boy" implies Manning was actually biologically female as a child. We ought to be focused on giving the reader a clear picture of events in articles. Erasing the past of a transgendered person (and not one who completely transitioned before notability either) obfuscates the facts for readers. Readers should not get the impression from the text that Manning was genotypically and phenotypically female as a child, because that's not the case. The possibility that a bio subject might be uncomfortable with the wording in a bio is not grounds for imprecise, inaccurate wording. We put all sorts of things in articles that might distress readers. We have Muhammad even though real human beings have died in protests against such depictions. It feels like, "We have always been at war with Eastasia," to just eliminate facts the one might consider "insensitive". I would suggest this wording: "Manning was born biologically male and raised as a boy. However, Manning has said she felt female since childhood." Then stick in a citation to the Manning statement to the Today show. --JamesAM (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that "Manning was noticeably smaller than the average male" clearly implies that she was, to the outside world at least, male at this stage of her life, without going into unknown details of exactly how "physically male" she was. U-Mos (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if this should be removed. It gives the impression that height is a clue regarding gender identity which, AFAICT, is false. And it is otherwise totally trivial to the article. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gender identity made

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

I'm not sure it 'complicates things' particularly. Essays aren't policy, or guidelines. They are the opinions of particular contributors. We've already seen plenty of those, and one more isn't going to change anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Essays tend to uncomplicate things. Instead of posting the same long argument again and again, editors can write an essay and link to it. Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Poll to Limit the Talk Page to Edit Requests and Survey

I am someone who normally supports the open and free discussion of articles. Usually, editors are able to keep themselves composed, make the discussions relevant to the subject of the article, and are able to improve it. That notwithstanding, very little of the discussion here is on Manning. Most of the talk page discussion is 30+ users attacking each other on if they're transphobic or trolls. I'm a supporter of transsexual rights; but it's very counter intuitive for people to go as far as to accuse someone of hating transsexual people. Besides that, a lot of baiting and personal attacks have occurred as well which is especially problematic. The only threads that have not been affected by this ridiculous unprofessionalism are the main survey and edit requests. Even a thread I made to try to combat this went into that type of territory. Therefore, I want to start a poll to have the other sections not related to edit requests and the main survey archived so everyone can stop attacking each other. --Thebirdlover (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Stable Version

Now that a "stable version" of this article has been established, why has it not been reverted to that version yet? The article should be reverted to its original stable version for the remainder of the discussion. At the end of the period of discussion, then any changes discussed should be made. Leaving the article in it's current "non-stable" state is absurd. This article is laughable in both title and it's misuse of pronouns. Articles like these are why teachers tell their students not to use Wikipedia for research, and tarnish Wikipedia's image overall. IFreedom1212 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, we're NOT supposed to be the source. There's a reason why everything needs to be referenced... And as the page is being considered for requested move, it's probably not a good idea either (on top of the fact that the page is under full-protection) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oh good, another "this is a disgrace to Wikipedia" because it's the wrong version and POV complaint from a recently blocked user who edit-warred on this very article. Your request makes no sense because the discussed changes above unambiguously conflict. Also, you know who else advises that people don't use Wikipedia for research? We do. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no disgrace to Wikipedia if we have a civil discussion about an editorial issue. Just be patient and it will get resolved. The disgrace starts when people get rude or start warring. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal pronouns, and manning

I think this talk page will be of interest to future scholars of issues relating to Personal pronouns. Future edits to this article should take into account that Manning has opened a can worms with respect military and industrial manning with transgender personnel SEPARATE from the T of LGBT (or gay or glum.) —Pawyilee (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Reconsideration of GID → Gender Dysphoria change

It was previously decided to keep the term "gender identity disorder" in this article, rather than replacing it with the newer term "gender dysphoria". This decision was made on the basis that the article title has not yet been changed. I believe this should be reconsidered. The main argument against changing the article title is that the ICD-10 still uses the term "gender identity disorder". Such an argument may apply to the general case of an article about a condition that can be experienced by anyone in the world (though I disagree with it), but Manning is an American who will be evaluated by American psychologists. In the US, the DSM is much more widely used for psychological conditions than the ICD. Therefore, the DSM terminology ought be used. MaxHarmony (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Has Manning been diagnosed with a disorder or dysphoria? Rather that us diagnosing, what do reliable source say? --RA (✍) 14:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If you read the court transcripts, at least the one I read had a psychologist using both dysphoria and GID. Much of the media coverage has used GID. I believe the Dr. in the transcripts did say something like "We now call this GD", but I haven't read *all* the transcripts and all the diagnoses. I'm sure Manning has been assessed multiple times by multiple doctors, so it wouldn't surprise me if some wrote "GID" and some wrote "GD" in the record.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to medical terms such as this I think it makes the most sense to follow the most recent consensus from the relevant professional community which happens to be gender dysphoria. If scientist decide there is only eight planets in the solar system we should write that as well (as long as there was a scientific consensus) even if a few popular media organisations keep claiming there are nine. Space simian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Media commentary on possible Manning "ploy"

Having lived with a transgender person for 17 years, I personally think Manning is sincere. However, it should be noted that searching Chelsea Manning and ploy in news one finds a number of outlets have questioned his sincerity and this might be mentioned, though I'm not going to write it. Associate Press; CBS news; NBC; NY Post; Charleston Post Courier; Daily Mail; etc. User:Carolmooredc 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This kind of article mentioned elsewhere here is an effective reply to these kinds of comments and these probably should be presented together, if anyone's interested in doing it: Chelsea Manning's case puts focus on transgender rights in prisons, Amanda Holpuch, theguardian.com, 22 August 2013. User:Carolmooredc 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

None of those articles actually quote any named reliable source who has claimed that Manning is not sincere. Ergo, there's nothing for Wikipedia to say about the matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that you actually read the sources thoroughly;

Greg Rinckey, a former Army prosecutor and now a lawyer in Albany, N.Y., said Manning's statement could be a ploy to get him transferred to a civilian prison. "He might be angling to go there because he believes life at a federal prison could be easier than life at the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth," Rinckey said.

- CBS news

Tarc (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

An apparently-randomly-selected "former Army prosecutor and lawyer in Albany, N.Y." is not a reliable source for the purposes of making comments about someone's psychology and gender identity. His claim is not supported by any actual evidence presented, nor is there any indication that Rinckey has any pertinent knowledge or understanding of Manning's psychology or gender identity that would enable him to make informed judgments about those subjects. See our guideline on identifying reliable sources on medical topics - Manning's gender identity is, indeed, a medical topic.

If there is a medical professional with training and experience in psychology and gender identity who has questioned Manning's expressed identity, that would, indeed, be a reliable source for medical issues. Otherwise, what we have to work with are apparently-baseless speculation and rumormongering, none of which have any place in the biography of a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, so first it was "none quote any named reliable source", to which I provide a source that says just that. Then your argument moves to "well, he isn't a medical professional". Nice bit of goalpost-shifting there. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's really not. "Reliable source" in the context of any medical issue must be considered in light of WP:MEDRS. That you appear not to have known about WP:MEDRS before declaring the unsupported waffling speculation of a lawyer to be an acceptable source for claims about a person's psychology and gender identity is obvious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement at all that this MEDRS thing be followed in any article at any time. This isn't a court of law, we do not call expert witnesses to the stand to testify on our behalf. If reliable sources quote people such as a former Army prosecutor on whether or not they feel Manning is's coming-out is a diversionary ploy, then that is 100% acceptable to use in this article. You're attempting to limit such commentary to "trans gender experts", and there's no way in hell that is going to be allowed to happen here. What that amounts to is censorship of opinions that you disagree with. Tarc (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

'Speculation from some random lawyer' doesn't usually pass WP:RS, regardless of the issues involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the biography of a living person, and we don't quote random people speculating about a living person's health with neither a single shred of credible evidence nor a single iota of expertise in the field of medicine which might support that speculation. It is not censorship to make editorial decisions about what is and is not included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If the speculation is in a reliable source, it can and will be included. You may certainly include testimony of trans experts as well as they are found in reliable sources. This is how we go about WP:NPOV after all, ensuring that all significant points of view are represented fairly. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The speculation isn't from a reliable source - it is from a random lawyer with nothing to base his opinion on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's really not how we do things when they relate to a person's psychology and sexual identity. For example, we don't include unfounded speculative claims that someone is gay or lesbian. Moreover, you have in no way proved that the unfounded speculative claims of a random lawyer represent a "significant point of view" rather than a fringe theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS is often interpreted in an overbearing way, and this is one such instance. It is about medical claims (claims of science) not facts about specific persons. They want a scientific review article to say that the flu makes you sneeze, not that Bush had the flu one day. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For those that might have missed it: Manning mentions her gender identity issues in the chat with Adrian Lamo, i.e. privately in confidence and long before she was arrested, so claiming this is only a ploy is just ignorant. Space simian (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

WP shouldn't be ignoring the legal aspect of this story because of an editor's misguided notion that an Army lawyer needs medical expertise to opine about the legal ramifications of Manning's request to be recognized as a transgender in a military prison.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dates

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.

---

Why are the dates still being listed in British format as opposed to American format? Is there some valid reason for doing so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally up-to-speed, but maybe Manning has identified as British.

This is a joke, by the way. Formerip (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, the dates are currently in DMY format (which is international, not only British); someone changed some of them to MDY recently, but left most of them, so I changed them back to make the article consistent. Once the move request is closed and the talk page is quieter, I will post an RfC asking which date format people prefer. Discussion here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a story that generates from, and concerns, the United States. Therefore, I thought that the MOS dictates that the American format be used. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit Request: MOS:IDENTITY note on Talk page be removed

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.

---

The MOS:IDENTITY note near the top of this talk page expresses a clear bias as its application to this article is obviously a matter of opinion. I request that it be removed until discussion regarding the page move/pronoun usage has ended. IFreedom1212 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is policy, and its application to this page is indisputable. An element of the move discussion is the question of whether this policy favors (or requires) a change to the title of the article. I see no evidence that the existence of this tag has had any influence on the opinions expressed in this discussion, and therefore see no reason to change the status quo. bd2412 T 01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The applicability of MOS:IDENTITY is the entire reason there is a dispute though. Or am I missing something... IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Freedom, right now it is being discussed if or if not MOS:IDENTITY applies, throwing a notice at the top and saying it does is not going to be helpful. I have no objections to it being restored though once the move discussion is closed pending the move outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-application would also be a biased matter of opinion. So where does that leave us? With the indisputable fact that gender dysphoria really is a real thing for objectively real whether you like it or not, that's where. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not suggesting that we put a note that says it does not apply. So just removing the note would be the neutral solution. GD is obviously disputable. I'm disputing your alleged 'fact' that Bradley Manning is suffering from anything other than being a traitor. IFreedom1212 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your POV with regards to gender dysphoria is a fringe theory that has been widely rejected by medical science. So no, GD is not "obviously disputable." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Let it be, everyone has their own opinions, lets focus on on other things rather than worry about this right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone has their own opinions" - and yet only relevant, well-supported opinions are included in Wikipedia articles. The claim that gender dysphoria is not real is not a relevant, well-supported opinion. It is a fringe theory rejected by reliable medical sources. Good day, sir. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Everybody has their own opinions, true; however, not everybody is entitled to equal respect for their opinions. Thinking that you know better than documented medical science, for example, does not make your opinions on those issues worthy of any serious consideration. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that gender dysphoria is disputable. But until medical science agrees with you, you're not entitled to expect Wikipedia to favour your POV over the documented facts. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. This template is at the top of dozens of talk pages. We have oodles of reliable sources which refer to Manning as a transgender woman now, that is really not under dispute, and past consensus has determined which pronouns should be used in that case (note that it's entirely possible to be both a transgender woman, and "biologically" male.) In addition, normally "local" consensus cannot override broader community consensus, unless there is a good reason to IAR. If you have issues with the pronouns, my suggestion would be to join the discussion at MOS:IDENTITY. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the template. The fact that Manning is a self-identified transgender woman is not a matter of opinion. Whether MOS:IDENTITY should be controlling as to the title of the article is a matter of debate, but that does not implicate the template as "biased." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

leave it off I've changed my mind. This template is causing too much consternation. Let's leave it off pending the move request. It's been on and off, so I'd rather not debate this further. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This notice has been out of place almost the entire move discussion thus far, why now are people making a huge deal about it and where is the consensus for it's inclusion, doesn't this come first if something wants to be added? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed it, as the entire crux of this debate is the conflict of a Manual of SAtyle guideline vs. a policy on Article Names. To have one "side", as it were, appear at the top as some warning that it "must" be adhered to is unfair and damaging to the open debate we're having here. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: Well, I thought I had, but it seems others did and edit conflicts and all that. NorthBySouthBaranof in particular, you really need to get ahold of your reverting, as when you try to restore the tag (wrongly, IMO), you are also blowing away comments in another topic. MediaWIki isn't really all that robust when it comes to handling edit conflict,s so take extra care on high-traffic pages that what you're editing is what you mean to. Tarc (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Not true George. Manning was diagnosed with gender identity disorder many years ago, and this information was discussed many times during his trial. In the transcripts from 2010 (I think), Manning discussed his desire to transition. As such, with the now public declaration that he is a she, this category is clearly relevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just great! You want to categorize him as such because of mere identity and disorder? That would be misinterpretations of the facts and be an original research, forbidden in Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You may want to read Causes of transsexualism. Someone who was born as a man, but feels they are a woman, and then publicly comes out stating that they are a woman and want to transition, is by definition a transsexual (or transgendered) person. I don't think this is original research at all - a simple google search of "Transsexual + manning" provides lots of hits, dozens of articles have discussed the issues of Manning as a transsexual member of the military, and what rules/rights she would have as a result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in this article convinces me to change my mind, even when it is well-detailed. There were sexuality rumours of Cary Grant, yet he is not categorized as 'homosexual' by categories. I stand where I stand. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If cary Grant had come out with a public statement saying he was gay, he would certainly be in those categories. In this case, we have both: 1) Manning with a public statement saying he identifies as a woman and b) Multiple media sources who identify him as transsexual, transgendered and refer to same in the context of his military service. if that is not enough to put him in the categories, I'm not sure what is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Quite true - it may be a while before Manning can do those things. but perhaps you misunderstand what transsexual means (or at least, the category). It doesn't mean you've had surgery and hormone treatments and so on. You can be transsexual before you actually take any steps towards becoming your desired gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How besides self-declaring? --George Ho (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait what? No you cant Transsexual latterly means trans (Moves to) one sex to the other. I think you are confusing it with Transgender like I did earlier. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Well, there is "transgender and transsexual" in the same category name. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please... enough! This guy's in jail; identifying self as trans-woman or transgender should not prompt categorization. It sends a bad message about trans-people. There is no way that we should basically categorize him, now that he is under military custody. And even calling himself a "woman" while in jail shouldn't be a mere source to add a category. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

George, can you please tell us, very clearly, what specifically you would require in order to justify this category. I note that Manning was already in another TG cAt, this new one was simply specifying military TG, and I've see no-one disputing that other cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm torn. Policy WP:BLPCAT encourages self-identity, as well as guideline WP:EGRS#Sexuality. WP:CAT#Articles doesn't say much except use categories with caution and care. We can't expect him to win rights of receiving support from military or any other. However, sometimes I either find another policy or guideline to prove that categorization is not helpful, or ignore all rules (but I am unwilling to do so). --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what rights the military choose to accord her with regard to medical treatment for her gender identity. A transgender person is still a transgender person no matter what her surgical status is, no matter what the status of the legal paperwork process is. There are no conditions on a person's transgender status; they are transgender as soon as they say they are, no matter how far along in the process they have or haven't gotten. And at any rate, the courts have consistently found that people in prison do still have an unconditional right to receive treatment for their medical issues — we sentence people to prison, not to denial of medical treatment — and that has been found to include gender identity issues. So even if she has to fight in the courts to have her rights respected, she will win. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How on earth does the fact that she's in jail inherently negate being transgender? Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. "This guy's in jail; identifying self as trans-woman or transgender should not prompt categorization. It sends a bad message about trans-people. There is no way that we should basically categorize him, now that he is under military custody." George Ho, two things:

1. I took a phone message while you were busy with that discussion: The trans-people of the world just called... they said that although they appreciate you looking out for them and all, they've decided to go with a different spokesperson – one who understood the difference between transgender, transsexual and transvestite.
2. It is impossible to have any meaningful point/counterpoint discussion on this "point", because it is a totally invalid argument, founded on non sequitur.

 —Grollτech (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

George, you didn't answer the question. You oppose these categories on this article, but you haven't stated clearly what would be needed to put a person justifiably in a trans- category (of which we have several). Also, categories have nothing to do with article titles except in rare cases - but no matter what title this article has now or in the future the categories should remain invariant. Categorization is based on what is 'defining', and I think there is plenty of evidence that secondary sources are referring to Manning as transgendered. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Establishing a consensus on categorization is too soon. HOwever, if you want an establishment now, that would be when he becomes a female biologically. That's it! --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Good call. That would be while she was still in the womb though. See A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones
"Female biologically" is not as simple as it seems. There are people medically diagnosed as intersex male, then re-diagnosed as intersex female twenty years later (after puberty in their 40's). More common are natural female to male changes. Wiki's policies WP:BLPCAT deal with such fraught issues rather well. Based on Manning's build, any endocrinologist would suspect a high possibility of anatomical anomalies. XX chromosomes, partial androgen insensitivity, etc etc. She's 3 SDs from the male mean in several ways, from her photos, closer to a female mean. Zoe Brain (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, but nonetheless not that relevant to how we use the categories today. There are plenty of people in these categories who are probably, for all intents and purposes, biologically male yet which nonetheless identify as female and are in the process of transitioning. Per the definition, transgender does not require surgery or hormones. Thus I think TG categories are legitimate for Manning. Just as we don't require verification that a man is having sex with men in order to categorize him as gay, we don't require verification that a TG person has undergone surgery or hormones or other things before categorizing them as TG - we go by their own personal declarations and reliable sources, which in Manning's case we have in spades. So George, frankly, I think your "biological" requirement is not at all in line with past consensus on categorization of TG people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well-said, Obi-Wan Kenobi. "Nevertheless, I expect a reverse of category change if the title becomes Bradley again." George, again with the non sequitur? Wikipedia's choice of page title has no bearing whatsoever on whether to categorize Manning as transgender. There are many different aspects to the discussions higher up on this page surrounding the appropriate title, but none of the ones I've read so far (besides yours) have gone to such lengths to challenge the very definition of the term transgender (I keep wikilinking the term, hoping that you will actually click on it and learn). As far as I can tell, George, you are the only person arguing this particular POV, which, absent valid reliable sources to back it up, is nothing more than WP:OR.  —Grollτech (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Higher order planning

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

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

I'm sure they appreciate your totally altruistic statement of concern for their well-being. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's going to be a shit storm either way. The botched process has assured of that. As it stands, at least one contributor is already making minor a celebrity of themselves through instigating the move to Chelsea Manning. The impression being given in interview is that the reason for opposing the move is because of bigotry (or "transphobia") and ignorance.

This is not good for the project. And I don't think it's fair to categorise opposition to the article title as "transphobic". I haven't seen any significant opposition to referring to Manning as Chelsea (and using female pronouns) within the article. The issue, for the most part as far as I can see it, is limited to the article title. Deciding an article titles has a unique set of criteria, within which the subject's chosen gender identify or name is of no consequence.

There is undoubtedly a section of "Bradley" !voters who are opposed to recognising transgender identity. However, there is an equally visible component of "Chelsea" !voters who see this as an opportunity for activism (see also Wikipedia:Activist). Whatever about the validity and value of their position on the subject of transgender people and identity outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the place to advance any agenda. And no-one should assume opposition to this article being at Chelsea Manning as being evidence of "transphobia". --RA (✍) 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Which other reason do you suggest exists for insisting on referring to someone using a male given name, that they have explicitly asked not to be used and said they do not identify with? I think you will find that according to the common definition in polite society, at least in the media world outside of Wikipedia, this is probably the most common form of transphobia. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually, you know, read the rationales given for "support move back" votes to find out. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see very many people insisting that Manning should be referred to as Bradley or referred to as he. What the move discussion is about is asking what should the article be named - NOT Manning. The most relevant criteria for naming the article in this case are "recognizability" and "naturalness". "Bradley Manning" is currently the most recognisable and natural name for the article (see the definition of the terms "recognisable" and "natural"). Within the article Manning (the individual) should be called Chelsea (their chosen name) and referred to as her. But that is not what the discussion is about. --RA (✍) 01:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving the article back to the now outdated and inaccurate name, thereby titling an article on a transgendered person in a deeply offensive manner, would indeed be a PR disaster for Wikipedia, as pointed out both because it's unacceptable in polite society in itself, and also because of all the transphobic commentary on this talk page, including comparisons of transgendered people to dogs and other animals. It would of course also be an obvious violation of the BLP policy. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What section of BLP policy are you specifically referring to? --RA (✍) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ, read the talk page, don't feel like reiterating it for the 200th time. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've read this talk page but I haven't heard mention of the specific section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that having this article at Bradley Manning is supposed to be in violation of. Can you indicate which section of BLP policy having this article at that title violated? --RA (✍) 00:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because this discussion is not about that, and because that issue has been discussed very thoroughly in other sections. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You raised the issue in this section. Go on, it will only take you a few words. Even just post the raw link to the section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that having this article at Bradley Manning would violate. No? --RA (✍) 01:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because I said no. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you here to have a real discussion? you have used your "No because im right and you are wrong so there" argument more than once now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, we all want to know what section you're referring to. I personally do not remember which, if any, specific sections anyone has quoted. You can even point us to a comment above that references the appropriate section. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Except it's not been a shit storm. We've talked about Chelsea Manning on the frontpage for two days now, and so far all there's been is polite applause from the media. Which is why I think undoing it risks a mess. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I stopped reading when you called people who oppose the Chelsea title "transphobic", this is not the first time I have seen users here attacking others with keep as Bradley opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Phil merely employed the mainstream, common definition of transphobia. The idea that you can insist on childishly calling someone who states her name is Chelsea, "Bradley", is really a WP:FRINGE POV and not encyclopedic at all. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually just called some support voters transphobic. The fact that there are support voters whose reasoning is explicitly opposition to the idea of trans people is a real problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Chelsea Manning" is not Mainstream in the media is the problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's demonstrably untrue. Plenty of English language sources are using it at this point, as has been well documented. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If or when the number of sources of the article referring to the subject as Chelsea gets anywhere near the number of sources of the article referring to the subject as Bradley, then that would be an appropriate time to discuss moving the article to Chelsea Manning. Not current media stories, but existing sources of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not actually what policy says - the article naming policy notes that following a subject's renaming we should consider post-renaming sources. Hence Willis Tower despite, you know, decades of it being called the Sears Tower. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia has been commended, lauded for doing the decent thing, thanks to Morwen, in a timely fashion. I see no shitstorm at all over that, on the contrary. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't write for polite applause from the media. And the fact that the media are commenting on the way we are taking a lead on this question is an indicator of the problem. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and BLPs ought to be written conservatively. We are not doing our job when we lead the way on anything.

But yes, now that we've drawn attention to ourselves, and drawn "polite applause" it probably will be noticed when we roll back. But we just as we don't write for polite applause from the media, we don't revert to our usual conservatism (in terms of approach to writing, not politics) because we fear their scorn. The lesson to be learnt from this is not to rush headlong into a move like this again. Discuss first, not after. --RA (✍) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What I want to know is why the admin not follow WP:TITLECHANGES? This has been brought up and keeps getting brushed aside. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no compromises made when it comes to factual accuracy and BLP. The only source for someone's name is the person him/herself. We change it as soon as it's established to be correct. We do the same for dates of birth. Even if many media reported a wrong date of birth for someone, we would use the correct one. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. But what has this got to do with the current discussion about the title of this article? Many articles (including BLPs) are at titles that are not the names (self-chosen or otherwise) of their subject. The name of the article is the name of the article - and NOT necessarily the name of the person. --RA (✍) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if those who have placed so much concern toward offending this individual (presuming titling the article as Bradley Manning would truly offensive...) maintain that gusto toward every issue. When someone complains about gruesome or sexually explicit content on the Main Page. When discussing images of Muhammad in Muhammad or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Everywhere where potential for offense exists. LGBT issues are of increasing concern in the Western world and the Anglosphere, and the strength of the crusade some (not all) of those preferring the Chelsea Manning name have embarked upon seems to reflect that. Of course, when the issue is not so prominently objectionable in Western and liberal circles, we seem perfectly content invoking our policies and guidelines prohibiting censorship and permitting content that subjects may not like so long as it's appropriately verifiable. There's a reason Wikipedia policy and guidelines exist: so we can aim to make decisions neutrally without reference to our personal opinions. These remarks centered around emotional appeal are irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We do take special care with biographies of living people that we don't with other articles. And believe me, the discussions over sexually explicit content and the Muhammad article were heated and extensive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it comes down to numbers in the end. The Arabic article for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy hides the cartoons, probably under a locally achieved consensus. There are local exceptions to every rule, and there may be some here for the purpose of clarity. Shii (tock) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am actually consistent about giving priority to self-affiliation.. Not long ago i argued Mohammed Farah should be Mo Farah because thats how the BLP self-describes. If we are getting into the business of forcefully choosing peoples names, why should we not be able to forcefeed religion onto others too? Or forcefeed a certain nutritional diet onto others? Its batshit crazy retarded. Pass a Method talk 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No one here is proposing forcing a name on the person who is subject of this article. Bradley Manning is the name used by every source more than two days old, which comprise the vast majority of the sources for the article. Wikipedia follows the sources, not the other way around. Miraculouschaos (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

yes but we should stay up to date as well shouldn't we? Every source prior to 2009 says that michael jackson is alove. Does that mean we should wait until the new sources balance out the old sources before we describe MJ as dead? Absolute nonsense. Pass a Method talk 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a good analogy. I'm unaware of any article titles that describe the living/dead status of the subject, and I would certainly think it inappropriate to edit the Michael Jackson article to refer to him as "the late Michael Jackson" in the section on his childhood.Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Forget the analogies and wikipedia policies for a second. At some point logic should trump all else. Who gets to choose the name of an adult? Should it not be that person him/herself? Its pure logic. Pass a Method talk 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not deciding the subject's name; we're deciding the title of the article. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it exists, the right to decide one's own name for oneself does not imply a right to have other people use that name. And as much as I would love to get into a deep metaphysical discussion on the nature of names, this isn't the right forum. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

His parents named him Bradley. So you think parents should get precedence?Pass a Method talk 04:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You know that is not what was being said, and I think this string is getting very far off topic from "higher order planning". Wikipedia should be neutral, nobody cares who gave who what name. We care about what name is the name that is publicly and popularly associated with the subject of the article in primary and secondary sources. --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 07:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's absurd to expect any massive media denunciation - they've followed every possible policy option themselves. They'd be hard pressed to have a feeding frenzy on us without eating each other right down to the last dorsal fin. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Threats from trolls to editors

Keeping it classy - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What, purpose, exactly are you trying to serve by raising this? One person, who apparently has corresponded with Morwen before, sent Morwen a private email, which she then posted on her public blog with some editorialization. I don't see the relevance, other than to imply that those supporting the move have some malicious intent. -- tariqabjotu 21:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Some people have apparently launched a campaign to harrass editors who argue that we follow Wikipedia policy (such as BLP) in this article and its talk page. This is indeed a very grave example of real life harrassment of an editor. I also note that some editors have resorted to filing false reports against editors who argue that we need to follow MOS:IDENTITY and BLP and who call out transphobic comments (such as trans people being like dogs), in an apparent attempt to silence them, misrepresenting and falsely attributing comments, all while this talk page contains incredible amounts of BLP violations and hate speech, such as comparisons of transgendered people to dogs or insane people. I would not be surprised if the media eventually catched up with everything that has been going on here. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out many times on this page that WP:BLP Does not apply as for the "campaign" accusing others of starting a war here is not productive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been claimed. With no apparent basis other than assertion - I really don't see how WP:BLP doesn't apply to a living bio. And it has repeatedly been found to apply to talk pages, of a living bio or not - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What Knowledge, I'm sure, meant by WP:BLP does not apply was that neither name would violate the BLP policy. Whether that has truly been pointed out (proven) or just claimed is a matter of opinion, of course, but you certainly have done nothing to refute the suggestion. -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been topic-banned yet? -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No of course not, and I notice that you make yet another personal attack on an editor, thereby making it clear that it is you, if anyone, who needs to be topic banned. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tariqabjotu I find it interesing that you did not learn from harassment you previously received when others were outing your real life identity, since you above appear to be negating someone simply because of a content dispute. Dissapointing. Pass a Method talk 11:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, a) I don't remember having heard of this character before, b) the correspondence took a much nastier turn subsequently and c) this was in the context of a very unpleasant doxxing of my userpage a few hours earlier by User:67.40.213.213. (Josh immediately reverted it, but I didn't notice it for over an hour and had to revdel and put in the oversight request myself, which also didn't help!) Morwen (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests, minor

If I understand the sentence correctly, it should be "when the second wife's son from a previous relationship" instead of "when the second wife's son by a previous relationship", right? (emphases by me)
À propos "relationship": "Manning told Lamo in May 2010 that she had developed a relationship with Assange" – to me, that sounds ambiguous (and therefore confuses the reader) and should be either added to ("working relationship"?) or reworded.
There are many other small things that need fixing or tweaking (and I'm not even referring to the can of worms that is the pronouns debacle), so when is this article going to get unlocked again? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done by someone. Space simian (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Styling issue: quote marks in blockquote

Please undo this good-faith edit; per its documentation, and HTML standards, {{blockquote}} does not take quote marks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done by someone. Space simian (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Content

I am somewhat confused as to the reason behind referring to Bradley/Chelsea Manning as she. Manning is still a male as is defined by existing sources, including Wikipedia's own articles, such as Male and Man. Physically, Manning is still producing sperm and has male genitalia. The pronoun he is known to refer to males and referring to Manning as [[She|she] discredits the encyclopedia nature of Wikipedia in an effort to be politically correct. WP:IAR instructs us to ignore all rules in an effort to improve Wikipedia; if that is taken into account, MOS:IDENTITY does not necessarily apply. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. It should be based on fact primarily, before political correctness. In my mind, the discussion on this page has gone into the weeds. Scientifically, Manning is male. When Manning does undergo a physical change, it would then be prudent to change the pronoun usage; until then, it seems that we are pandering to the will of a criminal and public opinion instead of writing fact-based articles. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 17:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an entire Talk Page worth of comments (above) arguing the opposite point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is nice to know I am not alone in saying that Wikipedia should not be taking a WP:POV stance here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Especially since WP:NPOV is one of the three core policies, which gives it more weight than the Manual of Style. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

So basically you want to ignore all rules to promote your opinion that Manning is male. How does that help the encyclopedia? Sounds a recipe for seriously damaging wikipedia to me. Calling Manning him or naming the article Bradley is what is a POV violation, putting the views of certain wikipedia editors first, even to the extreme of ignoring all rules to do so. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talkcontribs 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the comment above, it had a somewhat rude tone to it, but I'm sure I misread it. I'm not talking about my opinion here... I'm simply stating that the scientific definition of male is that it is the gender of a species that produces sperm. I am just confused as to why we would ignore definitions of terms to facilitate someone's self identification, when it comes at the price of fact-based information. As far as his name, we can call him whatever he would like to be called, but for now, no matter how you spin it, he still has male parts and is by definition a man. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 04:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steven. It is common practice to refer to a transgendered woman (which Manning is now revealed to be) using their pronouns of choice, in this case, "she". This is irregardless of any physical attributes, hormones, surgery, etc, as the pronouns refer to the gender identity of the person, not their biological sex. Sue Gardner posted a very nice summary of this yesterday to this page, you can check the logs and read it above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Steven, as someone else said, our society has come to the conclusion that gender has varying levels of identification. We can say that someone is physically male while also saying that they emotionally and mentally identify as a woman. It does not harm Wikipedia to use the subject's preferred identification in our reference of them. Especially in an article like there where her change is well documented because it will be written into the article. Resisting her is the real POV pushing only because there is little harm to the subject by using her identified gender and more harm emotionally by not using it. The real question is what proper name to use for the time being. Various arguments have ranged from similar to yours, to use her legal name, and use the name used by sources currently the most. That's what the above RFC seeks to solve.--v/r - TP 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is statement is incorrect and extremely weak, for two reasons. One, "our society" invokes an ambiguous concept; exactly which society is being referred to is undefined. Moreover, it is my understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to respresent a global perspective, not the perspective of any one society. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of people around the world (of whom Western people only make up 1/8 at best) have not "come to the conclusion that gender ..." Two, American society itself has not accepted on a widespread basis, by any measure. The mere fact that debate exists shows that this statement is incorrect. If you can refute this, do so, although the possibility of being successful is highly unlikely. GrimmC (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Arab world outsizes and outnumbers the western world, and they definitely do not share this view on transgenderism. Whose "society" is Wikipedia supposed to represent? --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely wrong. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. It is the West who are traditionally more censorious of people's gender than Asia or the Middle East. You might be confusing gender identity with sexual identity. 7daysahead (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Iran is not part of the Arab world... StAnselm (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The view that Manning is a criminal who deserves his punishment rather than a hero who committed illegal acts for the greater good is POV. Wikipedia is and ought to be neutral with regard to that contentious issue. MOS:IDENTITY is the policy regarding gender identities of transgender people in Wikipedia articles and was arrived at after much deliberation and debate. You offer no compelling reason to reject it, other than arguing in favor of using biological gender instead of gender identity, which is the exact opposite of Wikipedia's current policy. If you wish to change MOS:IDENTITY, you can petition to change that policy. WP:IAR may tell you to ignore all rules when trying to "improve" Wikipedia, but one person's idea of "improving" things is another person's idea of "ruining" things. WP:IAR only applies to things that are non-controversial, and this is DEFINITELY controversial. --Yetisyny (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he committed a crime. By that alone, he is a criminal. I just believe we as editors on what I feel is a very worthwhile endeavor should remember to be encyclopedic in nature. By that, I believe we should hold true to what terms mean. I understand your point; I respectfully dissent, but I offer my thanks. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 04:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How many times do people have to say it, MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, not policy The first sentence of it says to refer to policies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines are part of the Wikipedia rulebook, and do still have to be followed and respected unless there's a compelling reason to make an exception. Can you come up with a reason nobody's heard before as to why this situation might be different from other MOS:IDENTITY matters that have come up in the past? (I'm willing to bet you can't, just for the record.) Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Referring to her by male pronouns instead of female ones is itself a POV stance. So the only strictly NPOV way to handle it is to respect the individual's right to define themselves, and to accept the fact that whether you understand it or not, gender dysphoria is a real, recognized medical phenomenon with real, recognized symptoms and a real, recognized etiology, whose only known cure is for the person to adopt the new gender identity. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You're exaggerating a bit here Bearcat. I believe in some cases, gender dysphoria can be managed through altered presentation, not a complete switch to a new gender identity, There is a spectrum of dysphoria and of workable solutions to it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There's less difference between "adopt the new gender identity" and "altered presentation" than you seem to think there is. Altering one's gender presentation is a form of adopting the new gender identity; I didn't imply that full surgery was the only option. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

NOT a Good Article

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.

---

•  Not done Question answered, the consensus is to wait until a later date for a reassessment. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove the "Good Article" tag at the top? There are clearly a large number of people that have multiple issues with the article. There is clearly a large amount of debate over what should(n't) be included, what should(n't) be removed, and what is(n't) factually (in)correct. It's clearly not a good article yet. --Lacarids (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• For reference, a recent discussion: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Question

What do we do in other cases where a biographic topic announces a Name change? E.g. Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, Prince/Symbol/formerly known as, Sean Combs/Puff Daddy/P. Diddy. Is a transgender name change different from other types of name change? If so why?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Some here have argued, more or less, exactly that - as soon as a TG person announces a new name, we should rename the article (I disagree). In other cases, like Cat Stevens, etc, I believe it is usually commonname and other WP:AT considerations that apply. You can read the Cat Stevens talk page, to see the arguments made there - there are regular move requests, but they don't succeed. There was a discussion to change the article titling policy with a special exception for TG people, but I've just temporarily closed that discussion by request until this move request happens. This will be precedent-setting I believe, so whether an exception will be made for trans-people in the future to our regular article titling policies (based on BLP/MOS:IDENTITY concerns) is really the matter of debate above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to let the above discussion set a precedence since it wasn't handled correctly by the involved admins and consequently a lot of the discussion and !votes has focused on that, not on policy with regard to transgender persons. Space simian (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that some comments are obviously motivated by strong feelings about Manning, so basing a general policy on how to treat transgender blp titles on this discussion isn't a good idea. Space simian (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the main difference is that the use of a previous name associated with the wrong gender can be perceived as offensive in the latter case. Space simian (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentally, each case does have to be evaluated on its own merits. Cassius Clay → Muhammad Ali, for instance, took place long before Wikipedia ever existed, so by the time we had an opportunity to write an article about him at all he was already far better known as Muhammad Ali and that was therefore the title of choice. Prince also changed to the symbol before we existed, and then changed back to Prince before we ever actually had to worry about how to handle that can of worms either. Diddy, on the other hand, has his article at Sean Combs, since he's known well enough by that name that we can safely avoid the problem of his ever-shifting stage names entirely. Metta World Peace was moved to his current name soon after his name change. At Cat Stevens, however, the issue that ultimately carried the day is that he has almost no public profile whatsoever under his current name. We've also had notable women whose articles got moved right away following the name change that accompanied their marriage or divorce, and other notable women whose articles didn't. But the thing is that each case is different, raising its own issues and its own considerations, and therefore there isn't and can't be a single blanket rule that applies consistently to all possible name changes.

Normally when it comes to a transgender person, however, we have always moved the article as soon as possible. See Chaz Bono and Laura Jane Grace for two other examples where this has come up in the past. (We did admittedly wait for some added sources on Grace, but the decidiing issue in that instance ended up being that there was initially some ambiguity about whether "Grace" was her last name or a second middle name which was still followed by "Gabel". The article still did get moved as soon as we could clarify that properly, and there was never any consensus to accept the position that having been previously better known as "Tom Gabel" meant we should keep her article there any longer than we absolutely had to. Bono, on the other hand, got moved right away — it sparked the same crapstorm we're seeing here, admittedly, but that didn't result in any consensus to overturn.) The core issue is that when it comes to a transgender person, it is fundamentally disrespectful and offensive and transphobic to use anything other than their chosen name — and WP:NPOV forbids us from being any of those things. So in the case of a transgender person, our practice and precedent has always been to move the article right away (or as soon as feasibly possible if there was a quality-of-sourcing reason to hold off), but in different situations there can be different practices. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with what Bearcat says. The issues that I see with this article that is dividing everyone:

• 1. The subject satisfies notability condition prior to the publicizing of the subject's wish;
  2. The subject's wish, if carried out, may cause confusion among the readers;
  3. Additionally, the location of confinement does not lend itself to support the subject's preferred gender;
  4. The subject's wish indicated that all correspondence to the location of confinement should use the original (and the current legal) name.

• Because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, we cannot tell what will happen to Private Manning. We cannot tell whether Private Manning will remain newsworthy after the appeals, etc, are exhausted. Private Manning is definitely more notable prior to the gender/name change announcement. Of course, it's possible for an article to be written completely without gender-based pronouns (it is hard!), but I have mentioned above: There may be confusions among readers. (I'd imagine there's already confusion amongst the readers!). Whether the fact that the Military will not acknowledge Private Manning's preferred name (even after being discharged) matters remains to be seen. I will try not to rehash the discussions in sections above, but following Bearcat's examples, I'd imagine that it wouldn't be a reach to say, "Private Manning fulfilled WP:N prior to the announcement" → "Article should remain at legal name, but with contents written to satisfy MOS and other guidelines". I think this would be a compromise, but unfortunately, I personally don't think many people would take my position. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have come here from the AT talk page. The issue of name changes both for individuals, groups and organisations has been discussed in detail many times on the AT talk page as will be seen if a search is done on Muhammad Ali on those archives. This position is simple. Wikipedia should give more weight to third party reliable sources after the subject of the article announces a name change. This is covered by a sentence in the WP:AT policy in the section "Use commonly recognizable names" (WP:COMMONNAME) "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". This wording also covers the instance were and individual or organisation changes name but it is ignored or an alternative is used in third party reliable sources. Eg The artist formerly known as Prince" was far more common than the symbol that he used. Using this formula of recently published reliable sources, fits in neatly with rest of COMMONNAME which does not follow official names but it does allow for flexibility needed to follow the principles of COMMNNAME when a name change takes place. -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: remove the interpreted self-diagnosis of gender-whatever

The article currently reads: "Manning was raised as a boy, but stated that she had suffered from gender identity disorder since childhood.[3]" Where citation 3 is Manning's recent statement claiming to be 'Chelsea.' While gender disorders may have some medical literature to validate them, there is nothing that objectively validates a diagnosis that Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood. This is for two reasons:

• One, Manning cannot diagnose himself. He is not a doctor or a healthcare professional. His statement was subjective and not objective. Wikipedia should not present his alleged gender identity disorder as an objective fact.
• Two, Manning did not specify any one particular disorder. He said he has felt this way since childhood. Therefore it is only through editorial assumption that Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood.
• Three, his statement was vague. "Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible." 'The way I feel' is not the explicit declaration of "I have had gender identity disorder since I was a little girl/boy."

Unless a reliable source can be presented that objectively verifies this claim (such as a diagnosis from his childhood by a psychiatrist,) this statement should be removed. IFreedom1212 (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. It is verifiable that Manning has made the statement, which has been published in reliable sources. It is, therefore, perfectly acceptable and normal for Wikipedia to republish that assertion. You have no evidence to suggest that Manning's statement was not based upon diagnoses by medical professionals. For you to impute that it isn't is nothing more than unsourced speculation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but to be more accurate, perhaps the sentence should be "Manning was raised as a boy, but stated that she felt and exhibited symptoms of gender identity disorder since childhood.[3]" (change in italics). Otherwise, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a good way of putting it, and I have made that change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But to say that Manning 'felt like he had gender identity disorder' would be a speculation beyond the words in his statement. He was not that explicit in his statement therefore Wikipedia should not be so explicit as to finger out a particular disorder either. IFreedom1212 (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an acceptable editorial paraphrase of the meaning of her statements. There are also reliable sources reporting that Manning has been diagnosed with gender identity disorder. See, for example, [LiveScience, NYTimes, etc. Her self-identification of understanding past symptoms is not subject to debate unless you have access to medical records which disprove them.

These had not been cited before. The wording is more appropriate now that there are verifiable citations to support the statement. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If a child is diagnosed with ADHD at the age of 12, that doesn't mean that child didn't exhibit symptoms of ADHD at the age of 8, or didn't have ADHD at the age of 8. It just means that disorder went undiagnosed. It is Manning's contention that she has suffered from the symptoms of GID since childhood. You literally have no way of disproving that contention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That she was suffering from gender identity disorder is not a new thing; it had been discussed many times before, including by Manning with a counsellor several years ago, the army, and Adrian Lamo. See her chat with Lamo: "im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for 'adjustment disorder' in lieu of 'gender identity disorder'. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, please read MOS:IDENTITY and use the appropriate pronouns. This is not the first time you have been asked to do this. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No. There is plenty of discussion on why male pronouns should be used. Also, PVT Manning and I are both still members of the service and are bound by military regulations regarding how to address soldiers. AR600-20 AR600-8-104 AR600-8-14 etc. I also just disagree on a fundamental level. IFreedom1212 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

She was discharged. Does military code require you still address dishonorably discharged people in that manner? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the military, IFreedom1212. This is an article on Wikipedia, where you are expected to conform yourself in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, customs, and norms. Plenty of editors here are long-serving military, including myself. How about you check your indignation at the door and follow the rules? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I used that ARs as a reference to show that clearly there are different stances on how he should be addressed. The misconstrued application of wikipedia guidelines is not enough to convince me that Bradley Manning is a "she." And I'm not going to call him a 'her' just to make a convicted felon feel good about himself. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Then use "Pvt. Manning". Feel free to point me to the discussion on why we should call Manning "he", but the Wikipedia standard (as well as the standard in most professional and journalistic organizations) is to use the pronoun the person requests. To not use it is insulting at a minimum. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea_Manning#MOS:IDENTITY Not to mention, calling him Bradley goes hand in hand with using male pronouns. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why the page does not call her "Bradley". MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear about this: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions." You do not need a legal name change or surgical procedures to be called by your desired pronoun and name. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a large disagreement about this. I'm not going to start calling him a "she" just because you want me to. When a consensus on the matter is reached and a decision is made then there will be a clearer answer here. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're free to do so if you wish — but you do not get to claim freedom from the possible consequences of that decision, such as the potential of being temporarily or permanently editblocked if you cross the line into uncivil, attacking or disruptive behaviour. Just be aware that there is thin ice on the lake that you're skating on — you're not right on it yet, but you're not as far away from it as you might like to think you are either. So I'd advise caution. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the disagreement here is about the article title. Even if the article is moved back to the title of "Bradley Manning," Wikipedia will still refer to her as female. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well hell, then how do I go about formally suggesting that the page be reverted to the correct male pronouns? If the page is reverted to Bradley then that would only make sense. I thought that discussion was already ongoing but if it's not then I'd be obliged if we could begin that conversation. IFreedom1212 (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

IFreedom1212, go to the "talk page" of our manual of style and propose a change to the section titled Identity. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

50 feet closer to that thin ice. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this seriously going to be discussed again? You've edit warred and been blocked over this matter already and it's time to stop beating the pronoun horse. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of second-guessing or factchecking people's statements about themselves, and has no way of being able to access Manning's private medical records anyway. So her own statements about herself are the only possible source that even exists for us to use — and as SlimVirgin pointed out, this is not even new information about her; it's been fairly well known for a few years already that she has been in treatment for this, and therefore she almost certainly does have a proper medical diagnosis to back her up. Accordingly, her statements have to be taken at face value until such time as a reliable source actually publishes information to the contrary (which is unlikely to ever happen, frankly.) EvergreenFir's wording change was a wise one, but the information itself is simply not up for debate unless and until you can somehow prove that it's false, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As I support using "he" in historical description of her military service, I support saying "Private Manning" in those descriptions as well. If "former Private Manning" is appropriate by military standards now, that would be acceptable for the overall description of her now. Wnt (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Work!

I just want to say you're all doing great work. (I've done very little here, but am proud to be among you.) Keep up the great work!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we will all be looking pretty stupid when this closes if the page is moved back to Bradley, since by now it is becoming clear RS is moving towards using Chelsea. So WP first prematurely switches to CM then after 7 days switches back to BM locking the page with that title for a period when it finaly has become clear it should be moved to CM. *sighs* Space simian (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see some evidence of the RS shift. What makes you say this? StAnselm (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is my impression after looking around for a while. Besides NBC, Huff Post, the Daily Mail, MSNBC and Slate mentioned earlier it looks like the New York Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian (among others) are beginning to use Chelsea. The Christian Science Monitor has a writeup on the subject: "For now, at least, and until instructed otherwise by my editors, I’ll do what that source of all undergraduate wisdom – Wikipedia – has done: Refer to Manning as female." (and if it is any indication, in my local (Scandinavian) duckpond all major news organizations have declared they will use Chelsea). Since it is the decent thing to do it is easy to predict more will follow, no? Space simian (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See, this is the problem. People are making the switch "because Wikipedia does so". Wikipedia should never be the first to spearhead a movement. This whole thing originally began as an admin powertripping problem, and the move was done without proper consensus-gathering, however the masses don't know that. All they know is that the All Mighty Wikipedia has made the switch, and therefore it's the correct thing to do. That very quote that you have posted confirms my suspicions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the same standards as the AP and APA. Other professional groups such as the AMA and AAP affirm their position to support transpeople and affirm their identity, which can be done by using appropriate pronouns. Wikipedia is in no way spearheading this. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I smell a feedback loop. If we change back, then maybe some of the news sources will as well. I think we can strike CSM for this reason. And once again, this is the problem with the initial move - Wikipedia is not meant to be the trendsetter. But in any case, I don't think we can include the NYT either: the article says "Pfc. Bradley E. Manning (who now wants to be known as Chelsea)", while the caption has "Pfc. Bradley Manning, who now uses the name Chelsea". Moreover, as far as I can tell, it doesn't use any pronouns at all to refer to Manning. In other words, it hasn't made the shift. StAnselm (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Anselm makes a good point. For the most part, the sources that refer to Manning primarily use Bradley. Just because they mention the name Chelsea in the article does not mean they have shifted to that name. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That only applies to the NYT article, and the reason I mentioned that is because they are taking a step towards calling Manning Chelsea which was the original point: reliable sources are starting to favor Chelsea. The CSM article also mentions how NYT are reasoning which is why it was interesting aside from the mention of WP as inspiration. Space simian (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Benlisquare. Can you tell me why you think that WP:RS trumps the fact that Manning has changed her name, and that it would be disrespectful and incorrect for us to continue calling her Bradley? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "and that it would be disrespectful and incorrect for us to continue calling her Bradley" - you see, this is the thing I don't understand, the "disrespectful" part. As an encyclopedia, what's more important, being respectful or laying down facts? Why don't we refer to the 14th Dalai Lama as "His Holiness" instead? Using his personal name in the lede is disrespectful, wouldn't you think? Why do we call North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un? If we were to have any respect for him, we would call him "The Brilliant Leader, General Kim Jong-un", since he requests to be called by such a name. The Korean Central News Agency uses that form officially, after all, as does the majority of North Korean print and broadcast media. What's with the double standard? We name Kim Jong-un based on his common English-language name, as used by the majority of English-language reliable sources. It is well established that people call the North Korean leader "Kim Jong-un" in English print media; it is not as established (I'm not saying "not established", I'm saying "not as established") yet that "Chelsea Manning" is the name that the English-language media mostly uses. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source said that someone issued a statement that they're Jewish and have been so since childhood, would we report the fact that they're Jewish in the article? Or would we say, "you're not Jewish unless you can prove you attend synagogue at least once a month"? Would it matter how many reliable sources reported on the Judaism statement? Stating that manning is still named bradley is simply incorrect. AgnosticAphid talk 14:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. You seem to be describing servility or deference, submitting uncritically to the opinions or wishes of others. I'm referring to respect, recognition, the thing we all deserve. It's not being deferential to a person to call them by their chosen name, it's the least I would expect of a civilised person.

To rephrase my question: since it is clear that Manning has changed her name, that this is a fact, what is the good; what would the benefit be in us continuing to call her by her former name? Would it not be both disrespectful and incorrect? I'd like to know whether you think it is true that she has changed her name, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is, we shouldn't care that much about what Manning would like to be named w.r.t. the article title, (except on the pronouns), unless it's a close call in RS. If Manning announces a name change, and 99% of news sources stay with Bradley, even 6 months out, moving the article title would be ridiculous. What annoys me is the categorical approach some editors have, that suggests as soon as X announces Y, we MUST change the title IMMEDIATELY, irregardless of what sources do, or we are guilty of massive transphobia. I think it's more nuanced than that, and we need to look at what sources do, preferencing sources which appear after the announced name change. Now, most COMMONNAME arguments come down strongly on one side or another (i.e. at least an order of magnitude of difference), but there are some which are closer calls - when it is a closer call like that, then of course we should consider the subject's preference. The move from Cote d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast hinged in this question - do we follow the subject's preference, when COMMONNAME is fairly close, or do we go for the MOST common? Ultimately, it was decided to go with most common (a decision I disagreed with) -but if you're so concerned with respect, aren't you concerned with calling a country of several million people the official name of the country, when they have written letter after letter to governments and media to ask them to refer to them as Cote d'Ivoire?

Finally, you use the phrase "call her by her former name" - but we mostly avoid this issue, as we don't *call* her Bradley anywhere in the article as far as I know (nor is there a plan to) - we call her Manning or "she". Luckily, she didn't change her last name, as that would have rendered things even more confusing. The article title IS NOT the NAME of the person, and by titling an article X we ARE NOT claiming this person is "named" X. This is long-standing practice, and we shouldn't change it just for this case. Finally, I think we should all recognize WHY this is being so heavily debated - the reason is quite simple: "COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES" - there are many people in the wiki who have had a net total of 5 articles written about them, ever. But Manning is different - Manning has been the subject of multiple, ongoing, front-page media coverage for SEVERAL YEARS, and is one of the more recognizeable news personalities of the past few years. As such, the preponderance of sources that refer to her as Bradley (and that, still, seem to continue to do so) weighs heavily in favor of making the title something a user will quickly and easily recognize, while accepting that this may slightly hurt the feelings of Manning herself. C'est la vie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Respect is not a goal here, Anthony; an encyclopedia is not a AA meeting or a therapy session. While we should not ever intentionally offend, sometimes offense is a byproduct of reporting the facts honestly, as you found out in the Muhammad image debate. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a cue from actual journalists. From CNN;

CNN's policy is to reference Manning with masculine pronouns since he has not yet taken any steps toward gender transition through surgery or hormone replacement therapy.

Tarc (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Muhammad images debate I was, as you have been told, more than willing to create "necessary" offense. In fact, my preferred version of Muhammad would have without any doubt caused more offense than the present version. Because I actually believe in what you said here: sometimes offense is a byproduct of reporting the facts honestly. You've never understood my position, evidenced by the fact that you think you need to remind me of that principle.

I don't know why you're bringing up masculine pronouns. I'm talking to User:Benlisquare about what we call Manning, the proper noun. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement about the Muhammad case is not even remotely true, and we can look back on the reams and reams of text within those discussions where you argued to remove most of the images from the present article if you like. Not sure what you're trying to get away with here. As for pronouns, it is all part of the same topic; "he" and "Bradley" are the correct choices, until he legally and medically changes his current situation. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Here I describe my preferred image arrangement. The two images in the Western reception section were both more offensive than all the images in the current article combined. Take this somewhere else if you want to continue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question: Whatever the majority of English-language reliable sources use. At the moment, things are unstable due to sudden events, but once things start to settle down, we will eventually find out whether the masses have accepted "Chelsea" as the name, or if "Bradley" is still used by the majority. This is for the future, however, and at this stage, it would be a better idea in my opinion to maintain the status quo (the name previously used, Bradley) until a firm, obvious result between Chelsea/Bradley is found ("don't rock the boat"). Though some might disagree, Wikipedia has the power to sway public opinion, and this is partially why this discussion has become so contentious. Article titles based on WP:COMMONNAME are more easily calculated, and we have a definite mathematical/quantitative figure to justify the title by; it is much more difficult to "calculate" qualitative or abstract things such as "what the subject's wishes are", which is much less definitive and there is no standard to compare by, so that a fair judgment can be made. Not that long ago, the subject's wishes happened to be "Breanna", and who's to say that it won't change again? Such abstract concepts such as the "subject's will" are unpredictable, and this is why I prefer justifying things based on more solid, numbered concepts, that can be backed up with logic, not feelings. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

First of all, the article is excellent and I want to commend everyone who has worked on it so far. I wanted to make a point here, in appeal to those center- or right-leaning users who find the article's gender renaming a bit "revisionist", "euphemistic" or "politically correct". The moment some men in a hierarchy decided that Jorge Mario Bergoglio would become leader of their Church and change his name and identity, our Wikipedia article for Jorge Mario Bergoglio was changed to Pope Francis. No debates, no controversy, no mention that non-Catholics still think he's just Jorge, because the title of Pope and the name of Francis is what he and his "circle" had decided he would be. It should be no different for Manning, and I say this as someone who usually frowns on excessive PC language or behavior. As for pronouns, they simply distinguish gender, and if the article's namesake explicitly wishes to identify as the other gender, that should certainly become part of our accommodation just as with anything else. – Crumpled Fire (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know why these poor comparisons keep coming up. Is there a misunderstanding of the COMMONNAME argument? Pope Francis was almost exclusively known as such in reliable sources, immediately upon election. There was no mention that non-Catholics still think he's just Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but non-Catholics don't call him that; to pretty much everyone in the world (except for, perhaps, his close circle of friends and acquaintances), he was known as Pope Francis. This is not the case here, as, days later, Manning is still being referred to as "Bradley Manning". -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is another example of using the name appropriate for a given point in history. The body of the article starts off using "Bergoglio", then "Archbishop Bergoglio", then "Cardinal Bergoglio", then "Pope Francis", which is also what the lead paragraph uses (except for an initial bare "Francis" which is probably shrapnel from a long-festering edit war about whether to use titles of nobility in article naming...) Wnt (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that just means that the journalists don't know their own standards. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice how that NY times article carefully balances: "Pfc. Bradley E. Manning (who now wants to be known as Chelsea)" - This both recognizes the desired new name, while simultaneously using the more recognizeable name for the reader's sake. There's a huge difference between a wikipedia article title and usage in running text, and an even bigger difference between running text of a NY times article vs. what you would call Chelsea to her face. Everyone is equating these three things as if they're all exactly equal, but they're not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles about popes are governed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), which would override WP:COMMONNAME even if it were true that the Pope is best known to non-Catholics as Mr Bergoglio. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Name

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

---

• Please put your opinion in the move discussion at the top of the page thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is very well possible that Bradley is considering a name (and sex) change. But should we follow suit? Article names normally follow the name that is most known per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. For instance Cat Stevens is not 'Yusuf Islam'. The name change isn't even official yet. So I suggest we move the tittle back to Bradley Manning.--Wester (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Come on now people

What a bunch of nonsense. So, a man simply walks up, announces that, from now on, he wants to be addressed as a woman, and his name is now such and such. Seriously, is that how someone changes their gender? What about their citizenship? Marital status? Has everyone here been so cowed by BS terms like "transphobia" that we lost our marbles? WeldNeck (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Helpful input from Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales has commented on the case being discussed on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Transphobia_on_Wikipedia (permanent), stating that "I support the move and change" (to Chelsea Manning), that "We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. I consider that a BLP issue of some seriousness" and that "The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia." Josh Gorand (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

...and? Are you saying that we should follow his holiness' wishes? --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner have both recommended the current title, and cited good reasons for that. It seems clear there isn't a snowball's chance for this article being moved back. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Jimbo Wales guy? Do I need to know him? Is he a relevant person? Why is his opinion more important than others'? I bet he doesn't even bench press.
Who is this Sue Gardner lady? Do I need to know her? Is she a relevant person? Why is her opinion more important than others'? I bet she doesn't even bench press.
Why do I need to be concerned about these two people so much? Why are you repeatedly telling me that these people are so important? --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh Gorand has been told at least a half-dozen times now that appeal to authority (and WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem in particular) are not valid arguments to deploy in a debate, esp a contentious one. Mr Wales' and Ms. Gardner's opinions carry no more and no less weight than any of our own. Continuing to bring up a false assertion that their opinions must be weighted more when we clearly do not do such a thing could at some point be considered tendentious editing. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have partially quoted Jimbo with this addition to an essay "The overwhelming majority of sources in 2006 described Pluto as a planet. The majority of sources called Victoria Beckham by her maiden name Victoria Adams at the time of her marriage. The majority of sources described East Timor as part of Indonesia in 2002. The point is that Wikipedia content should be updated.Pass a Method talk 12:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is his opinion; within this discussion, we should accept his opinion. I am not saying that we should ignore what Jimbo has to say. We should take his points into account, but with equal weight to everyone else's opinion. My point is that comments such as "It seems clear there isn't a snowball's chance for this article being moved back" are counterproductive. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

His opinion should account no more or less than anyone else's. He is just one editor, with access to the same policies and guidelines we have (most drafted completely independent of him). And, frankly, I read his comment as more of a "it's going to happen eventually, so what's done and is done" type of remark. I'm curious how he would have felt had the move request occurred with the article being at Bradley Manning. -- tariqabjotu 12:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is in principle worth just as much as anyone else's, but in practice it's worth more because the quality of his arguments is usually a lot higher compared to that of a random editor. That's why a notification here that Jimbo has made a comment on this issue is worthwhile. It's quite similar to many physicists wanting to read any new article by Hawking, just because the author is Hawking, while they would not have done so if the author had been John Doe and the article title had been the same. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We all have four legs around here, I'm afraid. Either Jimbo is the hands-on chief from ~2005 or he's the benevolent symbolic leader of 2013. You can't pick and choose which Jimbo Era to visit like you're Doctor Who in his TARDIS. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is on the level of Newyorkbrad's. Someone we generally respect as a long standing community member who is often insightful and has more than once moved the project in a direction. However, we don't treat Jimbo as the final say in all things for two reasons: 1) Because this is a community project owned by no-one except the collective editors who donated their material under a certain license, and 2) Because Jimbo himself chose and instructed the community not to treat him as such.--v/r - TP 13:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote above that Wales and Gardner, who are knowledgable editors at this project, both have recommended that we use the current title, Jimbo citing BLP, Gardner arguing very convincingly citing MOS:IDENTITY. The point was to make readers of this talk page aware of a relevant discussion of the issue at hand where Jimbo and others offered valuable comments. Then we immediately get comments like "Who is this Jimbo Wales guy?" and "Are you saying that we should follow his holiness' wishes?" and even that their opinions on the issue "are not valid arguments" (sic!) and "I bet he doesn't even bench press", which look to me like a string of personal attacks on Jimbo (and Gardner). They are entitled to weigh in like everyone else, especially as they cite good rationales for their opinions. The snowball comment didn't refer to either of them, but rather to the fact that so many users agree BLP is the central issue at hand, and that most users who cite policy-based arguments oppose moving this article anywhere and support the current name. --Josh Gorand (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that, while many users quite understandably see this as a separate issue to a name change upon marriage, or renaming the Millennium Stadium or whatever else covered by WP:COMMONNAME, the situation is that policy does not. You can say "I see this as a BLP issue", but there's nothing in BLP that suggests not updating an article name in such cases is a violation. You can say MOS:IDENTITY suggests that the article title should reflect the subject's wishes, but it doesn't say it outright. This case sheds light on that omission, and it's a positive thing that it has done so. So instead of saying the article should be at Chelsea Manning because of implications and interpretations and what many people would consider to be "right", get the policy clarified so it reflects the views of these senior members and directly and clearly explains what is "right" in such cases. U-Mos (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to be aware that this is not the first time you have made similar comments, and given that in the past you have repeatedly made appeal to authority arguments, other people are well within their rights to suspect that you're trying to make another similar point. If your behaviour wasn't like it was in the past, perhaps you wouldn't have gotten such replies. We are often told to assume good faith, but I have seen the same authority-pandering rhetoric repeated at least fifteen times from you; would you really think that I'd still be able to treat you in a completely different manner? It's kind of like The boy who cried wolf. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor is perfectly entitled to put the views of others before us here, in debate. It is not some fraudulent rhetorical practice - it is perfectly legitimate and an essential part of most good debate. You may be confusing the editor's behaviour with the logical fallacy, appeal to authority. I don't see Josh appealing to authority there, at all.

Do not attack editors for engaging in on-topic free speech on an article talk page. If I see you tell people to shut up on an article talk page, ever again, I'll be asking for you to be indefinitely topic banned from article talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You are getting way out of line, mate. You have no reason to accuse me of "telling people to shut up", or threaten me with punitive action when I have done nothing wrong. You're essentially popping down into a discussion half-way through its progress (this discussion has been going on for many days now), ignoring everything that has occurred prior, and are making assumptions based on what you think is going on. This user has had a long history within this discussion of making inappropriate comments; yes, users are expected to assume good faith, but this has gone on over and over, and I honestly have little remaining patience. This particular instance might not have been the case, but it has happened in the past, which contributes to my earlier misjudgment. This user has made comments on this talk page, at ANI, at WT:MOS, on the German Wikipedia, and many other places of the provocative nature, linking Sue Gardner's position within the WMF to some kind of victory. Comments along the lines of "Sue Gardner agrees with me, why are we still discussing this? This debate is over!" are provocative in nature, and have appeared multiple times.

Regarding Josh's statement "The snowball comment didn't refer to either of them", his original snowball comment wasn't specific or clear to begin with. He has gone "oh, but that wasn't what I meant! I honestly meant ____ instead!", which happens all the time and is somewhat understandable, but that doesn't mean that I was wrong to have interpreted that sentence in a different way. His clarification came after his original statement. To me, it sounded like he was making another similar comment like the ones he made before. In hindsight, he should have made his words more clear. Surely you're not going to say that this is a crime?

Not to mention, my patience for this user has already been eroded by the various personal attacks this person has made earlier as well (everybody who does not agree with his opinion is "transphobic"). This user is unable to accept that people may have different viewpoints, and since that I have a different upbringing to this user, I cannot share his exact viewpoint, based on how I've grown up, what my local societal environment is like, and so forth. That's not to say that I cannot accept his point of view - I accept that he feels strongly for transgender issues. Everybody here has different points of view, and this is why we are discussing right now. I have not made any comments specifically shaming the points that pro-transgender people make. What I cannot accept is that he is adamantly unwilling to accept that there are people out there who do not match his walled garden view of the world.

Ignoring the "transphobe" personal attacks for now, since this isn't central to what we are supposed to be discussing (and has already been discussed to death; see ANI and this talk page's archives), you cannot deny that this user has made numerous appeal to authority arguments in the past; if you bother to look down the rabbit hole, you will find them. Nowhere have I ever told anyone to "shut up", or driven people away to stop them from sharing their ideas. The most that I have done is express my dissatisfaction for the comments of some of the people here, that I find unnecessary. You should not be threatening me when you aren't making heads and tails of what has been going on for the past few days, and understanding how other editors actually feel. Please cease your confrontational attitude. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:benlisquare has a long history of making personal attacks and causing disruption on this page. His recent personal attacks against Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner are completely unacceptable. The warning was completely justified. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh Gorand, I do not recommend responding to accusations of personal attacks by making further accusations of personal attacks. That just bogs us down in battlegrounding. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't discuss other editors' motives on this talk page. As far as I've seen, Josh has stopped. Could you please do the same? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)

I'm fine with anything. It's just that your threat kind of ticked me off a little. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it was inappropriate, and I apologise. Also, I haven't read all of the above, but will do so before I resume barking orders. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo is just another editor for this discussion; however, his opinion is highly relevant because his volunteer job with Wikipedia involves a whole lot of dealing specifically with BLP issues, i.e. the famous people he meets. So he actually knows a lot more about, and has a lot more experience in, these issues than a random editor would. The same applies to Sue Gardner. Everyone here has four legs, but some have run a lot more marathons on them - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Four legs good, two legs better.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

His opinion means nothing alone, we go by something called a consensus here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but has he legally changed his name? Has he undergone reassignment surgery? Could he (or anyone) identify as Sparkle Night, the magical Unicorn from Grey Gully and their wikipedia article change according? WeldNeck (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Your comment comparing the article subject to a unicorn constitutes a violation of the WP:BLP policy. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS: Informing the reader

Despite the MOS guideline, or in this case because of the guideline, the he/she usage is certainly going to confuse a fair number of readers coming to this article. Perhaps that might change over time, certainly if Chelsea becomes the vernacular instead of Bradley. I removed the gender pronouns from the top,of the article until the part where It states Manning's "coming out". Would it be appropriate to add a reference to the MOS to let the reader know why "she" is being used instead of "he" instead of just leaving some of them scratching their heads?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an explanation would be very helpful. It would explain the topic so as to further public understanding. We discussed this previously (you might want to dig around in the archive), but some editors expressed concern that it would draw undue attention to the subject's gender identity as if to make her seem non-normal. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, I think there is no need to extend the MOS for this case. Although discussion of changing the MOS should take place on the MOS talk page. —me_and 15:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought

If reliable sources report on Manning in a way that is seemingly or actually transphobic, should we do the same? CaseyPenk (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise about banging on about this, but Wikipedia:COMMONNAME does say this: "[Wikipedia] prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. 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." Since the majority of reliable sources stick with "Bradley" (for instance the BBC does so), then we are obliged to do so too. I note with, as far as I can see, Wikipedia:MOS doesn't seem to say anything on the matter. It should also be noted that Wikipedia:COMMONNAME derives from Wikipedia:TITLE. which describes itself as a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:MOS is described as a "guideline", so therefore, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME trumps Wikipedia:MOS twice - Wikipedia:MOS doesn't discuss article titles at all, whilst Wikipedia:COMMONNAME does, and secondly, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is an official policy, whilst Wikipedia:MOS is not, so Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is therefore more important, more authoritative than, and deserves more weight than, Wikipedia:MOS --The Historian (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is at the crux of the debate. Some have said (notably Jimbo), that there is a systemic bias issue at play here. What's not clear to me is, should Wikipedia document and represent such systemic bias, or take a normative stance against it? This isn't easy, and requires editorial judgement (again, Jimbo made this claim) - tackling systemic bias is very hard, especially for an encyclopedia presumably written only on the basis of sources. Nonetheless, we aren't here to right great wrongs. If wikipedia was written in the 1910s, we would probably have had categories for "Negro writers" and so on - even if those creating the 1910s wikipedia felt that those words were archaic (see http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=negro+writer&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=). There's a continuum between "done in a way that addresses systemic bias", "progressive", and "activist". Where should we be, and what goes too far? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

And my point is that since WP:COMMONNAME trumps the MOS, and since WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we use the more recognisable name (Bradley, in this case), this article MUST be moved to Bradley Manning. --The Historian (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is also more notable for having the name Bradley. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, "notable for" means "has an encyclopedia article because". Manning is notable for being a convicted criminal who leaked classified military documents while serving in the US military; Manning is notable while, not "for", having the name Bradley, and "while" has no bearing on anything one way or the other. Dead people were notable "while" they were alive, but that doesn't mean we don't update their articles to reflect the fact that they're not alive anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

COMMONNAME has an allowance for legitimate exceptions written write into it. COMMONNAME also directly contains guidance on what to do in a name change situation; that guidance says that you base the move decision on sources written after the name change was announced, and many sources are shifting over. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently transphobic can be used as stigmatization label even for people who just disagree with postmodernist perceptions of gender, indeed, those who lean more for biological determinism of the sexes. Transphobia seems pretty vague, varying from pure hatred towards transgender people from just preferring to use Bradley in this article. What you suggest, some form of moral policing I suppose, is utterly wrong. Who would determine what reliable sources are reporting in a way seemingly transphobic? Also, I believe there is a previous administrative action case of Wikipedians describing fellow editors asIslamophobic, because it's very close to a personal attack (especially as some people felt it concerns commenting another editor's mental state, an accusation of a medical phobia). In any case, it's not very good for the community that people are calling other editors -phobic or the other way "politically correct liberals". I'm sure disagreements can be solved without resorting to such self-righteous means. -Pudeo' 21:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria is a real, recognized thing with real documented symptoms (an internal gender identity that doesn't match the physical sex of the body), real documented causes (a brain whose physical structures really do match those of the internal gender identity and not those of the body), and a real documented course of treatment (gender transition). It's not a "postmodernist perception"; it's a real, honest-to-gawd medical condition that actually exists, and is very well documented in medical literature. I don't even agree with every word I've ever seen written about gender either, but the basic existence of gender dysphoria is not a matter for debate. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The basic existence of gender dysphoria is a matter for debate just like evolution and gravity are matters for debate. To imply certanty and certan agreement, especially in sociological issues, is intellectually dishonest.CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you're free to disagree with its existence if you want; you can even write an article on alternative theories of gender dysphoria if you want. But as long as the condition is recognized as legitimate by established medical science and verifiable in published medical literature, a biography of an individual person is not the place to wage a battle on whether medical science is right or wrong about the existence of the condition. Sure, there's a place to debate it — an article about a specific person who has been diagnosed with it is not that place. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to use that simile? Both evolution and gravity are accepted as accurate models of the real world, with small quibbles over details that are insignificant compared to the root question of "Does x exist?" Unless I'm misreading something, your first sentence implies that there is no doubt on the existence of gender dysphoria in the mainstream psychological/physiological community but rather minor quibbles over details that do not invalidate the existence of GD, much as there is no doubt on the process of evolution in the mainstream biological community, nor doubt on the veracity of our models of gravity among physicists, which I'm thinking is not the argument you were seeking. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is classified as a disorder in the DSM-V. That means there is broadly-accepted consensus in the relevant medical community that the disorder exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh I know; I agree fully with you. I'm pointing out that CombatWombat42 seems to be trying to argue against it, but is using a simile that undermines his position in the process. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What should have be done

Lock the article as it was, place a tag saying that the content might be out of date, and wait until everything's cleared up. It's not like there was really anything going on.

Hell, you can still revert and do it. Fix what was broken. --Niemti (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But that's also for future instances of things like that.--Niemti (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way (admins)

Unrelated discussion of another article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Btw, speaking of Wikipedia creating 'reality': the ridiculous article title "Civil war in Iraq" still remains, 5 years later after the supposed "civil war" that never was - despite the current consensus, and the fact basically nobody's championing the "civil war" idiocy outside Wikipedia for a long time. Obviously, this was (and is, even as now it's different) the sectarian violence in Iraq (religion-motivated terrorism by extremist Sunni insurgent groups and revenge attacks by Shiite vigilante gangs, often doubling as also insurgents). Could someone of the admins reading it fix it, please? Also, the whole article has to be rewritten to reflect reality of what it really was (the general insurgency article is of course Iraqi insurgency). --Niemti (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC) And what has that got to do with this article? Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning was leaking related materials and the article also the editors who didn't wait for things to be cleared up (now it's long clear there was no "civil war" after all). --Niemti (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC related to unprofessional conduct

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.

---

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

• Guidelines:

1. WP:GOODFAITH
2. WP:ETIQ
3. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

• Policies:

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND

I am someone who normally supports the open and free discussion of articles. Usually, editors are able to keep themselves composed, make the discussions relevant to the subject of the article, and are able to improve it. That notwithstanding, very little of the discussion here is on Manning. A lot of the talk page discussion are 40+ users attacking each other on if they're transphobic or trolls. I'm a supporter of transsexual rights; but it's very counter intuitive for people to go as far as to accuse someone of hating transsexual people just because they have different opinions, even if they are against transexuals rights or vice versa. Besides that, a lot of people on both sides of the issues have used baiting and personal attacks which is especially problematic. This incivility needs to stop. Jimbo Wales and Sue Gardner have not discouraged both sides from arguing against each other when they had the chance to. The only threads that have not been affected by this unprofessionalism are the main survey and edit requests. Even a thread I made to try to combat this went into that type of territory and another one was ignored. Therefore, we need to discuss having the other sections not related to edit requests and the main survey archived so everyone can stop attacking each other. Discussion is a privilege; not a right and it can be removed when the community has been showed to not be deserving of it. --Thebirdlover (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• This should be speedily closed, there have already been unprofessional conduct discussions here which are now closed and on the admin board which are ongoing no need to start another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment I don't think this is an accepted use of the RfC process. RfCs (unless they are RfCs on individual users' conduct) are supposed to be about article content, which this is not about. I have no comment on the better avenue for addressing the issue you want addressed, but I will say any unmoderated discussion similar to this (with or without the RfC template) will just result in more of the problem -- mudslinging -- that you feel has consumed this talk page. -- tariqabjotu 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: If there are individuals who need reminders about NPA, GF, CIVIL, etc., then such reminders ought to be posted on their talk pages. But this RfC is off-topic in that it seems to invite comments about individual editors. There is already a peacedove reminder at the top of this page and a RfC here, that can only restate the obvious, that more etiquettue is needed, won't help. I suggest that Thebirdlover remove the RfC template and hat this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment — It seems impossible to rein in combativeness when it comes to controversial subjects. Even the tone of this proposal to reduce combativeness is somewhat combative itself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Closure of proposed move

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.

---

There are 277 hits for "support" and 142 for "oppose" on this talk page. It will take a long time to close this. Is it really that important, and when will this be decided? Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 01:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It'll be closed on Thursday. Patience, young grasshopper. (Also, the survey is actually about 150-115 support:oppose at the moment.) -- tariqabjotu 01:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

At the very best, this will end with "no consensus" and no move, and the article stays at the current title. Especially as the rationales cited by the opposing side are much more convincing and policy based, whereas the "support" comments include all sorts of misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy, about transgendered people and insults (like comparisons to dogs or Minnie Mouse or broomsticks), and also because so many users agree this is a very serious BLP issue and because we have a rather explicit policy (that is to be interpreted according to its spirit, not letter, as pointed out by many) and established practice in regard to transgendered people. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's just all be thankful you're not in a position to determine consensus.--v/r - TP 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's utterly useless to speculate on the outcome of this move discussion, especially when combined with one's (subjective) impression which side's reasoning is considered "convincing and policy based" or how the current (non-)consensus might look like. We should just wait and see how the closing admins decide.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It would take some mighty strong arguments and some mighty weak ones on the other side to overcome a -35 there, and I don't really see that. Again, MOS:IDENTITY is not policy, and your piping it into text calling it such, i.e. the [[MOS:IDENTITY|explicit policy]] bit above, is quite a bald-faced misrepresentation. A guide that is superseded by policy. There is also the notion that a handful of admins deciding for themselves what to name the article should never have been done, that it should have remained at "Bradley Manning", then have the move discussion to see if there is support to move it to "Chelsea". There is both a policy vs. guideline argument and a process-was-violated argument that is far too much for a -35 deficit to overcome. To expand on the latter, keep in mind that the "support" votes aren't all a vote FOR "Bradley manning", some...probably quite a few... are simply in favor of status quo ante bellum. (yes, the bellum inclusion is intentional) Tarc (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing irritates me more than editors who insist on misrepresenting guidelines as policies to support their own views. Generally the guideline may be a good idea, but in this instance, when an individual is clearly overwhelmingly well-known as a man and under his male name, it cannot possibly be claimed to supersede all other guidelines and policies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I again feel the need to strongly reiterate what others have said so as to counteract any misperceptions: MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline. Guidelines are unequivocally NOT policies, and it is absolutely inaccurate to refer to guidelines as such. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP is policy however, and as explained throughly by others above, it takes precedence. MOS:IDENTITY is helpful in how the general principles contained in BLP are to be interpreted in this specific case. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"BLP" is not a magic token that ceases all opposing discussion immediately, though. I appreciate the fact that you think you are right, but I feel I am right as well. That's why discussions such as the move request are closed by neutral parties who determine where the consensus lies, if the consensus is backed by policy, and what the raw numbers are. sit back, relax, and we'll see what happens. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Chelsea Manning media coverage controversy

Note to interested editors that a new related article Chelsea Manning media coverage controversy has been just created. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit disturbing that Wikipedia made the news in regards to this. Wikipedia should never be praised for guiding public debate in any possible manner. †TE†Talk 15:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I also made the news when I made 7/7. I don't remember anyone condemning that. Morwen (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel that comment comes across as "Ya'all are just jealous."--v/r - TP 17:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain I literally have no idea to what you refer. Do you want a cookie? †TE†Talk 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia being quick on the uptake, such as in its coverage of 7/7, is a good thing. Sometimes the speed of Wikipedia's coverage of a topic gets it media attention. That doesn't stop it being a good thing. And if you're offering cookies, mine's orange choc-chip. —me_and 16:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I still have no idea what y'all are talking about with this 7\7 stuff. Wikipedia started referencing it as 7/7, getting ahead of the media? Or Wikipedia took the bold step of calling it a terrorist attack when the media was uncertain? If not one of these two then it has zero relevance to this discussion. †TE†Talk 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The reference to 7/7 is that Morwen was the person who started that article and she made the news for being the person to start that article. She is making that point that this is no different to her having made the news for being the person to move this article to the correct title. Her contributions show that she has started and moved many other articles and, to my knowledge, has not made the news about any of them. The point is that Wikipedia and Wikipedians cannot choose which editorial actions on Wikipedia will put Wikipedia in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So we've established that some wikipedians may enjoy making the news (even boastfully), but what does that have to do with being somewhat ahead of the news in pronoun usage of Manning? †TE†Talk 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved the page to Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage. This avoids the contentious label of "controversy" and clarifies the scope; the article is about the gender identity topic and not Chelsea as a whole. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been proposed that the Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage article be merged into this one (the main Chelsea Manning article). If you have any views on this, please comment in the discussion at Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage#Merge with Chelsea Manning article rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reconsidering applicability of WP:BLP

Bob K31416 pointed this out above; I believe it deserves its own section as it's an important topic in and of itself.

According to Manning's lawyer in a CBS News article:

"There's a realization that most people know her as Bradley," Coombs said. "Chelsea is a realist and understands."

That, to me and to Bob K31416, seems to indicate that referring to Chelsea as Bradley is not causing harm; Chelsea understands that people may use multiple names. There's not indication that using the word "Bradley" would cause distress or harm. In other words, it does not appear to be a violation of WP:BLP. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

How so? There's been no indication since the name change was announced that using Bradley was causing any harm. It would be quite the assumption to assume that Chelsea and her lawyer are offended by Bradley but are not saying so (in other words, to imagine there must be some "secret" harm being done that we do not know about). CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider BLP, WP:IDENTITY and all policies accordingly to THE common sense. LGBT-fundamentalism regarding this article's name is a very blatant case of Disruption. All policies should be aimed at preventing disruption. Lucky we are that Mr. Manning didn't wish to be renamed "Stinkie Pinky Piggie". Cause in that case the SJWs would probably try justifying such an article name with BLP as well) Ukrained2012 (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ukrained2012, I don't think this situation is analogous to someone taking an absurd name such as the one you listed. I think Chelsea has a genuine desire to be known by this name for deeply personal reasons; I don't think it's a publicity stunt or a request for a reality TV show. I think it's a reflection of Chelsea's identity. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what new name a trans* person chooses. As long as there is no reason to doubt that they are sincere in wanting to be known by the new name it is entirely irrelevant what we think of it. Anything else would be us making a value judgement about their name, which is undeniably contrary to Wikipedia policy. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard, Did you ever consider that your WP:BLP argument of distress and harm is a stretch, especially the notion that the article name had to be immediately changed to Chelsea Manning on Aug 22 because of concern for the harm it would do to Manning? Please note that Manning's website at http://www.bradleymanning.org/ only changed it's name yesterday Aug 26 from the Bradley Manning Support Network to the Private Manning Support Network. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bob K31416 - It was obviously a stretch. It was more of a lame excuse for misusing admin powers rather than a legitimate justification. If the WP:BLP argument was clear, the requested move above wouldn't be showing so much support for the name "Bradley". NickCT (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:BLP has nothing to do with distress or desire (otherwise all articles with negative content would be violations), but with sourcing, and legal liability from libel etc (See BLPPROD reasoning etc). This clearly does not qualify as such. It may be that we should be receptive to Manning's wishes on a personal level (as fellow humans). It may be that the article should be (or will be) renamed, but if it is not renamed, it is not a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

1/sqrt(2)(|Chelsea> + |Bradley>). Count Iblis (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The cabal will determine whether this person is Bradley or Chelsea

In relation to the requested move above.

Quick timeline of events surrounding the title of this article

• 08:18 to 09:31, 22 August 2013‎ - Couple of folks edit war the title of this article, moving the article from Bradley to Chelsae and vice versa. (see [2], [3],[4])
• 09:31, 22 August 2013 - User:David Gerard protects the page from non-admin moving, trying to lock the name down as "Chelsea". (see [5])
• 10:32, 22 August 2013‎ - Admin User:Tariqabjotu moves the page back to Bradley, and says in the edit summary that the move to Chelsea was undiscussed. (see [6])
• 10:34, 22 August 2013‎ - User:David Gerard undoes the move to Bradley, citing WP:BLP concerns and later claiming that sufficient consensus for the move to Chelsea existed on this version of the talkpage. (see [7])
• 15:29, 22 August 2013 - User:CaseyPenk files a requested move back to Bradley
• 21:14, 22 August 2013 - User:BD2412 agrees to "shepherd" the requested move back to Bradley
• 04:05, 23 August 2013 - User:Sue Gardner registers her support for keeping the name Chelsea in the requested move.
• 17:06, 23 August 2013 - User:Jimbo Wales registers his support for keeping the name Chelsea on his talkpage.
• Currently - A clear majority of editors weighing into the requested move support the use of the name "Bradley", which, if anything, demonstrates there never was consensus for the move to "Chelsea" in the first place. The requested move will likely end on Thursday with a clear majority supporting "Bradley".
• The future - The admins "shepherding" the requested move will find that despite the clear majority supporting "Bradley", there is not sufficient consensus for a move back. And so, "Chelsea", the name which shouldn't have been moved to in the first place, will remain in place.
• Conclusion - If you're an admin, and you want to push your POV in an edit war over an article's title, just put move protection on the page after it's moved to the title you like. You can then insist that folks demonstrate consensus for the name you don't want, and when it can't be shown that a overwhelming majority supports the other position, you can insist on keeping your name.

On Thursday, Wikipedia will very likely be a little bit less about consensus building and a little bit more about battle grounding. Hopefully, the admins "shepherding" this will have the wisdom not to wuss out by declaring "no consensus" and maintaining a name supported by a few high visibility users. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, I think you're taking a short-sighted view. Once the RM is complete, an Arbcom case will likely be filed (perhaps by me) to discuss the admin actions taken on this article (not the merits of the move nor the merits of the close, however [good luck to the closer, I have full faith]). Haven't you noticed that not a single Arb has gotten involved in this issue (except Risker from an uninvolved admin position). Everyone sees Arbcom on the horizon. But it's premature to file a case until this is wrapped up.--v/r - TP 17:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I very strongly support an Arbcom case. The offenses have, in my view, been egregious and an offense to Wikipedia policy. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since my name has been raised here, I will briefly respond to NickCT that prognosticating about the outcome of this process is of no value one way or another to the discussion on the merits. Let me be clear, when a volunteer to close this discussion was requested on the Administrator's Noticeboard, I stepped up precisely because I have closed contentious discussions before (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)), and because I have no interest in the outcome of the discussion. As you can see, I have never even edited this article (which is particularly significant coming from me, as I have edited over 300,000 different Wikipedia pages). I have no predispositions as to a "correct" outcome, and if I did I would not let them interfere with a disinterested and dispassionate determination of policy and consensus. I have the same confidence in the other closing admins on the panel, who have also worked on contentious matters before. Finally, it seems odd to attribute anything to a cabal when an admin, User:Tariqabjotu, reverted the initial page move, and when the participation in this discussion includes a large number of admins on both sides of the issue. bd2412 T 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading your sandbox and your interpretation of what has progressed so far is very cogent. Thank you for taking this on.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@bd2412 T - Just for the record, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were a member of the "cabal", more than I was trying to infer you may have difficultly reaching a finding not in-line with the "cabal's" opinion. I recognize and accept you likely have no pre-existing opinion on the naming issue.

re "seems odd to attribute anything to a cabal when an admin, User:Tariqabjotu" - Not all admins are part of the cabal. NickCT (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification. bd2412 T 20:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving the article on the individual self-identified as a female named Chelsea Manning to "Bradley" would not only be in clear violation of Wikipedia's own policies, especially BLP as outlined in detail above by others, it would be catastrophic for Wikipedia's reputation, especially now that so many major media organizations have already adopted the name change. It would essentially cast Wikipedia as contrarian and as pushing an offensive point of view in society at large. The only tenable solution is to retain the current title, Chelsea Manning. Why should Manning get a different treatment than Kate Middleton, who had her page moved instantly despite the overwhelming majority of sources using the name Kate Middleton? Josh Gorand (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:MOS-TW

Consensus is to wait until after the move for this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I note that Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage, and the talk pages of the articles about the other transgender women Wikipedia considers notable, transclude(s) {{MOS-TW}}, yet this talk page doesn't. Should {{MOS-TW}} be added to this talk page? If not, why should this talk page should be templated differently from the talk pages of our articles on other transgender women? (I can see that several of the people who have commented on this page reject the principle behind {{MOS-TW}}, though they have not referred to it by name and may not be aware of it. I think, however, that it would be more sensible to oppose the very existence or wording of {{MOS-TW}}, rather than to disuse it on only one page.) -sche (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC) This has been debated two times now with the consensus to wait for the move outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Oh—I'm sorry for bringing it up again, then. I hadn't seen any mention of it on this page, and hadn't thought to check the archives for something that could only have been discussed a few days ago at the earliest! -sche (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC) No worries =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Slate blog post about pronouns here This is fairly recent coverage of the issue as it pertains to this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almonroth (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Comments on some propositions and sources

Dear Wikipedians

Extended content

Timeliness: Please forgive me if I am a little late to the party but it has taken me a few days to be able to make the time to discover and familiarise myself with the behind the scenes machinery of Wikipedia, as well as to find an established user to post this for me. Forum: Again, and for the same reasons, please forgive me if these comments would be more appropriately made elsewhere. I also believe that general policy can sometimes be usefully tested and if necessary evolved in a specific case rather than exclusively in the abstract. Proposition (as advanced in various forms on this page, in summary): Gender is a subjective and plastic matter to be determined, and changed if desired, by the individual Proposed authority: DM-V and others. Comment: I limit my comments to the DM-V but suspect they would equally apply to the other medical/psychological texts being cited. They DM-V may in fact not be authority for this proposition and indeed may in fact be authority for an essentially opposite proposition, namely: gender is immutable, having been fixed at birth (query whether those references should be to conception) and all that is capable of change is aspects of the expression of gender. By way of example I have extracted the following quotes from the DM-V, all emphasis mine: “Treatment is available to assist people with such distress to explore their gender identity and find a gender role that is comfortable for them … What helps one person alleviate gender dysphoria might be very different from what helps another person. This process may or may not involve a change in gender expression or body modifications...” and later “many individuals who receive treatment will find a gender role and expression that is comfortable for them, even if these differ from those associated with their sex assigned at birth”. Further authority: Any biological textbook. Proposal: Manning might self-identify and wish to live as a woman, others might support him in that, and he might take hormone therapy to alter his hormonal balance, etc., but an accurate encyclopedic description of him based on sources subjected to close scrutiny should be cast in those terms, as in: a biological male who self-identifies and lives as a woman and, if it is the case, who has undergone hormone therapy treatment, etc.. Proposition (as advanced in various forms on this page, in summary): The choice of pronoun to describe an individual should be determined by that individual’s chosen gender. Proposed authority: MOS: Identity and WP: BLP. Counter-propositions: See item (3) above. Where a policy would prevent making an entry more accurate, disregard the policy. Authority: Wikipedia: Ignore all rules. Also, see the MOS (“Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole”). Manning has implicitly acknowledged he is biological male. Authority: Manning’s statement released via his lawyer on 22 August. Entries should not obfuscate, let alone reverse, verifiable fact in order to avoid causing offence. Authority: Indirect, consider description of world as round and earth as billions of years old despite possibility of offence to some individuals of some religious persuasions. I’m sure direct authority will come easily to the hands of you more familiar with Wikipedia’s policies. Proposition (as implicit in a number of comments on this page, I suspect as a part-basis for resisting the change of Manning’s first name to Chelsea): The choice of pronoun to describe an individual should be determined by the gender commonly associated with that name, ie because Chelsea is commonly associated with women, then female pronouns become appropriate. Authority: None. Comment: This would come as a surprise to all of the women with names traditionally associated with men, for example “Charlie”. I’m sure further authority will come readily to those of you more familiar with Wikipedia and good writing guides. Proposition (as advanced above) Manning is not a criminal. Authority: None. Comment: This was a staggering comment to find on the discussion page for an encyclopedic entry Manning was convicted of a crime and is verifiably therefore a criminal. Proposition: The "MOS Identity" rule/guideline regulates decisions relating to Manning’s name and the pronoun to be used to describe him. Authority: None. Counter proposition: Where an entry would be improved by ignoring a policy, ignore the policy. Authority: Wikipedia: Ignore all rules. Further counter proposition: This guideline/rule begins with the qualifier "where there is no controversy". So I think its invocation to purportedly “settle” the controversy regarding the appropriate pronoun to use for Manning is inappropriate and lacking intellectual rigour. Authority: MOS Identity. Further counter proposition: See also my comment at (2) above, as in that general policy be useful advanced by discussions concerning specific examples. Authority: the common law legal system Others more familiar with scholarly dialectics will no doubt have more examples. Proposition: Individuals have the right to define themselves (advanced on this page in those terms as a basis for giving final and absolute priority to Manning in deciding whether to use the female pronoun to describe him). Authority: None. Comment: As with (6), this concerned me greatly. What is this right? I am completely unaware of it. Where does it come from? Where is it described? Is it of universal application? Is it superior to the group's right (if one exists) to define the individual, or to verifiable facts if they available? For those of you in the USA, please correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe it appears in your amended constitution or bill of rights, and in any case that would clearly be of limited global relevance. Proposition: "... society generally now accepts changes of gender identity happen and are real..." Authority: None, though see comments above regarding the DM V, which suggests that it may be a misleading over-statement to say that there is a general consensus in the scientific/medical community that gender can change, when instead it may be that the consensus is – critically – more limited to the expression of gender and the distress created by a dissonance between actual gender and self-identity. Comment: Which society? How is that general acceptance evidenced? Is there any controversy regarding that general acceptance? Proposition: Consensus is decisive. Authority: None. Comment: Wikipedia holds itself out as an encyclopedia, not as a weather-vane. General comment: Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a platform for advocacy: I know there is a policy on this, but ultimately I have written this post because I considered the article on Manning late last week jeopardised my ability to robustly defend the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia to family, friends and colleagues, or to continue enthusiastically to donate to Wikipedia. The quality of the reasoning I discovered on this page, of which I have provided some examples have not only validated but amplified the concerns the article itself originally raised. I am concerned some contributors may be trying to lead the debate or at the least failing to apply the high standards of rigour to their propositions and the authorities they are citing (or not, as the case may be) for those propositions.

Regards Teamkric

I received and e-mail purportedly from Teamkric asking me to post the comment above. I'm not going to make an assessment as to how relevant the comments are. If some other editor feels this section ought to be collapsed or moved, I would not oppose. NickCT (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:Soapbox. Please collapse. User:Carolmooredc 12:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything here is just opinion...point #6 is a falsehood, though; Manning is a convicted criminal...a convicted spy, no less. The death penalty was a possibility, even, though the prosecutors chose not to seek it. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Manning is a convicted criminal. Whether you agree what they did was a crime or not is irrelevant. It is also completely irrelevant to what name or gender this page should use. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I believe I read #6 wrong, it read at first like this "Teamkric" was suggesting that manning was not a criminal, when in fact he was rebutting the claim made by others. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Manning a criminal

Boldly hatting this as it serves little purpose per talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Calling the subject of this article things like a "criminal" and other name calling constitutes a personal attack and a violation of the policy on biographies of living people. He is not a criminal from an encyclopedic point of view, nor universally considered to be any such thing (the opinion that he is a "criminal" might be a minority opinion, however, just like some people hold all sorts of opinions not widely recognised). Josh Gorand (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC) He is absolutely a criminal from an encyclopedic point of view. The only reason their is a Wikipedia article on Bradley Manning is because of his criminal activity. He is also universally considered a felon. He was tried and convicted. His conviction is not disputed and nobody in their right mind would actually dispute the fact that he downloaded half of the SIPR net and sent it to Wikileaks. While some may dispute why Manning did it, there is no legitimate debate over what actually occurred. His notoriety is the whole reason we are having this debate. An undeniable, convticted traitor regardless of individual opinions. IFreedom1212 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I see you make further personal attacks against the subject violating BLP, now also including "traitor" and other offensive name calling and POV terms. No, he is not a "criminal" from an encyclopedic point of view and such name calling is completely unacceptable here. He is convicted, by one country, of a political crime, which is something different entirely from using name calling like "a criminal" or stating it as a fact. The Interpol doesn't recognise such convictions at all because they are political, and in most cases dubious or contested by others. It is almost universally agreed he is not criminal or anything of that sort, because out of the world's 196 countries, 195 countries don't consider him to be a criminal. The same applies to people convicted in politically motivated trials by Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia. And the reason we have an article is his whistleblowing, not any "criminal activity", and for which he has received prizes and been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Freedom is right, innocent until proven guilty and he was proven guilty by a jury, people do have a right to their opinions though but these are the facts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Bradley/Chelsea manning is an American citizen who was found guilty in an American courtroom and sentenced to an American jail. It does not matter what the opinion of the world is, what matters is that Manning was found guilty, the world has no say in it lawfully speaking, another country also cant force the United States to release him or change their verdict. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the POV of one country, the US, is no more valid than the point of view of the rest of the world. Manning is a UK citizen and not convicted of anything in his mother's country. Calling someone "a criminal" is a BLP violation and a personal attack. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC) A criminal is defined as a person who has committed a crime, and since Manning was convicted of committing a crime and sentenced to serve time for that crime, I don't follow your logic in saying he isn't a criminal from an encyclopedic pov. This WP article states he was charged with criminal conduct and subsequently convicted of criminal conduct, does it not?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC) No, on wikipedia we use neutral language. If a Russian opposition leader is convicted by a court in Russia, we write that. Using name calling like "a criminal" is a POV, and a BLP violation in the case of a living person. Political convictions are not universally recognised. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC) We also use reliable sources on Wikipedia, and if the sources say that Manning was convicted of committing a crime, then he is indeed a criminal, and therefore it is not a form of "name calling", it's simply an established fact. If there is consensus not to use the term criminal in referring to Manning in this article, that's fine. But denying that reliable sources have identified him as a person convicted of criminal conduct is perplexing, to say the least.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Josh, you've gone off the deep-end here, into lala-land. We have, you may note, a whole TREE of categories, which brand people as "criminals" - see Category:Criminals by nationality for example. I think we have over 1000 categories. These categories have been around since ~2005, and I haven't seen any consensus to rename these categories. Your assertion that "criminal" is a BLP violation takes things a step too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Obi-Wan is correct. If you think calling an individual convicted of a crime a "criminal" is a BLP violation take it to BLP/N. I think consensus does not support that odd view. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Manning was convicted but not for treason, as far as I am aware, so calling her a traitor ought to be considered a WP:BLP violation. Also: "convicted criminal" - like e.g. Nelson Mandela, Martin Niemöller, Giordano Bruno, Socrates, and Jesus? — User:Stephan Schulz Many whistleblowers are locked up in prisons around the world for the only "crime" of exposing corruption and war crimes. Space simian (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Manning was court-martialed, sentenced to 35 years at Ft. Leavenworth, saw a rank reduction to Private, and will be dishonorably discharged from The United States Army. Manning is, by every inarguable definition of the words, a "criminal" and a "spy". Regarding "the POV of one country, the US, is no more valid than the point of view of the rest of the world", it most assuredly is more valid; I daresay it is the only valid opinion on the matter. Manning is an American citizen, found guilty of theft and six counts of espionage, among other things. He's lucky the death penalty was taken off the table at the outset. If Josh Gorand feels that it is a "BLP violation and a personal attack", then he is free to bring the matter to the appropriate dispute board. I will say plainly, "Bradley Manning is a criminal", so Gorand is free to use me as a test case for his dispute filing. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Key word here is court-martialed. Isn't the neutral way to describe what manning did as military offenses, rather than crimes? Cowardice and insubordination is defined under the same military laws as manning broke, and I would be careful in calling people that do that as criminals. Military justice should not be confused to the civilian judicial systems in which words like "criminal" is commonly attributed to. No "American courtroom" or jury of his peers was involved in the court-martialing of Manning. Belorn (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Manning didn't only violate military law, the most serious charge was brought under the Espionage Act of 1917, a federal law. Being a member of the Armed Forces simply dictated what venue he was tried in and what procedures were followed. He was found guilty of violating federal law, just as civilians have been in the past, e.g the Rosenbergs and Jonathan Pollard. Tarc (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC) This discussion is quickly going down a very nasty path. Maybe someone should close this. Space simian (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC) I agree. No point is being served by this discussion. Besides, it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what is reported in reliable sources, and there are way too many that discuss Manning as one who has been convicted of multiple felonies. Those sources means that it is not a violation of WP:BLP to report that they said he was a convicted felon. Other sources call the convictions a miscarriage of justice, and we should report that also. In any event, can we get an uninvolved admin to close (and maybe hat) this section? GregJackP Boomer! 00:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Bollocks, it has not gone down any sort of "nasty path". Josh Gorand made a a claim regarding the subject's felonious status, a claim which was completely rebutted by a simple recitation of the facts of the case. If there are reliable sources that call it a "miscarriage of justice", I have no problem at all including those in the article, as that is an opinion about the crime. What I objected to was the attempted nullification of the crime by the initiator of this tangent. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC) The actions that lead to Manning being criminally convicted are the only reason she is even notable. There are no grounds upon which an abundantly well-sourced conviction no longer acceptable to add to a BLP. It's literally the basis of notability in this case. NewAccount4Me (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

While I don't follow the press on this religiously, I have read a number of articles. I don't think I have seen any reliable source that calls Manning "a criminal". Being convicted of a crime is definitely not the same as being a criminal, and the deduction of one from the other is a grave case of WP:OR. The most obvious case is that many people are wrongly convicted (i.e. they did not do the crime at all). Other cases are ones where people are convicted of "crimes" we don't accept as such e.g. Giordano Bruno, Rosa Parks, Mildred and Richard Loving, or, more recently, John Lawrence. And there are people that are convicted for "real" crimes, with a basis in fact, where we don't think the law was interpreted correctly. See White Rose or Charles T. Schenck. And there are even cases where the convicted "really" committed a "real" crime but that we still not call "criminals". Examples are Claus von Stauffenberg and Nelson Mandela. In short, unless there are actual reliable sources that call Manning directly "a criminal" (and none that dissent), we have no basis of doing so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

He was convicted under the rules and regulations of the UCMJ and dishonorably discharged at the end of his sentence. That is equivalent to a felony conviction in civilian court and loses all civil rights that felons lose (e.g. he can't vote, own a firearm or run for public office) so yes he was convicted by a court recognized by the Supreme Court and the conviction is equivalent of a felony. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's hilarious. The Atlantic has referred to him as a criminal. So has the Huffington Post ("she is a convicted criminal"). New York Daily oped piece. At RT.com. National Review Online. Etc.

Besides, the WP:OR comment is revisionist. Are you going to change the definition in Wiktionary to delete "Criminal - one guilty of breaking the law"? I'm still laughing at this, the fact that Manning wasn't convicted of a "real" crime. Talk about a WP:FRINGE view. All of the major news sources report that Manning was convicted of multiple felonies - a good number have stated he was a criminal - the dictionary defines criminal as one found guilty of a crime - but he's not? That's rich. GregJackP Boomer! 06:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Check your sources. All of the ones you listed above are op-eds (i.e. opinions) and as such not reliable for statements of fact. At least one of them doesn't even say what you seem to think it says. And, assuming you refer to my text, I have not made a statement on Manning's conviction at all. I have given general examples that show that the step from "convicted" to "criminal" is highly non-trivial and hence WP:OR. And while this is something of a side issue, the US Supreme Court has had its moments of weakness, at least one of which I have listed above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

While I completely agree that being a criminal is the same as being convicted of a crime, and so the premise of the comment you're responding to is kind of silly, I still find that the fact that Manning is in the categories "21st century American criminals" and "criminals from Oklahoma" is a little... non-neutral. I'm willing to accept that maybe the categories have a bad name and they should be proposed for a move in some other location. But I went to check Nelson Mandela's page to see if he was in a "south african criminals" category, because I would have found that odd, and I found that the category was instead "south African politicians convicted of crimes," which seems a lot less POV. Now, it's a good point that some of the media refers to her as a criminal, and certainly she is one under the dictionary definition of that term, but I still find myself feeling that using that word to describe her is POV given that the whole "is she a traitor or a hero" thing is so controversial and unsettled. AgnosticAphid talk 07:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that at least the dictionary Google uses to come up with definitions defines a criminal as "a person who has committed a crime", not "a person convicted of a crime". That leaves at least two questions - did a person do a certain act, and was that act a crime. For Manning, the first is clear. The second is very much a matter of opinion, of which the court has had a weighty one, but by far not the only one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the dicdefs of criminal.

1. American Heritage Dictionary: 3.a. Guilty of crime
2. Collins English Dictionary: 1. (Law) a person charged with and convicted of crime
3. Random House Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: 2. guilty of crime
4. Blacks Law Dictionary: 2. One who has been convicted of a crime
5. Marriam-Webster Dictionary: 3. guilty of crime

It's fairly clear cut. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. One of your 5 examples speaks of restricted usage in law, and 3 others require factual guilt, not just conviction. So my interpretation is overwhelmingly supported by your selection of sources ;-). Somehow I suspect your interpretation differs (though I don't know how). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Like I said, revisionist. Manning was found guilty on what, 20 counts? That matches with the three that say guilty of crime, and the other two say convicted. That's pretty much five for five. BTW, in the legal system the jury is the finder of fact, which meets your made up requirement of "factual guilt". Sort of like consensus. You may not like it, but that's what we roll with. GregJackP Boomer! 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But, I mean, it's really indisputable that she's at a minimum actually guilty of the charges she pled guilty to, like (I think?) some of the theft and computer access charges, right? Isn't the question really whether we want to attach the moral opprobrium that's inevitably attached to the word "criminal"? That's why I thought Nelson Mandela was a good example. AgnosticAphid talk 07:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A guilty plea is a procedural technicality. People have been found innocent (both factually and legally) after guilty pleas. But apart from that, I agree. Note that this cuts both ways. Assume Al Capone had died 1928, never convicted. Would that make him less of a criminal? I agree that in most cases "convicted of a crime" is a much better and more neutral description than "criminal", as per the South Africa example you gave. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

our criminal categories contain people who have been 'convicted by history' as it were - so for people where the bulk of reliable sources say 'x murdered y', even if never convicted, they can still be placed in those categories - which is also why most such cats don't have an absolute requirement of conviction - otherwise murder/suicides would not be allowed either. The Mandela point illustrates that y'all need to learn how categories work - he is in the politicians-convicted-of category, whose parent category is... Drumroll.... South African CRIMINALS. You are confusing the pejorative/colloquial use of the word criminal with the neutral dictionary definition, which is its intent for Wikipedia categorization purposes. Manning is in 3 criminal cats for the same reason an actress or politician or novelist may be in several cats - we have a category tree and should populate it, and Manning has been diffused to relevant and valid categories. If you disagree with the cats, the correct procedure is to nominate them for deletion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point! But it still seems completely unnecessary to use the concededly, if perhaps not necessarily, pejorative word "criminal" in her category when the much more neutral phrase "convicted of a crime" will do. AgnosticAphid talk 15:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the names of the categories, I suggest to nominate them all for renaming at CFD. But to be honest, I don't think it's worth your time - I'm not sure the denizens of CFD, who prefer plain language and clarity in category names - will agree to the rename. And, I think there are over 1000 categories with the word "Criminal" in the title. In addition, as noted earlier, there are people who are commonly held to be criminals, but who were never convicted of their crimes -- such as Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold and many others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to think about this a bit more. I'm really not a wikipedia expert, I'm kind of new, and I'm certainly not a category expert because I've never worked on them before. Clearly you're right based on that suicide example that there are lots of people who can be called criminals based on reliable sources even if they weren't convicted of a crime, so making a change wouldn't be as simple as just substituting "convicted of a crime" for "criminal" in the categories. But for the exact same reason, it seems a bit odd to have these vague "X type of criminals" categories that lump together two groups of people (those convicted of a crime, who may not necessarily be guilty, and those guilty of a crime, who many not necessarily be convicted). It seems especially odd to have such a vague category as a lower-level specific type category that appears on somebody's page when we could more specifically and usefully say "X type of person guilty of a crime," include "X type of person convicted of a crime" as a more specific sub-category of that, and have "X type of person wrongly convicted of a crime" as a separate category. Or something, it's just kind of crazy to me that these "criminals" categories are so vague when they deal with BLP articles. It's especially especially odd since the first sentence of the second paragraph of WP:BLPCAT uses the criminals category as an example of things we should be super careful about. In fact, as far as I can tell, if they committed suicide and weren't like posthumously convicted or something (does such a thing exist?), then under the super specific criteria about criminal categories in WP:BLPCAT the Columbine people really shouldn't be in any criminals category at all. What do you think? AgnosticAphid talk 20:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that I further consider it, the obvious flaw in my last sentence is that the columbine duo, or indeed any criminal that died before being convicted, isn't living. But I still find the "criminals" categories problematic, at least when used for BLPs, because of the negative connotations the word "criminal" brings along with it, and this concern seems heightened because the word "criminal" is by itself also a bit vague. I feel like in this article "Oklahomans convicted of a crime," or even "Oklahomans guilty of a crime," would be a much better category choice. AgnosticAphid talk 20:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to drift off-topic here. It's clear these categories apply to Manning. The names of the categories need to be discussed at CFD. They have been, in the past, and there has not been consensus to change, but you're welcome to try. I don't think criminal brings a negative connotation except when used as a pejorative slur, which again is not the intent of these categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Per plain meaning of the English language "somebody convicted of a crime" == "a criminal". Using dictionary definitions is not original research. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: Well... -- tariqabjotu 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • That mess? I don't think it's a good idea to cite Middle East conflicts as an example to follow elsewhere! If somebody wants to put Manning in a category "convicted criminals" (s)he definitely is. I am not sure it is necessary to use the word criminal after the conviction has already been explained in the article. That might be redundant or poor style. It would depend on the context. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If I understanding this discussion correctly, it is mostly about calling Manning a "criminal" on talk pages, not the article itself. As of right now, the only place in the article where Manning is referred to as a "criminal" is in the categories - two categories, to be exact. I think that's ok, because these categories already existed and Manning, having been convicted of one or more crimes by a court that had jurisdiction to do so (and there is no dispute about that), technically does fit the "definition" of "criminal." The only other places the word "criminal" appears in the article are as an adjective, not a noun, one of which is in quote from Manning herself (I was trying to avoid gender pronouns here, but I give up) and in the references, in the title of a document. So, in the body of the article, we are not calling Manning a "criminal", and I believe that is appropriate, because it is not necessary to use that label. It is sufficient to say that Manning has been convicted of crimes. As for the talk page, if people want to say that Manning is a "criminal" because they think it relates to some issue having to do with the content of the article, I guess that's ok. I do not think it violates WP:BLP, because it is an accurate statement. Neutron (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree - I don't see any BLP issue here. Someone called Manning a "traitor", which I don't think is supported by sources (sources are divided on whether Manning was indeed a traitor, but more importantly, Manning was not convicted of treason - so I think Manning should not be called a traitor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One swallow does not a summer make. That Manning committed is a crime might not be sufficient to call him a criminal. That should be reserved for people like cat burglars.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense - a cat burglar, who gets a few months in jail when caught, vs Manning, sentenced to 35 years for violation of federal law. One criminal conviction DOES a criminal make... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There are professional criminals after all. I'm not sure I'd lump Manning in with them just yet.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Manning is a professional criminal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Response from Teamkric

Dear all,

(1) Thanks for the feedback that my initial post had veered into WP: Soapbox. I have looked at that page as well as "Talk page guidelines" before writing this and have endeavoured to comply with those requirements. Please let me know if I have made any other errors. (2) I would like to "discuss issues relating to verification", namely that some important aspects of the discussion may have been conducted without any "reliable sources" being cited, or with sources cited which may not in fact support the statements they are said to support, and to "discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article". (3) What is the verifiable source for the proposition (made on this page in a number of places in various ways) that "…there is a general consensus in the scientific/medical community that gender can change…", as in that gender is a subjective and plastic matter to be determined, and changed if desired, by the individual? The DM-V is the most commonly cited source for this proposition but I have looked at the DM-V and am concerned it does not verify the proposition and may in fact verify the reverse propositon, ie somethign along the lines that “gender is immutable and all that can change is aspects of the expression of gender”. I provided some quotes from the DM-V to evidence why that might be the case above. (4) What is the verifiable source for the proposition (made on this page in a number of places in various ways) that: "the most recently expressed preference of the individual concerned should be determinative of pronoun choice in Wikipedia articles"? (5) If the answer to (4) is “MOS: Identity”, then what is the verifiable source for the proposition that the MOS: Identity guideline should have precedence over WP: Verifiability or any other verifiable source, such as the OED (my copy, which cannot be more than a few years old, frames all of its definitions of the following terms on the basis of biological determinism: “he”, “she”, “man”, “woman”, “male” and “female”). Why is it a “fringe” position (as described above in a number of places in various ways) to be in favour of a biological basis for pronoun choice when there is a high quality verifiable source that supports this approach? (5.1) If the answer to (5) is that some leeway for MOS: Identity to take precedence should be allowed where the factual inaccuracy that would result is minor in nature and uncontroversial, what is the basis for concluding those criteria are met in this case? (5.2) If the answer to (5) is that some leeway for MOS: Identity to take precedence should be allowed where offense might result (such as BLP concerns), that is adequately discussed above. (6) What is the verifiable source for the statement (made above) that “Individuals have the right to define themselves”? And thanks again for your patience as I take my baby steps here on Wikipedia. Regards Teamkric Posted by NickCT on behalf of Teamkric

Again, I received an e-mail purportedly from Teamkric asking me to post the comment above. Again, I'm not going to make an assessment as to how relevant the comments are. If some other editor feels this section ought to be collapsed or moved, I would not oppose. NickCT (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Move Page

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 think it should be moved back to Bradley Manning for now. His name change to Chelsea Manning has no legal effect yet, and since when has Wikipedia simply used the preferred name instead of the name that the public uses. Chelsea Manning is not the name used to address him in court, nor is it used by any major media organization when discussing him, not his newfound gender identity. user:Purplepox01 20:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to you can add this as a support to move this back to Bradley in the move discussion above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many news organizations -- led by the AP, the biggest of them all -- have switched to Chelsea now, and Chelsea is widespread enough that if we move her page back, it will be seen by many as a political statement by Wikipedia to reject the new name. Also, her (the female pronouns are the ones that should be used) gender identity isn't "newfound;" she has considered herself female for years now, it's just now being made public. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is also a political statement for Wikipedia to accept the new name, worse the fact that we made headlines for doing so. WP:TITLECHANGES says to have the move discussion first when it comes to things like this. As for sources I still see CNN using Bradley, books have been written about Bradley, and in the media there are articles about how the name game is still being fought. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia would have been forced to make a political statement either way on the name; there simply isn't any neutral third party name to call her by. CNN is a valid refutation, although the books are not, since they're from before the name announcement. Personally, I think both sides have good arguments for the title of the page; my main hope is that the female pronouns remain in the body of the article regardless of the title decision. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As noted by Jumbo on Margaret Thatcher's page she is referred to as Roberts so yes I can see both pronouns being used. This section should be closed, nothing is going on here that is not already up in the move request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an important reminder, that NPOV isn't NO point of view (that'd be impossible), but NEUTRAL point of view. I seem to remember reading an essay or something that contained a similar concept, although I cannot find it now (Found it during the writing of the post, it turns out it comes from WP:NPOVFAQ ("a "view from nowhere"..." is not our aim!" (also, worst paraphrase ever, but I'm feeling lazy))) . No matter what we do, it is going to mean something politically. It is going to make headlines. And that's not "bad", it's *completely irrelevant*. Wikipedia does not shy away from topics merely because they are controversial, and given this, it means that there are cases that we must say something that is going to make waves. The only question is "what fulfills our policies of verifiable, non biased explanations, while fulfilling our duty to accuracy that we have when writing the biography of a living person". Or at least, that's how I would explain the question in front of us.Cam94509 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BBC, The Independent, and Reuters (see caption) also haven't seem to have changed to "Chelsea Manning" yet. And that doesn't even touch upon the fact that it'll be awhile, I imagine, before we see "Chelsea Manning" in a title, where they can't say "formerly known as Bradley". Note, for example, that even though The New York Times has announced that they will refer to Manning as Chelsea, they have not updated their Manning page that has the subject's name at the top. Also, this concern about what moving the article back might signal is misplaced; the article should not have been moved until this consensus-building discussion took place, and we should not allow the publicity efforts by the admin who moved the article dissuade us from moving it back if that's what the result of this discussion requests. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Move the article to "Bradley Manning and Chelsea Manning"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA): When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.” Obviously, we don't have to follow NLGJA, and I'd be the first to disagree with NLGJA if I thought they were wrong. But here it makes good sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC) I would support this - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose as making us a laughing stock and not supported by current guidelines and policies, it would be very much WP:POINT in my opinion, spreading our dirty linen in public. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Which guidelines and policies? Honestly, I'm just now dipping my first toe into this kerfuffle, so I don't know which policies and guidelines you're referring to. In any event, if you are correct, then I hang my hat upon this policy: WP:IAR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC) How is it any different than Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war vs Syrian civil war? One led into the other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Anythingyouwant, people have been bouncing IAR about to support their POV pushing since these debates began on this page but IAR does not apply to such a highly disputed issue as we could all claim that to get the viewpoint we are defending. I am talking BLP, NPOV, IDENTITY for starters. Knowledgekid87 one problem with this suggestion is our not informed readers will think it is an article about 2 people. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)×3 Strong oppose this is the biography of a single individual and the title should not imply otherwise. "Bradley Manning and Chelsea Manning" strongly suggests an article about two people. See also WP:ASTONISH. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Per Thryduulf's excellent comment, I withdraw this particular move proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose Christine Jorgensen obviously isn't titled George Jorgensen and Christine Jorgensen, isn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC) I too considered how the Jorgensen case applied to the Manning case and realized that the Jorgensen case is quite different with regard to the Wikipedia article title because the name George Jorgensen has very little notability compared to the name Christine Jorgensen. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. As stated above, this gives the odd impression that "Bradley Manning" and "Chelsea Manning" are seperate people. This being not the case, it's a misleading title. Additionally, it's awkward, and really a subpar solution. Cam94509 (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC) I've collapsed this discussion, because the original poster stated "I withdraw this particular move proposal", and because a new move discussion shouldn't have been started in the first place until the current move discussion (the one BD et al will be analysing for the next few days) concluded. -sche (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Move article to "Private Manning"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The request has been withdrawn without prejudice, pending the outcome of the requested move to "Bradley Manning". When that result is known any editor may make a new request for this move if they wish. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

---

As noted, I agree that renaming to "Bradley Manning and Chelsea Manning" was not the best idea, because that would suggest two people. But "Private Manning" would be fine. We already have an article titled Colonel Sanders. The CS Monitor just came out with this headline on August 25: "'Bradley' or 'Chelsea' – What to call Pvt. Manning?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is a particularly bad idea given her thorny relationship with the US Army. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, "Bradley Manning known more recently as Chelsea Manning" might also work. I disagree with Wikipedia leading instead of following the reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That is an argument for not changing back to Bradley, we would be leading not following. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Depends how you read it; "known more recently" can be read as "known more than used to be the case" instead of "known most widely now". Anyway, I'll bow out for the evening. By the way, I now would like to consider myself as Jimbo Wales, so please defer to me accordingly henceforth.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we defer to Jimbo? Much as I respect him he doesnt have any special editing privileges or an ability to be right more than other long term editors. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you should start doing so immediately, now that I have pronounced myself him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive issue and I would suggest that you make your points in ways that wouldn't be considered making light of the situation, even though you bear no ill will towards transgender people when you make such remarks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RE SqueakBox's comment, "this is a particularly bad idea given her thorny relationship with the US Army" — Please note that Manning's website is called the Private Manning Support Network. It was changed to this name on Aug 26, 2013, after being previously called the Bradley Manning Support Network.--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer). I still think that "Private Manning" would be fine. No one can deny that it's incredibly neutral. The only objection above was: "this is a particularly bad idea given her thorny relationship with the US Army". To which my response is: look at the lead image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Sure it's neutral, but is it common? NickCT (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

More neutral than Bradley but less neutral than Chelsea, IMO. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Check the survey above mate. Good work assuming you know what neutral is though. NickCT (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure to which debate you refer, NickCT, but in my opposing the move back to Bradley I invoked NPOV and stated that Bradley is not a neutral term, something I stand by. As an experienced wikipedia editor of 9 yrs I think I do understand NPOV. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here is SqueakBox's comment at the survey, "Oppose as moving back to Bradley would be POV pushing to make a point and we arent here to do that but to build an encyclopedia."[8] — What point is trying to be made? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

One way to check for commonality is to do a Google search. By that standard, "Bradley Manning" (16,000,000 hits) is much more common than "Chelsea Manning" (3,240,000 hits). I get 136,000,000 hits searching for private or pfc manning on Google. Another advantage of moving our title to "Private Manning" is that it's very informative to indicate the person is a soldier in our article title. Of course, there are other ways to do the search. For example, if I search for "private manning" OR "pfc Manning" OR "private bradley manning" OR "pfc Bradley manning" OR "private chelsea manning" OR "PFC chelsea manning" then I get 43,900,000 hits.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have long opposed writing an encyclopedia based on what one private company, google, says. WE dont normally feel the need to indicate someone is/was a soldier or it would be General Colin Powell]. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to do the same search on Bing or Yahoo if you would like. As I said, Wikipedia sometimes uses titles like this, as in Colonel Sanders.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My comments would apply to any search engine and I have stated this on other topics too, even calling such work original research though it is popular among certain wikipedians. Surely Sanders is known as Colonel Sanders, I recognize the name (never tried the product) and wouldnt know him as anything else whereas with Manning we have a perfectly good name already, the current one. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support This term is neutral and that is what Wikipedia aims to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Because this proposed move has some support, I will proceed now with a formal request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a bit the other move request has not closed yet and only one move request can be done per page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be better to wait till the impending Chelsea/Bradley decision has been made, it gets confusing otherwise and if I had to choose between Private and Chelsea my vote would be different than choosing between Bradley and Private. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly people should feel free to ignore my request until the other decision is made. Anyway, I think the already-pending discussion is about whether to merge Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage into this article, and I don't see that one more formal proposal will be confusing.. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Overlapping moves are not done for a number of reasons, 1. They are confusing to editors, 2. It makes a huge mess, and 3. I think there is something about there being only one move at a time over at WP:Requested moves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, lesson learned. I'll be patient, and resubmit when the other one is done. Sorry about the fuss. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Requested move 1b

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

The result of the move request is suspended pending determination of the results of the previous move review. It is inappropriate to initiate a new move request while the results of a previous move request are being considered, because participants will not know what they are proposed to move the article from. bd2412 T 03:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Requested move/dated|Private Manning}}

Chelsea Manning → Private Manning – This has already been discussed briefly at the article talk page, where most editors who opined were supportive. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recommends not using one name to the exclusion of the other, but rather to use the old name when writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender.[9] We already have an article titled Colonel Sanders, and the CS Monitor just came out with this headline on August 25: "'Bradley' or 'Chelsea' – What to call Pvt. Manning?" Manning's website is called the Private Manning Support Network. It was changed to this name on Aug 26, 2013, after being previously called the Bradley Manning Support Network. So, "Private Manning" is an excellent title per NPOV and also self-identification. Per common, one way to check for commonality is to do a Google search. By that standard, "Bradley Manning" (16,000,000 hits) is much more common than "Chelsea Manning" (3,240,000 hits). I get 136,000,000 hits searching for private or pfc manning on Google. Another advantage of moving our title to "Private Manning" is that it's very informative to indicate the person is a soldier in our article title. Of course, there are other ways to do the search. For example, if I search for "private manning" OR "pfc Manning" OR "private bradley manning" OR "pfc Bradley manning" OR "private chelsea manning" OR "PFC chelsea manning" then I get 43,900,000 hits. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not too keen on starting another move discussion while previous one is still unresolved. Cam94509 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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