Wikipedia

Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 10

< Talk:Chelsea Manning
Latest comment: 11 years ago by FokkerTISM in topic Musings upon failure


I am not a spy and how dare you state that on categories. I would hope you know any falseness you state will be held against you. Category is in fact could be a country of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Cuba and others. These are at risk countries on Sanctions. Don't think you can take my knowledge from employment at the DOD away. That was my SME Sanctions and monitoring. Including terrorist SDN list. Are you using this as propaganda or are you acting on your own behalf with Wikipedia and your own ignorance. The Seal team seven kicked out of Iraq for drunkeness is not so great. We needed alertness in the field. The Department of defense is a continuing service but you must not lie. You should be honest. Some soldiers, sailors, marines and National Guard are not into the selfless consecration word for their protection of their country on homeland security. Signed SD orphan. They should fix Children in need at BBC. They should fix wikipedia and the control of sharing information. The SMS is used for messaging doesn't have monetary or money sent necessarilly.


Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Crime category

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I was going to add some categories, but am concerned that I'm not sufficiently informed. Based on the conviction under the Espionage Act, would any of the "People convicted of spying" categories be appropriate? Right now, the categories don't reflect what the conviction was for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How is that category defined? IMO a "spy" is operating for specfic entities. Manning didnt spy as much as release classified information without authorization.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm not sure of - not familiar enough with the Espionage Act and how WP handles other people convicted under it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Add a new category for "people convicted of espionage". I've no clue how to do that however.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Creating a new category isn't as easy as all that, and it would probably be deleted for redundancy with the spying category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
He is already in a "people convicted under the espionage act", which is sufficient in my mind.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
She's in a category for persons charged under the espionage act. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Ok, we now have a convicted category. The categories in the US are for "people convicted of spying against the united states" - in this case, he was convicted of espionage, but was acquitted of aiding the enemy. So i'm not sure if the spying cats are appropriate, at least as worded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
We have spying cats? ;) 09:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smowton (talk • contribs)

Seeking input on policy

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone, a preparatory discussion regarding article title policy is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Preparation for another discussion: Article titles for transgender people. This is among the policies, if not the policy, that most affects what we should call this article. We are currently laying out the terms of the debate (which points we should discuss) before embarking on the actual discussion. Given that many people who have posted on this page are passionate about this topic, and given that we have a somewhat limited set of contributors so far, it would be great to get some additional voices in the mix. Whether you think the policy should be changed or should stay as is, you are welcome to contribute.

I ask that you please do not respond to this post but rather post on that page with your thoughts. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Granai video

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's an interesting discrepancy between the sources regarding when Manning passed the video of the May 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan (also called the Garani airstrike) to WikiLeaks. This was the video that was never published, because apparently Daniel Domscheit-Berg took it with him when he left WikiLeaks, and said he had destroyed it. Manning indicated during the Lamo chat on 22 May 2010 that she had passed this video to WikiLeaks, though she gave no date ("bradass87" is Manning; "he" is Assange):

(2:15:57 PM) bradass87: they also caught wind that he had a video… of the Gharani airstrike in afghanistan, which he has, but hasn’t decrypted yet… [1]

In January 2013 Manning wrote a statement for the court, listing what she had passed to WikiLeaks and when. On p. 33 she says that she gave them the Granai video in late March 2010.

However, WikiLeaks tweeted on 8 January 2010 that it had obtained "encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians," and linked to a story about the Granai airstrike. See Twitter, 8 January 2010: "Have encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians http://bit.ly/wlafghan2 we need super computer time http://ljsf.org/". (The first link is on WP's blacklist, hence the nowiki. It leads to Noah Shachtman, "Afghan Airstrike Video Goes Down the Memory Hole", Wired, 23 June 2009.)

There's some discussion by Alexa O'Brien of the legal arguments here that might explain the discrepancy, but it's not clear to me what she's saying. If anyone here is familiar with the sequence of events, can you shed light on this? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever anyone says about Manning, that is one helluva handle name he chose. lol.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia's mission to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist?

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments12 people in discussion

Title is wrong.

Should read 'Chelsea Manning'. Criffer (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see #Requested move at the top of this article. This has been debated extensively, and the consensus is that it should be Bradley, not Chelsea. — Richard BB 09:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No, the move was noted as "no consensus" - please don't misstate this - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, right. Wasn't intentional! — Richard BB 10:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of consensus, title is wrong.2001:420:40FF:FFE0:F911:C3F8:4284:EA63 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's debatable. — Richard BB 11:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"I am Chelsea Manning" - Chelsea Manning. How is that debatable? 2001:420:40FF:FFE0:F911:C3F8:4284:EA63 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Because, as shown in the vast debates above (and here), there are a lot of different interpretations of policy. She may call herself Chelsea, but the question is how Wikipedia should refer to her. Unfortunately, however, there is a 30-day wait until the next debate about this may begin. — Richard BB 11:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That would be too easy don't you know? The editors that flooded this talk page have brought massively good arguments such as how wikipedia users would get ultra confused about the move. Apparently wikipedia's mission is to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist. Or how about the rationalizations about how MOS:IDENTITY shouldn't apply to page titles! woo!. Then come the SEO experts, treating Chelsea Manning as just another visibility optimization challenge. Soon enough they will succeed in changing MOS:IDENTITY Vexorian (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The idea that Wikipedia is trying to protect users from the knowledge that trans people exist is absurd. If that were the case, the article wouldn't even mention the fact that she is trans. — Richard BB 11:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The title is inconsequential to Manning's name. If Manning were better known as The Grand Poobah, then that is what the title would be. Or that's my interpretation on how things went down. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Title is inconsequential to Manning's gender and current identity as well. It's just the name the person is most known as, much as is the case with Cat Stevens (aka Yusef Islam, the name he has identified with since 1979!). I'm not sure why a person being sent to prison for 35 years is being held up as the beacon for transgenderism; this individual is surrounded by controversy and it's no wonder that this has embroiled such bitter debate. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If people think Manning is a traitor/criminal they should put that to one side when contributing to wikipedia articles on her, otherwise its wikipedia that gets damaged, and the same for those who think she is a heroine, otherwise it becomes very difficult to fulfill our neutrality policy. We most of us having feelings on Manning's wikileaks endeavors, its the putting them to one side that is so critical. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This also should go for people who have personal feelings related to gender identity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The undisputed fact is that Manning is a convicted felon. Manning is not a traitor, as that normally requires a conviction for treason, which has not happened. Both of these facts are critical to editing the article, as editors must always focus on the truth as documented by verifiable, reliable sources. That's what we do, and the crimes, trial, and conviction are what makes Manning notable. Anything else, including gender identity or the editor's opinion that Manning is a whistleblower/traitor, are secondary, incidental factors. Do we address them? Sure, making sure that we appropriately source the information in accordance with BLP. As things change we put them in the article, but until the vast majority of the published sources are about something besides the leaked material, that's where the weight of the article must be. As SqueakBox said, we have to put aside our own feelings in order to use the facts as reported by the sources. We cannot let the article become a soapbox for transgender issues, or for that matter, anything other than the facts. The project is not well-served by anything less. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
While what you are saying is correct, Knowledgekid, I had been responding to Floydian. At least the naming/pronouning dispute is about transgender issues, it isnt about espionage issues. In real life I have very mixed feelings about transgender people but wikipedia is not the place for them and I believe as wikipedia editors interested in neutrality and in writing a great encyclopedia that we should support the view that Manning is a woman called Chelsea regardless of our personal beliefs on transgender. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hatting this section

A discussion about whether it's appropriate or helpful to hat/unhat this section is here: User_talk:Knowledgekid87#Unexplained_revert.2Fre-hatting_of_explained_unhatting. --B2C 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now per policy the next move discussion to change this title will happen in October, saying that the title is wrong until you are blue in the face and why you feel you are right or wrong is not going to help anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
So ignore the folks saying the title is wrong instead of edit warring over a hat. NE Ent 19:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If the only comment in this section was the first JDLI one, that would justify hatting the section. But by the time it was hatted it already included the substantive exchange between Vexorian (talk · contribs) and Richard BB (talk · contribs). The hatting, and re-hatting, was unjustified. At least no reasonable justification was provided. The initial JDLI claim applied only to the first comment, not the rest of it.

Knowledgekid seems to think any discussion about the title is now off limits. That's not true. --B2C 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not saying anything of the sort, it is known by now that some editors here do not approve of the current title I just don't see any reason why the debate about it needs to continue here and what purpose it is all for. What results do you expect out of it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ultimately, the result will be consensus. It always is.

Who approves or disapproves is irrelevant. What matters are the reasons, and each side understanding the other side, if not agreeing. Reaching consensus through discussion works in mysterious ways. And takes time. And the freedom to discuss... --B2C 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Latest comment: 11 years ago72 comments50 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. There's clearly consensus against this title for now, so I'm closing it early as the snow piles up. I wouldn't be surprised if the proposed form became more common as sources look to skirt the Bradley/Chelsea issue altogether, but for now, it won't fly. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bradley 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.[2] 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) 04:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • oppose I think we should wait 30 days. By then there may be sourcing to move to Chelsea. Private is an interim solution and not needed, Bradley is still the dominant search term. Please don't quote bogus google search numbers - past around 1000 hits they are wild guesstimates and actual hits May be off by several orders of magnitude, so your numbers are literally meaningless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • support At least in the interim, this seems like a good compromise position to take, and creates less conflict between the pronouns MOS:IDENTITY requires us to useand our title. Given that the RM closure explicitly allows for this proposal to be made, I think it's a good thing to do especially because it had a reasonable amount of support above. I'm not sure exactly what the formal process is to propose an article be moved, or I'd just straight up do that. Cam94509 (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Honestly, I'd rather see it titled after a non-existent woman's name than I would renamed to this. It is a good-faith attempt at compromise, sure, but you simply can't name a person by something as ephemeral as a military rank, Private Benjamin and Corporal Clegg notwithstanding. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the "good faith" remark, Tarc, which I reciprocate. But I disagree that the rank is ephemeral, any more than a maiden name is ephemeral, or Colonel Sanders is ephemeral. We know that he's going to retain the rank for decades to come, unless the world blows up first. Nice context for the word "ephemeral" BTW.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A Kentucky colonel is an honorary title though, and in Sanders case it became part of his public persona. I don't see that as the same as a genuine military rank. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I freely admit that the Sanders analogy is not perfect (if he was transgender then it was kept as secret as his recipe).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Private Manning would be a suitable compromise while we wait the 30 days (or more), and would help avoid the confusion of a page named Bradley referring to she. However, I'm also content to just let the dust settle now, and are there any other military articles on real people in the form of Rank Last name? Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, Colonel Sanders - who isn't even a Colonel. Private Manning is the more neutral and less argumentative option here; if we want this page to avoid a stand either way, Private Manning is a decent choice I feel. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support &n-dash; but only because Private Manning is a better title than Bradley Manning and an interim solution that is less offensive while waiting for sanity to prevail and the appropriate name to Chelsea Manning to be implemented is justifiable. EdChem (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While this is a clever attempt at compromise, it's Abraham Lincoln, not President Lincoln. As for the final title, unless she manages to become more famous post-transition than he was pre-, it's Bradley Manning, not Chelsea Manning, and no number of snide comments about "sanity" will change that. --erachima talk 05:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This opens another brand new can of worms - do we call him "Private Manning", or "PFC Manning"? Which title should we choose, and why? That kind of discussion has already taken before, and it was also a messy one. There has been arguments that "calling him Private is demeaning", "calling him PFC is incorrect because he was stripped of that rank", "the majority of notable events took place when he was PFC", "he has bad relationship with the military", et cetera, made by other people earlier on. We're just going to end up being even more divided. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
PFC stands for "Private First Class". It's just a flavor of private. Likewise, there are several flavors of general, but it's okay to call all of them generals.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support While the article title should be Chelsea Manning, it has been decided to not just refuse to make this common-sense change, but to undo it and refuse to reconsider the matter for a month. This proposal would, at least, be a better option than pointlessly offending readers and editors. MaxHarmony (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One can (and we have done so at length) argue whether Bradley or Chelsea is the common name of the subject. It's definitely not "Private Manning", though. Obviously, the current "Bradley Manning" is much better known.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I doubt anybody knows or refers to her by that name, and this would also suggest that she is a private person, i.e. that she is not disclosing her name (which is not true). This is not a good compromise. Heymid (contribs) 08:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A poor compromise. "Private Manning" is clearly not the common name: if you'd used quotation marks in your search, you'd have gotten less than a million hits for "private" and "pfc" combined. Although I supported reverting back to "Bradley" in the previous move discussion, I will be happy to support "Chelsea" after a reasonable period of time and evidence that the new name is sticking in our sources. – Smyth\talk 12:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – although I find the implicit sprit of compromise in this request refreshing, even admirable. "Private" is not the common name. I favor waiting the 30 days and re-assessing at that time. Skyraider (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For one thing, there's supposed to be a moratorium on move requests. For another, the proposed name is clearly not superior to one of the two alternatives suggested in the earlier request; the dispute is over which one. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
In case you missed it in the move request resolution, the closing administrators prohibited only a move request to "Chelsea Manning" in the next 30 days. The resolution explicitly allows for a change such as the one being proposed here. Here's the relevant passage:

In the interim, editors may propose moving the page to a compromise title such as "Private Manning" or "Bradley (Chelsea) Manning".

CaseyPenk (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess that depends upon what you think Wikipedia's responsibilities and commitments are.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you are already aware, but please note that Manning prefers to be referred to using feminine pronouns. Many other editors have expressed a similar desire and MOS:IDENTITY asks that we use the person's preferred pronouns in article prose. You may wish to consider their perspectives if you have not already, or consider them again. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not going to happen. I will continue to refer to him as a male as long as he has a dick and a Y chromosome. This has already been discussed. IFreedom1212 (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This comment is unhelpful and tactless.Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's quite helpful in demonstrating how much of the opposition to the name-change really is motivated by personal hostility to those who are transgender. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement is certainly tasteless, and I wouldn't be surprised to find this person hostile to the transgendered, but your statement is almost as unhelpful as you appear to seek to add fuel to the fire. Most unhelpful indeed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's about as helpful as demanding that I call Bradley a "she." I'm probably just as offended by CaseyPenk's request as you are of my refusal. Referring to him by his correct gender does not 'add fuel to the fire.' Your unwarranted hostility does. IFreedom1212 (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting you acquiesce to the request. It was the "dick" comment that I am referring too.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reason as the last name, the common name is Bradley Manning. That's what the sources say, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. While we do get creative with novel and descriptive titles for contrived topics like List of districts of India that are not directly referenced in reliable sources, for topics that are directly referenced in reliable sources, like all individuals sufficiently notable to have coverage in WP, we follow the most common usage in those sources. There is no evidence that "Private Manning" is being used more commonly than "Bradley Manning" in reliable sources, so we should not use it either. --B2C 17:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't use honorifics/titles/ranks in article titles unless they are the overwhelming common name. Zarcadia (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • weak Support as better than the BLP/NPOV vio name Bradley though Chelsea would be even better and should be revisited in 29 days even if this RM is successful. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this request is a non-starter! The only move that makes any sense is to Chelsea Manning. I am not bothered if it waits 30 days, or if it happens sooner, but using the rank doesn't fit any policy or guideline; in my opinion. As an aside; I see a push to have the middle name used as if it is the common form; looking at the source for the infobox signature shows Manning signing her name over the typed name: Chelsea E. Manning but the signature itself is Chelsea Manning. I had a similar concern during the Laura Jane Grace move where we were ahead of sources and chose a name that hadn't achieved its own wp:commonform. It seems worth thinking about anyway. :) John Cline (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should wait 30 days with any new move requests as sugested by the admins closing the previous one. Space simian (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no adequate reason to ignore our naming conventions here. VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not even sure transgender is proper diagnosis let alone changing the title from the common name to something even more ambiguous. --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously. This matter has been resolved. Now leave it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's wait 30 days and see where common usage begins to fall. NewAccount4Me (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Public Manning is not the way to go. Agathoclea (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support per anything-is-better-than-Bradley. This could be a step towards consensus, though I am pretty sure that soon enough we will have the article at Chelsea. All major news sites are already moving towards it. We're just a little late to the party. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment Given the fact that Wikipedia's early use of Chelsea was newsworthy and there's bound to be more attention on the move back, is it reasonable to give or link to a brief explanation about the move back at the top? I feared this would be the somewhat embarrassing result, and the irony is that if procedure was followed we'd probably have moved to Chelsea either by now or before the 30 day cooling off period. It's probably better that it be clarified it was largely moved back because the initial move was an abuse of procedure. StuartH (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
you can use the oldmoves template, there's one at Ivory Coast I think. Note: the admin determination was no consensus to move. They did not move it back because of an abuse of procedure, they moved it back b/c discussion had no consensus to move and in these cases the original title remains.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I think we may be arguing about semantics here; disagreeing with exactly how StuartH phrased his statement. My belief, and perhaps StuartH's belief too, is thus: given there was likely "no consensus to move" yet performing the move anyways meant that "the initial move was an abuse of procedure."
  • Comment: Having initiated the previous move request I'm not particularly keen on delving into this one much. I'll reserve formal judgment, at least for now, regarding this move request. On the one hand, I would note that "Private Manning" is not a commonly used term. "Bradley Manning" is oft-used, and "Chelsea Manning" is oft-used, but I don't really see "Private Manning" being used in reliable sources. On the other hand, I do think "Private" is a more neutral way to approach this than picking a given name (a decision clearly wrought with controversy). I could see it being acceptable as a temporary compromise before the move request in thirty or so days. Anyway, I'll leave it to the rest of you to work out a solution. Good luck.
PS: The discussion so far on this move request appears to be reasonable and civil, without personal attacks. I hope it will stay that way, as presenting arguments in a reasonable manner is almost certain to make others trust your opinions more. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify (one proposer to another), I don't see this as a temporary move. If it's a valid move---which I think it is---then I expect it will remain so after 30 days. Time won't change the fact that his most notable actions occurred while he was very clearly Bradley Manning and very clearly Private Manning, not Chelsea Manning. But who knows what lies ahead in this dramatic drama. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, this: "notable actions occurred while he was very clearly Bradley Manning" is irrelevant: What matters is the persons CURRENT COMMON NAME, not when they were most notable. Cam94509 (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on that policy. How about Shirley Temple and Cat Stevens? Neither now goes by those names. Anyway, has Wikipedia ever affirmatively decided to reject the recommendation of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) to not use 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?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME states, "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." In other words, recent sources (which may refer either to Chelsea or to Bradley) are given higher priority but older sources (which refer to Bradley) are also to be considered.
If you have not already seen it, you may want to check out this essay (AKA opinion piece) on recentism to understand why some may oppose focusing exclusively on the current name. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Without examining the merits of such a move, there won't be any moves for the mandated 30-day period, so please just close this discussion as, as someone (in)famously wrote (repeatedly) in a related context, being "too premature". --Mareklug talk 05:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Umm... Incorrect. This move discussion is EXPLICITLY allowed by the RM closure. We are merely not allowed to start a move discussion for moving the page to Chelsea Manning. Cam94509 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, while I'm not sure another RM is a good idea, the closing statement clearly allowed a RM of this sort I presume because such a proposal/compromise version was barely considered in the previous RM. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

lead revision

Latest comment: 11 years ago32 comments13 people in discussion

As Manning is most notable for the espionage she committed, the emphasis on the lead should be that; while her self identification as female is important, it should only be briefly mentioned in the lead. NE Ent 13:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

While we appreciate the bold action, please note that there is a long, thorough debate on how to deal with this matter occurring on this talkpage. Please refrain from taking unilateral action when consensus is being found. The lede is structured as it is to make it easier for readers to understand the different names and pronouns being used, as well. It's a readability and consensus issue. NewAccount4Me (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue is, per WP:LEAD, The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If specific explanation of pronouns is required, that is more appropriately done via hatnote. NE Ent 15:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I see it as a readability issue in general, but have no problems with a consensus saying otherwise. I do think we need a consensus before the change is made or we are going to have a 40,000 word rehashed argument in this section within the next 2-3 hours. NewAccount4Me (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a common sense and non-advocacy issue. Manning is primarily known for the espionage conviction, the transgender issue is secondary and should not be given that much prominence in the lead. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree that transgender shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence as a prime descriptor of Mannning. It's not what they got known for; which is the wikileak-case of course. Iselilja (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The transgender issue should be mentioned in the first sentence. Manning is now likely the most notable transgender person in the world and there is no evidence that now she is solely notable for the espionage conviction, unless of course ppl can find reliable sources to back up their opinions. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Had she not been convicted of 20 felonies, no one would have cared about the transgender issues. GregJackP Boomer! 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the past, it seems safe to say people (readers and editors) care about the transgender issues now. They are notable and have been discussed prominently in media.Elaqueate (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
GregJackP, the same could be said for Gary Glitter and his pedophile convictions but the reality is that because of the espionage issue Chelsea IS a highly notable transgender person, the proof of which is that we are here discussing her wikipedia article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree that she is a highly notable transgender. What I am saying is that the criminal acts are more significant. I don't have a problem with transgender being in the lead, but it should be explanitory, as McPhail notes below. The lead should summarize the article, and the majority of the article is about the crimes, the prosecution, and conviction. The transgender issue should not predominate in the lead. GregJackP Boomer! 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
My rationale for adding the word "transgender" in the first sentence was that this makes it immediately clear why both female and male names are supplied for Manning. The current wording leaves this a mystery. McPhail (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Politically I'd support omitting the transgender bit from the lead - the difference between the birth name and the current name should be something the mythical "average reader" should be able to figure out (and if they can't, they can always read on - it's the lead of an encyclopaedia article, not a stand-alone brief). In practical terms, although the transgender issue has attracted a lot of attention recently, it's unlikely to continue to do so unless the HRT fight heats up (and then the story still is likely to be US military policy, not the fact that Manning is transgender. I'd link the phrase "self-identified as female" to trans woman and leave it at that. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's agreed upon that her coming out should be mentioned in the lead by inclusion of one sentence, then that sentence could use a little expansion, it's kind of vague. What about saying: After being sentenced, Manning released a statement announcing she is a female and requested that she be referred to as Chelsea, - or something along those lines. On another note, I found this at CNN - Famous transgender and transsexual people-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I can't see the benefit of the change to the lead, and it isn't well-written.

    The lead said: "Manning was raised as a boy, but in a statement issued the day after sentencing identified herself as female and said she had felt female since childhood. She introduced herself as Chelsea and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy."

    That was changed to: "After sentencing, Manning stated she is a female and requested that she be referred to as Chelsea."

    When I reverted the change, I was reverted with the edit summary: "Nah, you don't just get to do that without participating in current discussion ..." So here I am. In what way is the change an improvement? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Per WP:LEAD, The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The primary emphasis should be on the espionage; the transgender aspect, while important, should only be mentioned in the lead and expounded further later in the article. NE Ent 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The primary topic of the lead is indeed the leaks and charges, but the first paragraph is not the totality of the lead. We need to explain upfront why and when she became Chelsea, and the previous version was clearer. I don't mind tightening it (in fact, I'd have done that myself but assumed I'd be reverted), but I don't think there's a need to change it completely. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the older wording sounds better: "Manning was raised as a boy, [... etc ...] expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." The new wording, "Manning stated she is a female", switches between the past and the present tense in the space of three words describing an event (the making of a statement) that occurred in the past; that doesn't seem like good style. If we're trying to make the lead more concise/brief, I'd suggest something like "After sentencing, Manning introduced herself as Chelsea and stated that she was female." or "...stated that she was a woman." or (incorporating a link to Gender identity disorder) "...stated that she had felt female since childhood." -sche (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If we want it to be a shorter single sentence, I'd prefer something like: "Manning was raised as a boy, but in a statement issued the day after sentencing said she had felt female since childhood, asked to be known as Chelsea, and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think sche's "After sentencing, Manning introduced herself as Chelsea and stated she was a woman" is good. That it was the day after and the therapy stuff is notable for inclusion but are details which don't need to be in the lead sentence. NE Ent 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not keen on "stated," because it's one of those over-used words, and the way it's written suggests that this was sudden, so I think it's important to add that she has felt that way since childhood. The thing is, if we shorten this too much, someone else will come along and lengthen it. Someone else lengthened what was there, which is why several of you now want to shorten it. To get stability we have to include the issues we can anticipate lots of people will want to see included, but do it as succinctly as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could tighten up the following three paragraphs in the lead into two and make the fourth lead paragraph address the transgender content? NE Ent 00:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be keen on that, because the rest of the lead deals with the key issues; it makes no sense to tighten the key issues to include the most recent. In addition, the transgender announcement needs to be at the top to explain Chelsea. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The first words, "Chelsea born Bradley," if it doesn't fully connect all the dots, certainly provides pretty powerful hint to readers. Explaining the context in which she became notable -- conviction for espionage -- should be the thrust of the first paragraph. The fact that she is transgender isn't what makes her notable -- I'm sure we don't have articles on all 700,000[1] transgender folks in the US. NE Ent 02:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/
The first two sentences explain the notability. I've changed the third to: "In a statement issued the day after sentencing, Manning said she had felt female since childhood, asked to be known as Chelsea, and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." Is that okay with you? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -sche (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's where we started. NE Ent 02:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we could compact it slightly to "The day after sentencing, Manning said she had felt female since childhood, asked to be known as Chelsea, and expressed a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy." (Possibly with a better verb than "said".) That would make it the shortest sentence in the first paragraph, and the second-shortest sentence in the first two paragraphs. -sche (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) It isn't where you started. You started with: "Manning was raised as a boy, but in a statement issued the day after sentencing identified herself as female and said she had felt female since childhood. She introduced herself as Chelsea, asked that feminine pronouns be used, and stated she would undergo hormone replacement therapy." [3] So it is now quite a bit shorter and is one sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an improvement, in terms of concision. All the current elements are relevant for the lede: it explains Chelsea by pointing to GID and its long-term nature. Placement early in the lede is important for clarity. The timing of Manning's announcement is salient, and the announcement is highly noteworthy. (Should we replace "said" with "announced"? I'm not sure.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally I prefer "said" as simpler and shorter, but if you prefer "announced" that would be fine too. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The truth can't be impossible

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

"Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g. use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child.)"

Oceania is at war with East Asia, Oceania has always been at war with East Asia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston S Smith (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Snoop Dogg article currently contains the sentence "As a teenager, Snoop Dogg frequently ran into trouble with the law." even though no one exactly named "Snoop Dogg" existed at the time. If someone says the equivalent of, "Chelsea Manning (raised as a boy named Bradley) is good at tennis. She started when she was ten.", readers will understand everything they need to know from the context. It is not impossible to explain complex truths or histories.Elaqueate (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A name differs from pronouns though. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The narration is from the present day. It is usually less confusing to use the pronoun and name of the present-day subject. It strengthens the idea that the article is about one person, not more.Elaqueate (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There are women named Bradley... Too bad Chelsea did not realize that. It would have saved immense amount of overhead. --Mareklug talk 04:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There are women named George. Vexorian (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What is this relevant difference between name and pronouns you are talking about? Vexorian (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The article can refer to her by the name she is more commonly associated with while still referring to her desired identity and using the proper pronouns associated with that identity. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong policy

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Hello,

Not really an active wikipedia editor, but I really feel that referring to him as Chelsea Manning and using the 'she' pronoun damages the integrity of wikipedia. While he identifies as a female, I think that by wikipedia identifying him as his chosen gender rather than his actual gender it makes them appear as if they are more interested in supporting transgender politics then giving fair and impartial presentation of the news. I believe the policy on this is wrong, and I suggest a change.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.93.108 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think you're the only person who feels this way; this issue has been heavily discussed over the past few days, and is a contentious issue. There has been discussion at the policy/guideline talk pages Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:Identity and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Gender over this problem that have recently concluded. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The policy is simple: follow the most commonly used name used in reliable sources. That policy serves two purposes. First, it means we're no worse than common usage in reliable sources... how bad could that be? Second, it means we don't have to come up with all kinds of policies and guidelines to decide how to decide - instead we just look at usage in reliable sources. Much simpler. --B2C 07:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
To a lot of people (including me) having her misgendered and misnamed on a page about her "damages the integrity of wikipedia." Taking a clear decision on this doesn't damage integrity - news organisations and encyclopedias and academic sources take decisions on controversial issues all the time. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There has been a clear decision on this - based on WP:COMMONNAME. When the number of sources using Chelsea predominate, we'll change it. There is not a consensus that this has happened yet. GregJackP Boomer! 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Whatever is '"actual gender"'? Don't fall into transphobic WP:SYSTEMICBIAS by thinking that referring of her as a him is a politically neutral statement. I won't sweeten what WP is doing here, mis-gendering her is a case of WP being abusive towards a trans person and sets an awful precedent for other trans people. If also the pronouns are changed to he, that would make things even worse. And if we care so much about biology, should we be extra careful about articles about women until we have verifiable knowledge that they have XX chromosome (e.g.: How could we know whether a woman has Androgen_Insensitivity_Syndrome , for example? until she give to birth?) Vexorian (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Wikipedia referring to Chelsea as "Bradley" isn't a deliberate, malicious attempt to attack her. — Richard BB 12:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The media in the UK have certainly adopted it, even if they haven't in the US. I look forward to the change anyway, which is inevitable however long it's delayed. 5.67.153.51 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The next move discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago49 comments16 people in discussion

As noted by several editors, there is no policy that supports an assertion that we cannot reconsider the move for 30 days. Of particular importance is the procedural reasons cited for the former one.

User:Jimbo Wales has apparently said: "the idea that we can’t reconsider for 30 days is just wrong."[4] I'd also note that BLP requires us to correct BLP issues immediately; User:Sue Gardner has commented that, "in the Manning situation, for a variety of reasons that may have included systemic bias, !voting did not achieve a result consistent with BLP." This seems to be a belief held by a significant number of editors, and if true, requires us to correct the situation as soon as possible. It would be reasonable to start a new RM as soon as we have had some time to collect evidence in preparation (see Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request), maybe in a couple of days. The situation now is that Wikipedia is at odds even with mainstream media usage[5]. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to authority, WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, and one of the primary insult-hurlers' personal blog don't really amount to credible arguments.. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Which policy do you suggest requires us to wait for 30 days in resolving what many editors believe to be a BLP issue? Josh Gorand (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS; I think if tested, you would see a strong consensus to wait 30 days.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I will be waiting to see if the arbcom takes it on or punts on the name issue - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that that process could take months, and they are unlikely to be willing to make such a content decision. I may be wrong. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well it isn't a question of "willing"; Arbcom simply does not adjudicate content disputes, nor would they or can they order an article be renamed from one thing to another. They can mandate things like Requests for Comment be drawn up and advertised to the community for input, perhaps that would happen here. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That is my understanding too. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The 30 days clause in the RM decision is less than meaningless. There can be a new move discussion as soon as it is reasonable to think the result might be different, which could mean the next occasion Manning is in the news. Formerip (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur w/ Formerip. Nothing barring a new RM. And frankly, a new RM would probably be successful, given the rapid change in how the RS's are treating this subject. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You can do anything you like, but others can respond. For example, an admin could easily close a new RM as disruptive and in violation of previous close, as could any of the 170 supporters of "Bradley". Feelings are still raw, people may react emotionally. Then someone would have to wheel war to override that, and more drama would be caused. It only takes one. I think supporters of a page move would do well to read carefully what BD2412 has written and how the decision was arrived at rather that pouting about the result, and take time to prepare a new, solid RM in 29 days, which will have very little opposition since it reflects the consensus waiting period from 3 uninvolved admins.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - See this comment from the closing admin (i.e. User:BD2412) on this matter. Specifically the line reading "The authority of an administrator on such a matter extends precisely as far as the community is willing to recognize the authority of an administrator on such a matter". It strikes me as pretty obvious that no one is going to get admonished if they launch a new RM before 30 days. NickCT (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to quickly concur with User:Tarc that, aside from everything else, what Jimbo says is utterly irrelevant. — Richard BB 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing a reasonable editor says is "utterly irrelevant"; Jimbo merely pointed to the fact that there is no policy in support of that, not to his personal opinion on any matter. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The point I was getting at, which I'm sure you already knew, was that the fact that it was Jimbo who said it is irrelevant. — Richard BB 09:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Preparation for another discussion: Article titles for transgender people, which is likely to result in an amendment to WP:TITLE that will make it easier to obtain a consensus to retitle this article (and not only this article, but every article that faces a similar issue). With the appropriate focus, such an amendment can be achieved fairly quickly, and a change in policy would be a fair reason to reconsider the thirty day clause. Wouldn't it be wiser to work towards quickly implementing such an amendment first, rather than raising the question under the policies in place the first time it was considered? bd2412 T 14:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@bd2412 - re "Wouldn't it be wiser to work towards quickly implementing such an amendment first" - Are we sure consensus for an amendment will occur? As you so wisely noted, BD2412, a number of editors changed their "support" for Bradley to "oppose", just within the 7 days that the RM discussion took b/c they felt the WP:COMMONNAME had changed. Now, personally, I'm not sure the WP:COMMONNAME has changed, but I think it's reasonable to think that it may have; hence, I'd be for another RM discussion w/o delay. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that consensus for an amendment is more likely than consensus for a page move initiated on the heels of a previous discussion, with no intervening change in the relevant policies. The "number of editors" who changed their position during the RM was less than 3%, which by itself is not very promising for an immediate revisitation. This was less than the number who reaffirmed support for the revision (including those who opined that the primary factor was the name of the subject at the time that notability was acquired, and those who matched every new source following the new name with a new source following the old name). Let me ask you this, though: have you ever seen a proposal succeed when a new discussion was initiated within a few days of the closure of an unsuccessful effort to implement the proposed change? bd2412 T 15:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@bd2412 - re "have you ever seen a proposal succeed ..... few days of the closure ..." - Perhaps not. OK. Seems like a lot of folks feel that it is too soon, and I'm not going to argue too much b/c ultimately there's little difference if the name gets changed now or in 1-2 months. I find this a tad vexing though, b/c your main finding wasn't that the move was wrong, but that there was no demonstrated consensus for the move. So, my question would be, why not immediately turn around and ask whether there is consensus for the move? NickCT (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've seen it once, I think, at Deadmau5; I think it took 3 moves + a move review in period of a few days, before the weight of community consensus finally swung back around. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The Deadmau5 situation was actually more like an extended version of the original dispute here, with surprise over the initial move resulting in the page returning to its original title. The initial proposed move in that case was filed on May 19, 2013. The decisive proposal was filed nearly six weeks later, on June 27, 2013. bd2412 T 16:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically under policy you would be allowed to propose another move request once the Private Manning move request has closed. However, I strongly advise against doing so, for four reasons:

  1. Doing so would go against the good-faith efforts of the panel of closing administrators to cool tensions before further debate and could inflame still-raw emotions.
  2. The closing administrators determined the current title does not violate WP:BLP (which would, if you agree with that reasoning, lessen the immediate necessity of making the change).
  3. Many (myself included) will oppose any such move request on the grounds that we need to wait for things to settle before making such a big move (following the logic of my first point, regarding administrator intentions).
  4. On the practical level of counting votes, I do not think a move request would succeed, given that many others are likely to cite similar reasons to mine.

If you wait until the 30 day period has elapsed you will be much, much more likely to succeed and we will have had time to cool off, resulting in a more orderly discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@CaseyPenk - OK. Seems like a lot of folks feel that it is too soon, and I'm not going to argue too much b/c ultimately there's little difference if the name gets changed now or in 1-2 months. NickCT (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We should wait for things to settle, both here and in the press. 30 days is and appropriate length of time to wait. NewAccount4Me (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, 30 days is plenty of time for feeling to subdue and sources to build up to a consensus on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has just offered this opinion on the matter on his talk page:

"My own view, and I'm carefully monitoring the data daily, is that we need to consider holding a new vote earlier than the 30 days originally specified by the closing admins, on the grounds that significant new information has emerged. In particular, the New York Times announcement came late in the voting process, and votes cast after that time ran 2-1 in favor of Chelsea. Perhaps even more persuasive and slightly astonishing is that Fox News is now using "Chelsea" on their website."

I agree that the RS situation is significantly different from when the vote started, and that the vote tended to favour Chelsea in its late stages. Waiting for a certain time before holding a new vote (and I think it's fair to call it a vote) is in itself generally reasonable in most cases, but 30 days may be unnecessary long in regard to the changes in media usage (see eg. [6]). Also, if Sue Gardner and other users are correct in their assertion that the current title violates BLP, policy actually requires immediate action, which needs to be considered. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As we have stated repeatedly, Sue Gardner's and Jimbo Wales' opinions are exactly as valid as anyone else's. Neither has made a statement on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation regarding this situation; unless and until they do so we are under no obligation to give their perspectives any special consideration. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
And as we have stated repeatedly, this is not only Gardner's opinion, but the opinion of a significant number of editors involved in this discussion. I also only said it was something that has to be considered in this discussion (on when to hold a new vote). Josh Gorand (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
A significant number, sure, but there are also significant numbers of people who support the good-faith advice of the closing admins. They would contribute to a whole lot of reject votes in any early move request. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Only votes that are policy-based and reasonable arguments count, and if the media have already adopted Chelsea, commonname would no longer be a valid argument against. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"Only votes that are policy-based ... count" Exactly, which is why I feel that advocacy votes in favor of any particular group should also not count (or at least not heavily as policy-based ones).
"Only votes that are ... reasonable arguments count" In my view, that would be an incredibly subjective categorization. Everyone has a different view of what is reasonable. The closing admins can't pick and choose which views seem well-informed, intelligent, or civilized. That would be a dangerous judgment call. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, for reference: if you wish to start a move request you are, as we have repeatedly stated, technically allowed to do so once the current one has closed. Then you will have the opportunity to see how editors feel about it. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not interested in starting a RM right away, but in discussing when we should do it. This discussion is still ongoing, both here and in other venues. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The BLP issue has been considered. Ad nauseum. Your continued harping on this is becoming more than a nuisance. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. It's not like I am "harping" on anything, numberous users continue to raise the BLP issue, eg. in the ongoing arbitration related to this article. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the ones sticking my fingers in my ears whilst yelling "No one is listening to me!" That's you. You continually repeat claims of BLP violations and quote Wales & Garnder in what appears to be a (futile) attempt to wear others down. The 3 admin panel determined there were no BLP issues or else they would have not switched the article back. If you don't like that, go work on changing what BLP means, but your current method of debate is wearing thin. Others that share a similar view of you manage to communicate in a far less abrasive manner. Food for thought?Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you need to buy yourself a mirror. Enough derailing for now, do that elsewhere. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think your repeatedly bringing up the same points over and over again can be seen as disruptive. "Nuisance" is a strong word, but some editors may view some of your arguments as beating a dead horse. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The idea that the subject of the ongoing arbitration case related to the title of this article, and that many users agree that we need to reconsider in the nearest future, is a "dead horse", is laughable, and such assertions will be seen as disruptive by many editors. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Another RM within 27 days is inevitable, I would recommend waiting the whole 27 days but there are far too many long-term editors with real policy/guideline concerns for there to be any possibility of letting this one lie down and die for say a few months, and BLP concerns have not been satisfied in the minds of many, including myself. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I was not making that assertion myself. I was stating that a number of other editors view 'repeatedly insisting upon an interpretation that the closing administrators and many other editors rejected' commensurate with 'beating a dead horse.' CaseyPenk (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There was not consensus that BLP did not apply to the case and active discussion on the arbitration case page over its applicability continues, where it is one of the major issues. Therefore, it is legitimate to mention that BLP might still be a concern in regard to when we have a new discussion, and I didn't even conclude in that regard, only mention it. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I add my voice to the chorus of those who think it would be best to wait a month (as suggested by BD2412) before a new RM. A month from now, the case for moving this article will only be even stronger than it is today. -sche (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, Jimbo is a great guy, he is not the ultimate deciding factor though. Wikipedia goes by the consensus of editors per WP:CONSENSUS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's recent comment was cited because he presented a reasonable rationale, relating to the topic discussed in this section. Nobody has said he is a "deciding factor" or anything like that. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Josh, stop being such an activist/one-trick pony. Take a gander at what the other encyclopedia is doing and let the subject matter breathe a little: http://www.britannica.com/search?query=chelsea%20manning --Mareklug talk 01:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding my support for moving the move debate forwards - No sense in leaving Wikipedia in a ridiculous state to prove a point. Artw (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to move the debate forwards, I would suggest you begin by assisting with this proposal to modify article title policy to make it easier to change a title to one reliably reported as being preferred by the subject. It is astounding to me how so many editors objected to he invocation of the current policy with respect to this article, and yet so few are participating in an effort to actually do something about it. bd2412 T 19:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems pretty solid, but WP:COMMONNAME as it stands right now would seem to support changing the name back. Artw (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of COMMONNAME

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I believe many editors in the previous discussions interpreted WP:COMMONNAME as dictating that we use the most common name in all sources published on the subject. That is actually not what that policy says. It says:

  • "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources"
  • "neutrality is also considered"
  • "when there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
  • "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change"

I'd argue that the former name, after a person changes their name, is an "inaccurate name" per COMMONNAME. Secondly, using the former name is "problematic" because of BLP. Thirdly, insisting on using a name a person does no longer use and has asked not to be used, it not "neutral."

COMMONNAME seems to clearly support using Chelsea, regardless of which name is the most popular in media usage. However, the situation at this point is that the media mostly use Chelsea[7], with some exceptions such as the Unification Church's far-right newspaper The Washington Times (which nevertheless recognises that "liberal media fall in line with PC agenda."[8]). Josh Gorand (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I interpret “inaccurate name” per COMMONNAME to mean names like “lean finely-textured beef” for pink slime. Someone’s actual birth name, in my opinion, does not constitute an “inaccurate name”. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding "the most common name has problems," you may want to participate in a discussion about clarifying that phrase at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#"and the most common has problems". CaseyPenk (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to make clear that WP:COMMONNAME does in fact state, more than once, that Wikipedia prefers the most common name. The policy doesn't demand the most common name without exception in 100% of cases. But it's at the core of the policy and repeated over and over again with different phrasings. While the "after the name change" sentence would probably be a factor toward Chelsea, the inaccurate name, neutrality and problematic factor would not. I'd encourage editors to read the police for themselves. --JamesAM (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and extenuate that a subject's preference of one name over another does not trump the wp:commonname preference in my opinion. or I feel certain Jimbo Wales would be the article's title instead of a redirect to it.—John Cline (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Media roundup on the move from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning

Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments11 people in discussion

This will be of interest to readers of this talk page and in relation to the ongoing arbitration case related to the title. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see David Gerard keeping it classy (that's sarcasm btw) in the comments section of the latter. We're all transphobes still, but it's transphobia from ignorance, which I suppose in his mind is an upgrade. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's spelled sarcasm, and how does it help to do it here?Elaqueate (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, the typo police cometh. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

[9] has a more extensive list. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Do people really think such articles will benefit wikipedia somehow, by presenting simplified and false or biased version of the events? For example, one of Phil Sandifer's earlier columns makes the ridiculous claim that the whole reason Manning was sentenced for 35 years is because she is transgendered! The discussion here wasn't a !vote, and the way it's represented is otherwise a completely silly view of the way wikipedia works - in a way it's sort of like saying "Wikipedia holds a !vote on whether to call Ireland Ireland or republic of Ireland!! Or "Wikipedia holds a !vote to determine whether to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel"!! or "Wikipedia holds a !vote to decide whether Star Trek: Into Darkness" has a colon or not!!" I mean, having large, consensus-forming discussions is the MAIN THING WE DO HERE outside of edit the articles, it's how shit gets done - it is indeed a sausage factory. But it annoys me when people who are bitter at the results deride the process while simultaneously willfully ignoring why that process exists or what the alternatives are - especially when you have lines like: "On Wikipedia, Chelsea has been sentenced to remain Bradley." - which ignores the fact that the female pronouns are used throughout, and the subject is introduced in the first line as "Chelsea". Answer me this question - if NO sources were calling her Chelsea, would y'all really be !voting to call her Chelsea? There has to be some acceptance of the fact that wikipedia mirrors the broader world, we aren't meant to improve on it by taking sides.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Also as a side note, one of the reasons discussions like "Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel" or "What do we title Manning's article" are so contentious is because of resource scarcity. We can write 100,000 blogs calling her Bradley and 100,000 blogs calling her Chelsea, but there is only ONE wikipedia article. Academics can fight, but then they can retreat and write their own papers, whereas here, we have to come to some sort of compromise between different sides to present things in a neutral fashion, and it's sometimes a zero sum game because articles can only have one title, and Jerusalem is or isn't the capital, etc. Thus, epic battles over trivialities and names that elsewhere are solved through other means - such as each side just publishing their POV - at wikipedia go through a messy sausage fest of a discussion. So what? Has anyone proposed a better way? Shall we have a corps of uber editors, or an editorial board that can override community consensus? Anyway, this is drifting offtopic for this page...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"But it annoys me when people who are bitter at the results deride the process while simultaneously willfully ignoring why that process exists or what the alternatives are." Nailed it. That's extremely frustrating to me as well. To see Wikipedia misrepresented on external sites, sometimes by our own editors, is deeply saddening and actually rather irritating. Can those involved in the process please agree to use policy-based arguments and to accurately describe the situation and Wikipedia processes, both on- and off-wiki? It's a simple proposal, but it would help keep the debate less acrimonious. And if we can keep the debate civil, we won't need ArbCom to break up the fights. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It also deserves to be repeatedly emphasized that we decided on the title of the article, not on her pronouns and not on her name. We decided on the title. To represent the decision as anything other than a decision about the title of the article is simply false. The motives might have been varied, but the effect was clear: to change the title. That is all. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The bitterness seems to be all coming from those determined not to follow wikipedia polices and guidelines which means calling her Chelsea. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
In the fullness of time, that may indeed be the name this article ends at. But not yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a typical tweet: "Wikipedia decides that the general public gets to decide what your gender and personal identity is, if you're trans" - NO, poindexter, Wikipedia gets to decide by consensus what to title an article. In fact, wikipedia ALSO decided to use the female pronouns for now, and nobody is making any claims that Chelsea is not Manning's personal identity, and the article begins with "Chelsea". Typical exaggerated sound-bite that pillories wikipedia while completely missing the point - classic click-rage. Then we have a trans-advocacy group writing "We're told that more blogs about their treatment of Manning could help change Wikipedia's approach, so get writing if you want to help.". If you want to help, no, don't write another ill-informed blog (which will just generate heat, not light); instead, come here, sign up, create a user name, participate in some article move debates on non-trans-topics, and experience the frustration of not getting the name you want, and the joy of getting the name you prefer, and take time to understand the messiness of consensus building and then learn how to shape consensus, how to bring editors around to your POV, why civility works better than name-calling, and understand WHY wikipedia is a tertiary source and reliant upon secondary sources, understand the meaning of WP:OR and why it's a bad thing, THEN start thinking through what sort of policy changes can be put in place, not just to solve the Manning question (as she is one of thousands of notable transgendered people), but to solve the more general question of how to deal with name changes of people, places, things, stadiums, etc in a way that respects the wishes of the subject balanced against the needs of the millions of readers who rely on wikipedia as a neutral source of information. Then, you will find that it is possible to change wikipedia, but it's not going to happen instantly on your timeline. Oh, and lay off the histrionics - we're ultimately talking about the title of a page on a single website, not someone's "identity" - and if you're so concerned about preventing harm to others, please sign up for project qworty and finish cleaning the mess he wrought.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this an example of soapboxing? Or is it something better suited elsewhere?Elaqueate (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that it can be frustrating when the greater world does not see your project the way you see it. This is a good and poignant solicitation that the media should work to portray reality more informed by those who have lived experience of it. --Elaqueate (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is one of those discussions which, to quote Ben above, generates more heat than light. It is unlikely that this reporting will make it in to our article, so it might be a good idea to discontinue this conversation (or maybe hold it at the Signposts in the news section). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi, outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's procedures come across as bizarre and offensive, and what looks like a vote, walks like a vote and talks like a vote, will be interpreted as a vote on whether we accord trans people basic human dignity and respect. Also, outside of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's own internal game and rules have no validity, and people (including people who also happen to edit Wikipedia) are entitled to say whatever they want about Wikipedia, the result of this debate and the procedure that led to it. The overwhelming response to the move is one of shock and people being appalled, because it is indeed considered truly offensive and unacceptable in society at large. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's something for the outside world to come to grips with; we determine what our policies are for our project. An encyclopedia should not waver to the whims of political correctness, ideological warfares, or the oft-cited "it may cause offense" complaint. As my personal hero said, "'I'm rather offended'...has no reason to be respected as a phrase." Tarc (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be able to express its own identity, no matter what the greater world thinks.--Elaqueate (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of wikipedians (long term editors) are also, I believe, shocked at the decision to revert to Bradley as the title in spite of a complete lack of consensus to do so. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
As it turns out, even MORE wikipedians were happy with the decision to revert to Bradley, at least if we go by !votes. I know, it's not majority rules, but whatever, that's how the cookies crumbled this time. I'm quite sure there are lots of things on commons.wikimedia.org that would shock the hell out of the world, but I don't see you leading the crusade to clean it up, are you? Yes, Josh, people can say whatever they want about WP, but I also have the right to say they don't know what the hell they're talking about, or that they're misrepresenting reality of how WP works, and reporting based on specious information or trying to push a POV, and I'm suggesting that if they want to change how WP works, they should put on their editor's hat and join us here. Your "society at large" is just a certain group of ppl who think like you, and the sooner you realize not everyone thinks like you, the better.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the ongoing discussion of the move back to Chelsea Manning? I would very much like to lend my support to doing so. Artw (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you want Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request. DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that we have not yet started debating the move; the discussion will start later, maybe in slightly less than a month, maybe in a week or two. For now, we are only collecting and discussing sources that support such a move. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Why not sooner? Also would I bve correct that the best way at this point to facilitate the correction would be add to the sources at the bottom of this page? Artw (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Bradley_Manning#The_next_move_discussion (among other threads). Cheers, -sche (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this whole thing has gotton way out of hand as well, what is up with others calling editors who retained Bradley transphobic? Since when is following wikipedia policy being transphobic? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Leading(tm) news sources overview

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
  Moved to Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
I was reverted but I'm going to try this again. I am not trying to shut down this discussion, I'm simply asking that it be centralized at Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request where there is a much larger and more complete list, and where active discussion is happening. This is normal practice to centralize discussion, so please join us all there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Leading up to the next inevitable move discussion, I compiled a table of who is primarily calling Manning what. I selected what I believe are the most prominent English language sources, but I'm bound to miss a few. For all Bradley entries, I've taken the date of the last story which primarily identifies Manning as Bradley. For they Chelsea entries I've taken the first time that Chelsea is used. No sources has switched to Chelsea and back again, so there is no worry yet about that complication. I have discarded opinion pieces. It could be a good idea to keep this up to date to assist in determining the common name at the next move discussion, as well as expanding with sources I hadn't thought off - I'm a continental European after all, and don't always know which sources are leading. The preliminary table is as follows:

Outlet Chelsea Bradley Link
BBC 2 Sep http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23792112
CNN 23 Aug http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/23/us/prison-sex-change/index.html
NYT 27 Aug http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/its-chelsea-manning-from-now-on-in-the-times/ (followed by several articles that enact the change)
NBC 26 Aug http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/26/20203429-manning-lawyer-gives-more-details-on-decision-to-become-chelsea?lite
CBS 29 Aug http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57600719/lawyer-bradley-manning-is-doing-well-in-prison/
AP 29 Aug http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/convicted-wikileaks-soldier-prison-20109354
Reuters 24 Aug http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-usa-security-snowden-guardian-idUSBRE97I10E20130824
TIME magazine 30 Aug http://nation.time.com/2013/08/30/chelsea-manning-making-friends-in-prison-lawyer/
Independent 2 Sep http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/as-a-transgender-woman-in-prison-chelsea-manning-is-commencing-the-greatest-struggle-of-her-life-8789886.html
Guardian 23 Aug http://www.theguardian.com/world/chelsea-manning

I have omitted

  • ABC
  • Fox News
  • Washington Post
  • The Australian

They all switched to Chelsea, but only in reports taken from AP, or in the case of The Australian AP and AAP, which has switched to Chelsea, and haven't reported independently on Manning yet since the announcement of the new gender identity. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting. One question I have is what are media outside the Internet saying? Most media outlets that deal in television, radio, or print also have web presences, but their non-web reporting might also be of significance, especially in what is more recent than the latest web posting or for the cases where there is no independent reporting to use. If ABC and Fox have had TV coverage of Manning, then what name they used is indicative of their decision, not just a wire service report. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
I also noticed the absence of Canadian media on the list. I have started to check. For the CBC, this link is to a radio show that discussed the name issue, but has a note attached by the CBC explicitly stating their name and pronoun policy. In short, they are transitioning :-) http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/08/23/whats-in-a-name/ 99.192.48.26 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Canada's CTV news only has wire reports online, but Global News has a short item dated August 27th where they use "Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who was previously known as Bradley Manning" and seem to intentionally avoid pronouns. (NB: I tried to post the link, but kept getting a "fatal error") That's it for the national Canadian TV networks. 99.192.48.26 (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
For Canada's national print media, both national newspapers (Globe & Mail and The National Post) only have wire reports post-transition announcement. MacLean's Magazine has an item on August 29th that uses "Bradley" but also uses "she". http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/08/28/newsmakers-98/ 99.192.48.26 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
Reuters just started using Chelsea. Reuters article.--Elaqueate (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
They note the announcement, and name the subject as Chelsea, but are very careful in my reading to avoid all gendered pronouns whatsoever, and use neutral terminology whenever possible including the dreaded "they" and "Private Manning". A policy I think we would be wise to follow. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  Moved to Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Transsexual, transgender, man, woman... Okay, the dispute has gone far enough. Not to mention that he is still a man, yet he declares himself a 'woman'. Also, the title is currently "Bradley Manning", yet the lead begins with "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning". He is categorized currently and self-identifies as "transgendered woman", but I wonder if self-identity overweighs the article's balance. From now on, until further news develops, I'm proposing omission sex- or gender-related categories. --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Basing yourself on which policies and guidelines?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a comparison, Chaz Bono, who was a woman, and is now "legally" a man and has "legally" changed his name from Chastity to Chaz, uses the pronoun "HE" only seven times in the entire article, while the Manning article uses the pronoun "SHE" over one hundred times, nines in the lead alone. Seems like a disruptive use of the pronoun to prove some sort of point.--JOJ Hutton 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh geez, we've already covered this like 999 times. There are specific proposals at COMMONNAME, etc., covering this. Can someone hat this off? GregJackP Boomer! 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPCAT, adding belief- or "sexual orientation"-based categories is normally discouraged, unless it follows ALL conditions: 1) person self-identifies; 2) self-identification is relevant to one's own public life or notability based on reliable sources. I wonder if this person's sexuality is currently relevant to public life or notability. Also, per WP:categorization#Article, such categorization must be uncontroversial, or use a list article then. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
George, we did cover this already, and consensus was the keep the transgender categories. Transgender is not sexuality, but that's a quibble. The fact that Manning is transgender, a transgender inmate, a transgender soldier, is most certainly notable and DEFINING and has been discussed in multiple sources which were previously provided. AFAIK, you are the only one who finds placing Manning in a transgender category controversial.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
I'll be bold and close this as personal insults are not helping and going against the spirit of of Mos:Identity that we respect a trans woman's right to live the gender identity she chooses. We already have sources discussing how she may/may not be able to get hormone therapy and her name change has already been discussed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I came back to this article to check on a fact and noted the title had been switched to "Bradley Manning". The current version is far less confusing, and obviously more accurate given Manning's current physiological and legal status. I was prompted to come check on something following a discussion elsewhere about the Syrian situation, and Manning's name came up - FWIW in that discussion, the participants referred to "Bradley Manning" and "him." I was curious where WP stood. I am pleased with the switch back. The pronouns in the article are still a mess.68.144.172.8 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"The pronouns in the article are still a mess." I have tried to clarify situations in which it was important to note that Manning was living as a male. What other pronoun usages are confusing? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The pronouns in the article should reflect the lifestyle in which the subject is living. In this case it is as a man. He puts on man's clothing every day and is referred to as a man by everyone around him. Simply saying you want to be referred to as a woman should not be enough. The subject needs to live the lifestyle as well, such as the case with Chaz Bono.--JOJ Hutton 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Not according to the experts on the topic.--v/r - TP 15:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
You mean he is not living as a man, he is living as a woman?--JOJ Hutton 15:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to deliberately miss the point in some kind of mock ignorance, than find a less controversial subject to be disruptive. If you legitimately missed it, you said "Simply saying you want to be referred to as a woman should not be enough. The subject needs to live the lifestyle as well, such as the case with Chaz Bono." According to the experts, that is part of the transition but the transition takes time. They are the gender they identify with at the point they chose to identify with it. Pretending I meant that "The experts say he's living as a woman" is just a bit WP:IDHT and we don't need more of that attitude here.--v/r - TP 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes only part of the transition. And when did we start the name calling? I'm not saying that the transition needs to be complete, but there has to be more than just a third party statement. Remember that nobody has publicly heard Manning make these statements. Only been heard through a third party. That wouldn't matter so much, but where is the proof? Where is the evidence that Manning is living as a woman? Even if biologically and physically a man. Many people wouldn't care if Manning were free to dress up like a woman and live the lifestyle of a woman, and have people call him a "she". But thats just not the case here. Manning is living in a men's prison because he is not living as a woman. Federal government allows transgender individuals to be housed in the facility in which they identify, but not this time for some reason.--JOJ Hutton 16:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
She has a lawyer who has a "Power of Attorney" to speak on her behalf. We don't need physical proof. It's not a physical definition that determines what we call her. "And when did we start the name calling?" I'd appreciate it if you didn't deliberately misinterpret what I said next time. That's disruptive.--v/r - TP 16:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Manning is in a Military prison, which operates on a different standard.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You called me Obtuse and ignorant. Thats name calling. I'm done with you because you obviously feel that incivility and name calling are ways to get your point across. Too bad and a shame.--JOJ Hutton 16:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh really, I did that? You'll need to find a diff of me calling you ignorant, I haven't done that. You're also taking my edit comment out of context. I asked if you're being deliberately obtuse on purpose. If you don't know the difference between name calling and asking you if you made an honest mistake or are deliberately taking me out of context with this edit (read WP:IDHT) then feel free to quit playing games. Don't play silly "gotcha" games with others and then expect them to think you're being honest.--v/r - TP 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Because Manning is not being held under ordinary criminal law, but under military law, which has its own code/courts/prisons/regulations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Well when he gets out in 35 years years, he can live whatever lifestyle he wishes.--JOJ Hutton 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed confusing, because there is a distinction between sex and gender.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@User:Jojhutton, aside from the government's decision to place the subject in a men's prison, how is the subject "living as a man"? Is military prison dress significantly different for male prisoners and female prisoners? Is the daily routine significantly different? Right now, I would say that the subject is "living as a prisoner", which is not a status amenable to living either "as a man" or "as a woman", as it certainly does not afford a great deal of control over gender-specific lifestyle indicia. bd2412 T 15:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If it was all the same, then prisons would be mixed. There is a men's prison and a women's prison. He is treated as a man and cannot dress or act as a woman in prison. As far as the government making decisions. Manning made his decision when he broke the law and was justly convicted.--JOJ Hutton 15:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What makes you say, that Manning can't act as a woman -- they may control allot of behaviors but how would they control how someone acts as a woman? (sources please)Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

− Can someone close this section? I don't think it helps anything related to the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Fixing the bias in the MOS:TW template

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Seems a more general complaint about the MOS-TW template. I would remind editors that this page is discussing about the article itself, not a template. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

The MOS:TW template is clearly biased to one side of the argument and encourages editors from the LBGT issues working group to bully other editors into accepting their view, can we please ither make the templage neutral to the arugment at hand or remove it?CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gosh darn that scientific, medical and legal consensus! - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
[citation needed]CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh please quit it and WP:AGF. "encourages editors from the LBGT issues working group to bully other editors into accepting their view" - No. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Quit what? Asking for people to back up their statments with fact, we wouldn't want that on an encylopedia. I am so <self edit here> tired of people saying there is consensus on anything, by either not backing their statments, or backing their statments with biased sources.CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the relevant place to discuss issues with a template be, say, the talk page for the template and not on the talk page for an article using it? Dolescum (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, consensus or no consensus, this template will be removed if it is deleted. It is disruptive and useless to put a CN template. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 20:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this an encyclopedia or an editorial page?

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
this is going nowhere, fast. Focus on improving the article. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

If it's an encyclopedia, then this person's legal name is Bradley Manning and he is a boy. If it's some kind of advocacy journal then I guess you can call him by whatever alias or sex you prefer. End of debate. Wikipedia can choose what kind of organization they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on the knowledge of existing reliable sources. We do not lead. We follow. As such, we look to books, news papers and research to define the name, and then we use that without consideration of personal opinion, legal name, or what kind of genitalia someone has. Until a time where an exception is created (see above discussion), we will simply continue down this well trodden path. That is the kind of organization Wikipedia is. Belorn (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
What you said in the beginning of your piece, 24... was relevant until 22 August and then ceased to be so. It is not for us to declare what her name or sex are, something too many are STILL failing to understand♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Im sorry but this is how Wikipedia has been, it is not our job to be making the news. (WP:NOTNEWS) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
By reverting the name change, WP made the news; had BLP policy been followed, this could have been avoided. EdChem (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
By recklessly moving the page to Chelsea without a community consensus or having Chelsea widely used we also made the news, this was first and also could have been avoided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It was neither a reckless move to Chelsea nor was it portrayed as such by the media who did though, condemn as reactionary the without consensus move back to Bradley. We are now well out of step with the world and with the majority of reliable sources currently appearing♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course it was reckless, and all in the name of advocacy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you two have an objective sources to back up your reckless claim or just blowing against wind?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Commenting on other editors motivations like this is inappropriate. And please stop bickering. The arbcomm case has opened, so bear in mind that your behaviour here is already under scrutiny. And discretionary sanctions on this page are already guaranteed to pass. Guettarda (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronouns

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
Further information: MOS:IDENTITY

Weight given to Manning's request regarding pronoun usage

On 26 August, 2013, David Edward Coombs (Chelsea Manning's attorney) released a statement:

"[...] she also expects that the name Bradley Manning and the male pronoun will continue to be used in certain instances."

This has been properly identified by many above not as an expression of her personal desire, but more of a realization of the reality of the situation.

However, on 27 August 2013, SlimVirgin reported receiving an email from David Coombs, and stated that,

"Regarding the pronoun, he [David Coombs] wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material. I also asked about the current main photograph, and he said that Chelsea is proud of the photograph and would want it to be used until a better one becomes available."

Should weight be given to Manning's request, with male pronouns used for pre-announcement material, or do we follow WP:IDENTITY's guideline of retroactively applying female pronouns, in opposition to her request? -- ToE 21:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Modify IDENTITY because it's stupid.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really, as we don't really give weight to someone's request to hide their date of birth when it's gained through verifiable and reliable information. We might remove the date, but nothing else. Same thing for Bradley Manning. While he's legally, biologically and verifiably male, he's called Bradley. Should he decide to go Christine Jorgenson, then by all means, once verifiable, we then refer to her ad Chelsea  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Modify MOS:IDENTITY because it was crafted by about 5 editors, whereas about 500 editors have commented here. Funny how as these common sense statements come out of Manning and her lawyer, that all the "UR TRANSPHOBIC" crowd have gone silent. Don't forget that MOS;IDENTITY says we should identify them as they request... but now that it counters the advocacy position, we should ignore the request and get on board the transgendered express. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Toss MOS:IDENTITY because it's a POV push by 5 editors . which violates BLP and V  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see this letter dated September 3, 2013 by Coombs: [10]. Note the use of male pronouns. While using the name "Bradley" once (and never "Chelsea"), Coombs continues to use male pronouns post press-release. There was no reason to do this yet he did. An argument could be made as to using "Bradley" in the correspondence as that is his official legal name but there is no official pronoun. This is going to continue and for WP to change the article underneath statements after the press release is problematic. Did "Chelsea Manning" request her pardon, or did "Bradley Manning" request his pardon? The obvious answer is "Bradley Manning" is name that is associated with notability and it will obviously continue as such in the future. Gender pronouns are up for debate but I would lean toward female. The article title though should obviously remain "Bradley Manning" as notability will continue under this name. --DHeyward (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that Manning's lawyer _has_ to use "Bradley" as the military will not recognize a change of gender identity or a change of pronouns. They also have stated a refusal to start hormone replacement therapy although a lawsuit may be started for any and all of these. But presently until forced to the only way they will "hear" anything is if it addresses Manning as "Bradley". Additionally I think Manning won't get any mail unless it is addressed to her in the male pronoun form and as "Bradley". Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source for use of pronouns in correspondence to the Office of Pardons? This wasn't addressed to Manning in the confinement barracks. It wasn't addressed to the military. Are we going to say that the President would refuse to pardon Manning if his lawyer referred to Manning as "she" instead of "he" in the pardon application? --DHeyward (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The media itself reported on the fact that the letter used "Bradley" and "he". I think they were simply trying to not confuse matters, Obama receives a lot of mail. This is a complex and delicate situation and Manning's team is trying to navigate it as best they can, I don't think this one letter is determining of anything much at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Why would we confuse matters then? Do you really think this would confuse the President and he would be unable to grasp transgender identity or is it that the common name and gender argument have weight that is seen by Manning and Manning's attorneys? The statement and signature by Manning is understandable (first person, legal name). The cover letter by Coombs, though, has no reason other than common reference and usage, to use the name and gender that he did. Coombs is not transphobic. His cover letter is not transphobic. Coombs letter though does give weight to keeping the article consistent with past and undoubtedley future filings which will bear the name "Bradley Manning." Feminine pronouns, despite the argument that it would confuse the President, should probably be kept in the article but the name of the article should reflect the record of note which will continue to be "Bradley Manning." --DHeyward (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The president is the leader of the military, he is also likely getting tons of letters on this issue using both names. Manning's legal defense wants their message heard, they are trying to get movement from a hostile audience. Do you have any evidence that he is not just working within the constructs of the system? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This wasn't mail to the confinement facility. Once again, do you really think the President would be confused by using "she" instead of "he?" Do you think the President is a hostile audience to trans-women? Do you really think the reason for rejecting the pardon would be the use of (in)correct gender pronouns? Like Manning's lawyers, we should keep it as simple as possible. I think female-gender pronouns are appropriate in the article, unlike Mr. Coombs. But like Mr. Coombs, the title should remain "Bradley Manning" for the same reasons that Mr. Coombs uses "Bradley Manning." --DHeyward (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think President Obama is much smarter than your question implies. Mr. Coombs relayed a specific answer to a specific question based on the circumstances at that moment, things have changed, and we have no idea about the overall legal strategy. The article title is simply wrong and you are giving way too much weight to documents that are part of a larger legal effort. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Things have changed since 9/3? That's when Coombs used "he" exclusively to refer to Manning in his cover letter. You are confusing Manning's statement and Coomb's comment about using "Bradley" instead of "Chelsea." I am talking specifically about the cover letter Coombs wrote 2 days ago. Nothing has changed in 2 days. That letter was written after Manning said to use female-gender terms. What larger, overall picture are we to draw that required that Coombs use "he" to refer to Manning other than it's clear they will continue to use masculine pronouns and will continue to use "Bradley?" Are you implying we should use "he" and "Bradley" as if the legal name implied his gender identity?? Like I said, earlier, the proper name may make sense (whence the article title should remain "Bradley Manning") but Coombs continued use of "he" is rather inexplicable. Why would we not at least follow their example? --DHeyward (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility)." The Sylvia Rivera Law Project outlined some gender non-conformity abuses: "Not only do transgender people in prison have problems accessing healthcare, but they experience a heightened level of gender policing. The clothing they wear, their hairstyles and grooming practices, their bodies, mannerisms and identities are scrutinized and controlled by the state. Any deviance from norms can lead to violence at the hands of corrections officers or other people who are incarcerated. Legal “protections” are hard to access as there is little accountability on the inside.
"..in the civil system, Chung said, courts have decided that not providing hormone therapy to inmates is cruel and unusual punishment, the same isn't so of the military. Court House News Service spoke to Kimberly Lewis, a spokeswoman at Ft. Leavenworth, who said that while Manning will have access to a psychiatrist and psychologist, the Army "does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder.""; "like they do for people suffering with asthma, the military has medical regulations that list being a "transexual" as an "unallowable medical condition."" The Washington Post reports that in a 2011 memo, the U.S Bureau of Prisons directed wardens to allow inmates seeking hormone replacement therapy to undergo an assessment. The protocol for military prisons is uncertain. Even in some state prisons, the paper reports, "transgender inmates have been denied the right to be housed with their desired gender and given hormone therapy."
This is also a physical and mental health issue and no statements about either are likely forthcoming arriving Manning unless there is a dramatic change in the present situation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Now the Most Famous Transgender Inmate in America

Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

I follow what the sources state and i have little doubt that more will write on her influence in shaping mainstream US ideas on what transgenderism is. I do disagree, of course, that a good article would discuss this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
(sorry about the earlier ec) Some are already writing about her, Michael Silverman, Executive Director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund said this; "...Manning may not be the best figure to be the one to help educate the public on trans issues."[11]. Kristin Beck, a former Navy Seal who came out as transgender in June, issued a blistering statement against Manning; [12]Susan Estrich was also highly critical of Manning;[13]. Brynn Tannehill, Director of Advocacy at SPART*A said; “If you’re wondering if she’s being embraced as a hero in the military trans community, she is absolutely not.”[14]. Time will tell if she was a positive or negative influence.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one detailing the connection:

Related:

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

In hindsight, I think this will fade. Manning blamed gender identity disorder for crimes committed including assaulting a female superior, leaking documents and being emotionally unstable. Making Manning a transgender celebrity brings attention to it, but the end result will be if the Army does recognize it and treat it, they will tie the diagnosis to the experience they had with Manning. Will all military personnel diagnosed with GID/GD lose their security clearance because of the emotional liability and turmoil that Manning exhibited? The law of unintended consequences is very much in play. Manning may bring transgender issues to front page but the end result may not serve the LGBT community very well. The collision of progressive LGBT causes and progressive causes supporting the leaking of the classified documents might turn into a train wreck. --DHeyward (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. BTW, where did manning blame transgenderism for anything? I think I missed that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PEACOCK I do not think this is helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's no, more or less, true or relevant than saying Manning is the world's most famous transgender female named Chelsea. It's an Ignoratio elenchi; much more about advocacy than improving this article. Unfortunately, I've seen it before, too often. And it does affect credibility for the side advocating—in my opinion (practically meaningless). :) John Cline (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If you'll read the peacock guide it states "without attribution" which is not applicable in this case. The source calls her that. And nothing has been entered into the article anyway. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning puts transgender issues in the spotlight Callous Conservative Response to Chelsea Manning News Could Be Just the Beginning - "as Americans become more and more tolerant of the idea of LGBT equality, including marriage equality, transgender people are starting to become one of the last “safer” targets for right-wing vilification" I'm not sure it's quite as cut and dry is this but the examples given there do support a certain amount of bigotry. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Slate is a far left-wing publication that appears to often vilify those who do not agree with them. So this is no surprise. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia may be wrong but instead of far-left Slate.com seems only to be known for contrarian positions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Wikipedia" "That distinction hasn't gone down particularly well in the wider world, where fact that a group of people held a vote on whether or not to call a trans woman by her preferred name, and then lost that vote, is seen as yet more evidence of a painful lack of diversity of experience amongst active Wikipedia editors."

Chelsea Manning: Shall we just quietly (and less than boldly) follow Encyclopedia Britannica on the name?

Latest comment: 11 years ago35 comments13 people in discussion
continue discussion here: Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request#Comments (on the above sources only) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Lets stop discussing the past and discuss the article. Since Encyclopedia Britannica has gone to "Chelsea Manning," [15] shall we just do it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

it is not as simple and clear cut as that, Manning's own lawyer has used the name "Bradley Manning" when asking for a presidential pardon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It did not stop that encyclopedia? Why would it stop us?Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it stop us? The whole debate is that manning would be offended by being called Chelsea right? Now you have his/her own lawyer calling him Bradley when asking for a pardon. I would go with what name has become more notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not mention anything about offense? I cited a professional general interest encyclopedia, since we are writing an encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
First off Knowledgekid, using "his/her" is offensive, please stop. her name is now Chelsea despite our present article title. Secondly - In her filing for a presidential pardon, Manning used "Bradley"; Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, explained that legal proceedings were required to use Manning's legal name. Prison officials reported they would not formally acknowledge "Chelsea" until a legal name change. We can not presume to know the legal maneuverings in one of the world's most-watched cases. You're reading misinformation into this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
He also used "he" instead of "she". No reason for that legally or as some heretofore unknown legal strategy. I think you are reading too much into what is offensive to Manning. Coombs could have used "Bradley" and "she" as the name and gender are certainly not tied to each other unless you are stipulating that calling her "Bradley" makes her a male. --DHeyward (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but an encyclopedia is not a valid source for us to use.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I still don't think a move is appropriate at this time, since the 30-day waiting period has not yet passed. Also, Encyclopedia Britannica isn't necessarily a good example, since they use male pronouns instead of female. Edge3 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is about the title. And yes Encyclopedias may be used as reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
what do you hope to achieve here? Do you really think that because one source moved, all opposition will fade away? I enoucrage you all to participate in the collection of sources (linked at the top) for the next move. Britannica is clearly a RS and the fact that they moved today is important, but not decisive. Why don't we shut this section down, we're not arguing a move here and the source itself will be discussed during the next move discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Why should we follow Britannica's lead on the article title only, and not the pronouns? The knife cuts both ways. Edge3 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
No one is proposing doing so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Britannica has a different set of editorial policies than we do, so we will not always follow their lead, and vice versa. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
No one is proposing following all their policies, or any of them. Just that following this reliable source for this would be a useful edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This is why its good to discuss sources. When I click both of those, it has as its title "Chelsea Manning". And it begins: "Chelsea Manning, original name Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987, Crescent, Oklahoma, U.S.), U.S. Army intelligence analyst who provided the Web site WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of classified documents in what was believed to be the largest unauthorized release of state secrets in U.S. history." .Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Odd. Both links take me to the same page. The article history indicates the version as "Updated for his sentencing." by Michael Ray 21-Aug-2013 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, odd. What I link to says it was updated yesterday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I just ask why this cant just be moved to Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request#Comments (on the above sources only)? Discussing sources on the future move request where all the other sources are being discussed makes more sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Because we are having a good discussion of this source here on a place where we are suppose to discuss this article and its sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you happen to note that Britannica refers to Manning as "he" ? Do you plan to suggest that the Wikipedia adopt that convention as well? Tarc (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
No. I don't plan to. I am not proposing to copy their article, or their policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Funny, I swear up there at the top there's a line by you that asks "shall we just do it?" in regards to following Britannica's lead on titling their article "Chelsea Manning". I note their choice of pronoun also differs from ours, so I ask again, shall we just do that too? If not, why are you trying to nudge us to follow their lead in one aspect but not the other? Tarc (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
We always choose among portions of reliable sources in our editorial process, and then we use them as we deem fit.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The thing though is that both of these things are relevant to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a very nice way to say that one finds a source and cherry-picks the parts that agree with one's already-made-up-mind and discard the rest, Alan. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Getting quite a good laugh out of this thread. This is why we don't make decisions based on a single source. StuartH (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it your argument that we cannot use a source, unless it does everything the way Wikipedia would? We can't copy sources -- so it is impossible to do everything the way the source would. Do we reject this as a source for the name because it has other words in its article? We would still have to follow our policies in presenting sources, see, for example, Casey Penk's comment below. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The article at EB is titled "Bradley Manning". We should reject it as a source that uses "Chelsea" in the title because it doesn't. But we shouldn't use Bradley because EB says so because we follow the consensus of reliable sources, not one source. StuartH (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"I am not proposing to copy their article, or their policies." Good point there. Notably, our policies on pronoun usage differ greatly from Brittanica's. As far as I can tell they either have no policy or use the pronouns that refer to the person's public gender identity at the time, whereas we at Wikipedia have MOS:IDENTITY, which explicitly asks us to use the person's latest preferred pronouns. As you may already be aware, editors have heavily scrutinized that part and are discussing at WT:MOS. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The latest use of pronouns is in the letter date Sept 3, 2013 from Mannings lawyer. It uses "he". I don't think we want to go there. --DHeyward (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The best way to move it quietly would be to first be quiet for a few weeks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Since when have we ever simply gone by what EB does? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposed Solution

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments17 people in discussion
Boldly closing this as do not move per WP:SNOW. I would humbly suggest that we don't forward new compromise proposals. The "Chelsea" side is likely to win the case based on trends in sources, so let's focus on improving the article until the final move happens.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd like to ask everyone to hear me out before the resounding voices of opposition come and say this looks stupid. I hope this hasn't been suggested before, but between the archives and policy/style page debates there is a LOT of repeated arguments.

Proposal: Move the page to Chelsea (né Bradley) Manning

  1. née means "name at birth" and né is the masculine form. The title would literally read "Chelsea (masculinely named Bradley at birth) Manning"
  2. It's respectful to the fact that transgenderism believes she was always a female, yet was assigned a male gendered name at birth.
  3. It's informative. A person won't end up at wikipedia, believe they stumbled on the wrong page, and mash their back button.
  4. It's important for an encyclopedia to be instantly informative and recognizable. A person should know they got the right page before they read the lead.

Originally I sat on the WP:COMMONNAME side of this debate, but didn't say anything because I couldn't articulate why I thought COMMONNAME was right. The more I mulled over COMMONNAME, and the fact that the United States generally doesn't have legal names, the more I realized this is a failure of COMMONNAME to address name change situations with press releases. I also didn't think it was a good idea for Wikipedia to lead the pack. The more I think about it, the more I realize that reflecting the new information found in the Today Show press release, isn't LEADING. It's just making the move more quickly than COMMONNAME generally allows. In that case, it's BETTER to be accurate and informative and use WP:IAR. Accuracy, clarity, and the ability to convey meaning should be paramount goals of Wikipedia. (Sidenote, I do think the move was inappropriatly fast, and discussion should have occured first. But now discussion has occurred.)

If the purpose of wikipedia is to inform people, and be educational, the best solution is to have a title that conveys "This person's name IS Chelsea (but was previously) Bradley Manning. I found one source that refers to her as Chelsea (né Bradley) Manning. http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=194246 There are also a couple using née and nee, but I believe those are written by people unfamiliar with the distinction. http://mashable.com/category/bradley-manning/ http://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2013/08/poll-is-chelsea-nee-bradley-manning-entitled-to-a-sex-change-while-in-prison/

Lastly I would also offer a side suggestion to change the lead to "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[1] (né Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier" as a way to QUICKLY offer a link to the née page for anyone who might like to read more about the word. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It enhances things for the reader so a person who doesn't know about the name change understands they are on the right page. If I searched for Bradley Manning, and landed on a page called Chelsea Manning, there's a chances I would click the back button before reading the leade. né because Bradley is a masculine name. I could see someone arguing nėe because she was always a woman, but I think that misses the point that she was named a man by her parents. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Mmm ... it's an option either side will hate, but I suggest that doesn't make it a good alternative. It still doesn't strike me as a good title for an article, or (and this is why the screaming will really start) a good example to emulate for the future - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong: the gender of né/née is always seen from the viewpoint of the current situation, so it must be "née". ("She (Chelsea) was born (née) as Bradley (male)", not the other way round.) -- megA (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a 30 day waiting period to move it to Chelsea Manning, all other moves are acceptable at any time. To directly quote the panel of administrators "In the interim, editors may propose moving the page to a compromise title such as Private Manning or Bradley (Chelsea) Manning." Xkcdreader (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
As thoroughly discussed, there is no mandatory waiting period; per Wikipedia policy any editor can file a formal RM at any time. I personally suggest they don't do that without obtaining some clear agreement/support to do so first, and given previous discussions, I'm at this point inclined to wait until 23 (depending on support of that date) or 30 September. Also, I agree with David Gerard's comment above. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you would want to go through the trouble of a full-blown RfC or move review (which is basically what it would take to reverse a point of decision by a three-administrator panel) just to try to move the discussion date up by one week. The discussion on changing that part of the close would take a week by itself, and would only get people riled up all over again. Bear in mind, a new move request being filed only thirty days after the close of the last one is a much shorter turnaround time than is usually permitted. It is pretty much unheard of, but is expressly made permissible by this close. You're welcome. bd2412 T 13:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
IIRC one of the panel members suggested 90 days. Those that are outraged over the 30 days get an early Thanksgiving. Sorry BD2, but you know what they say about good deeds.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentIntroducing a prominent gendered descriptor is unlikely to be helpful. Editing in line with MOS Identity would suggest "née". The only reason to use "né" is if you were talking about someone you thought was masculine. It refers to the current person. It wouldn't read as "(masculinely named Bradley at birth)" to those long-suffering people in the world who speak French, it would read as "(this guy used to be named Bradley)". This might not be taken as appropriate.__Elaqueate (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The proposed naming methodology would seem to be fairly unique (and frankly a little opaque for a naive reader). I see no good reason not follow general guidelines regarding titling articles. There will be another Request Move discussion on this in the near future which will conclude that the COMMONNAME is in fact now "Chelsea Manning". After that we can all be happy and go gargle with mouthwash to get the taste of this ridiculous WP:WIKIDRAMA out of our mouths. NickCT (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per NickCT's arguments. Moncrief (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too elongated and complex. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia needs to catch up with the world and title the article properly, not mess around with compromises. Artw (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Chelsea is a woman so né is wrong plus it is bad to have wikipedia compromises caused by lack of consensus visible to our readers. Let's wait till Sep 30 and vote for Chelsea Manning based on currently appearing reliable sources and WP policies and guidelines, esp BLP and NPOV♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This would be an interesting compromise and seems reasonable in cases of name changes. I don't necessarily think we need to have one definitive title for any given subject - that's sort of a black-and-white approach to names, which are inherently complex and hard-to-define. This kind of proposal - using multiple names in the title, perhaps connected by a word like né - is something you might want to bring up at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose SqueakBox is mostly correct.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose its a fair attempt at a compromise but its just a band aid solution. JOJ Hutton 23:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It seems, homosexual-lobby continually wants to push "Chelsea Manning". This guy is definitely male according to the law and primary or sex characteristics. If someone consider him/herself a parrot that does not mean he or she actually is. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For evidence for next move discussion - gender identity changes on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion

Has anyone compiled the list of Wikipedia articles where someone has changed gender? Are there any cases where we don't honor the person's gender identity change? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and transsexual people might be helpful in finding other articles on people who transitioned while already having a wp bio. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've wondered whether or not we should add a "precedent" section to the list of move requestion rationales. I think it could be helpful, because (as bd2412 has mentioned) consistency is important in article naming. I only held off on suggesting it for WP:BEANS-related reasons. -sche (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC) comment edited to remove suggestion that people stuff beans up their noses -sche (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well if we keep the focus narrow - only living people, who express a change of gender with a name change, wouldn't that list shrink down enough? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I think it would be helpful to the RM to have such a list. -sche (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea and goes into "What about article ..." not every article is the same or has been handled the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
What evidence are you basing your assumption on? How would we know if we don't even look? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Im going by WP:OTHERSTUFF, it may be a deletion essay but does have a point. More factors are involved as well, how did the sources handle the change at the time? Did they all switch over or did some of them switch over? Was the subject at the height of his/her notability when the announcement was made or were they largely faded out? These are questions that come into light in support of each case being different. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That's why a narrower focus helps limit the grey areas. Do you have an example of any Wikipedia article besides this one where we don't respect someone's change of gender identity? I haven't found one yet. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's be fair and specify that we are talking about article titles here. Because it appears that the content in the body of the article is being respectful to her and following MOS:IDENTITY.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't find cases where we didn't honor a gender identity change, but I think that Cat Stevens could provide some guidance here. We refer to the singer as "Stevens" before his religious conversion, and "Yusuf" afterwards. Edge3 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Although MOS:IDENTITY treats cases with transgender subjects separately than other cases, I would note that Metta World Peace uses his preferred name for the title but refers to him using Ron Artest up until his name change. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, part of the reason we have so few comparison cases is that (1) there are relatively few transgender people and (2) most do not announce a name change after their notability has peaked (in this case, Manning's notability has probably peaked and coverage in reliable sources is likely to dry up while she is prison - so we'll have something of a dearth of new sources for a few years at least). CaseyPenk (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking for only gender identity cases, how does Wikipedia treat all of them. The point being is this is likely the only case we are treating this way. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that it's because this is the first article on a transgender person who is moderately/very famous. As such, a lot more people participated in the discussion and unlike other articles on transgender people, the LGBT project wasn't able to decide on the title by themselves. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion on the LGBT group page, just a link to other discussions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just an update that this is taking longer than I had anticipated as there are so many articles. I haven't found any case yet besides Manning where we don't use the new name for the title of the article. I'll do an update when I'm done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the move request for Metta World Peace - it closed with a move 3 weeks after the subject had gotten legal approval - his announcement of the new name was a few months before. Editors waited until sources moved, which is essentially what we're doing here. We don't even need to change WP:AT to move to Chelsea, the sources are following. So it's not just a question of "did wikipedia end up with the right title", but rather, how long did it take. It's also hard to compare this case, given the polarizing nature of Manning, and the high media coverage, and the fact that this announcement comes the day after the sentencing which generated a double media whammy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Is not referring to Metta World Peace by that name considered a slur or an insult by any group? In the case of Chelsea Manning that is why I would suggest haste in correcting the title - If this is not the case for Metta World Peace I then fail to see the usefulness of the comparison. Artw (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with whether "some group" considers it a slur. "Some groups" consider many parts of wikipedia highly offensive (Vulva, Mohammed, Nigger, etc), but on we go. The question on Chelsea, and on all of these, is whether Chelsea could be harmed personally by that name as the title of her article. You have NO IDEA whether Metta World Peace would also be harmed by being referred to as Ron in the title, and we have no way to objectively measure the difference in pain Metta World Peace would suffer vs the pain Chelsea would suffer vs the pain Cat Stevens would suffer vs the pain Ivory Coast citizens suffer. To think otherwise is to rank some name changes as trivial, and others as "important" - that's frankly not for us to judge - this is the reason BEHIND commonname (it focuses on what is best for the user, AND can be neutrally determined). There is a pretty strong consensus at WP:AT to not have a TG-specific naming convention - rather to potentially consider subject's preference as that - their preference, and to follow it if we can. (Note: some are of course opposed to any change to commonname).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Another useful precedent is the Lana Wachowski - in documents as of 2003, she was listed as Laurence Wachowski, aka Laurenca Wachowski [16], but wikipedia editors were still discussing whether to refer to her as Lana as of 2012. It was much more of a slow burn.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Concur on this. We would move the page post-haste if there was a serious and widely credible belief that Chelsea would be harmed (e.g. physically, psychologically, reputation-wise, etc.) by using her old name as the page title. Lacking that, we might want to consider the subject's preferences (as the WT:TITLES discussion suggests) as one consideration among others. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't have to be direct harm to Chelsea manning for the change to the article and obstructionism over changing it back to be seen as an insult to transexuals - you'll find more than enough about why on the wider internet if you care to put your heads up. The notion that there is no particular harm to letting the article stay in it's broken state is a lie. Artw (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Please demonstrate that you're not just pushing a POV by helping to move a few other articles at titles that offend of non-trans entities. Then I'll have more sympathy for your POV. WP:CONSENSUS is a pillar, and there's no obstructionism, I believe the closer was wise in proposing a wait to gather sources and tweak titling policy. A decisive victory will be yours, and you will bring along a lot of editors who previously opposed, but your best bet is to wait.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Um, no. I do not need to edit anything to prove anything to you. That leaving the article with it's current title is harmful or insulting to trans people is not a thing that can be wished away by WP:CONSENSUS, and there is ample discussion of why for those who wish to dig their heads out of the sand. We may be stuck with administrative delay, and the reasons for that may or may not be sound, but we cannot pretend that the delay is without cost. Artw (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like MOS-TW

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

get it deleted. It's present on this article because it's really obviously relevant to the article subject. That this is apparently a problem for some editors is not something to be addressed by pretending it isn't really obviously relevant to the article subject - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It is already up for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, and looking like a pretty clear keep. Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That is the flaw of XfD; sometimes mob rule can overwhelm common sense, sense that should inform one that a template misrepresenting a guideline that one should follow as a policy that one must follow is not a good thing to keep around. This should have been a textbook CSD:T2 deletion. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I would just hold off and re-nominate it that or fix up the wording, a template should not go off what is not in the guideline. For those interested I have started a thread with one of my concerns here: Template talk:MOS-TW#Removal of possible WP:POV statement - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The prevailing opinion in the current Request for Deletion (which, you will note, already suggested CSD-T2 as a rationale) is that the templates are accurate and appropriate, thus they cannot be said to be "unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy", and nominating them for speedy deletion because a previous non-speedy deletion discussion (using the same rationale!) didn't go your way would clearly be inappropriate. -sche (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with article improvement? Unless something comes up that assists with writing the article, this section should be closed and/or hatted. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It stems from this edit. Since there's no talk page to discuss a talk page, the talk has to happen here. Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As someone who fully endorses the spirit and use of the template I don't feel I should close the discussion but it does seem pointless to argue since it's being discussed for deletion anyway. It's surely going to be kept so then the only debate is if it belongs on this article. Hmm, is Chelsea confirmed as a trans women, yes; in reliable sources, yes; and is this also considered a rather notable aspect of her life, well yes. Time to move on and let those who are still afraid of unknown-to-them gender variance come up to speed. If someone else would like to close this I think there is little else to say. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote, while yes there are more keep opinions than delete, the outcome is based on the strength of the arguments provided so really the outcome could be anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite a mystery how this will all turn out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • this template has been divisive since the beginning. Unless you like bickering over trivialities, why not drop the stick, remove the template - then there's nothing for people to argue about. You can always add it later when things die down and the article gets moved (which is looking more and more likely). It's optional, and not needed given the pronouns are already fine, and we have a FAQ addressing this issue.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Only for a certain set of editors who seem to be stuck on the same arguments in the face of being on the wrong side of history and good writing. This issue will come up again and again, and having the most apropos template obvious at the top is helping more than hurting. If people want to spout of and prove they are bigoted then so be it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, the "do what the other side wants and that will stop the argument" argument. Sure, I bet if we also changed all the pronouns back to male, took Chelsea's name out of the lede and inserted a lengthy screed about how transgender people are mentally-defective perverts, the other side would be very happy and stop the argument. Because they would have gotten what they wanted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting how some people seem to feel the !vote to move the article back to Bradley Manning is all-controlling, while the !vote to keep the MOS-TW template is illegitimate and ill-founded "mob rule." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no doubt the the Bradley Manning survey / !vote received a massive amount of input - from hundreds of contributors. I am not sure if the same can be said of the discussion over whether to include MOS-TW. Was it actually put to a survey / !vote? As far as I know it was just two discussions with a dozen or two contributors total rather than a formal survey / !vote. If the archive says differently please do let me know. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, an editor has opened an RFC on the first bullet point of MOS:IDENTITY. This is a separate issue from the discussion of pronoun usage for transgendered individuals, but is still related to the Manning controversy. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Musings upon failure

Latest comment: 11 years ago52 comments21 people in discussion

A critical mass of editors just cannot grasp, or will not agree, that not calling Chelsea by her chosen name, in the face of her expressed wish, is wrong. New Statesman's Alex Hern seems to have it right with regard to many an anti-Chelsea editor here: "not just a transphobe, but a stupid transphobe". Herr Gerard was being most generous when he said it was "transphobia from ignorance". I wonder how many of the anti-Chelseas are feeling hot under the collar now people in the media are calling them out as "not just transphobes, but stupid transphobes"? Perhaps some of them are now aware, not too far below the surface, that they were in the wrong, but are just too arrogant or narcissistic to admit it. God help you.

I believe too much blame is being put on WPs, that WPs are the whipping boy for an ignorant critical-mass of editors. This episode serves to reveal the pervasiveness of ignorance and intolerance pertaining to sex and gender generally, and to trans people in particular.

Not to call her by the name of Chelsea is obviously wrong (to someone who isn't ignorant or intolerant); thus, if "the sources" don't do so, we can ignore them. For example, if "the sources" switched to calling Jews Stücken, we would not follow the sources. So "the sources" are not inerrant, do not straitjacket us.

Here enters the critical mass of ignorance and transphobia: too many people either see no problem with titling the page Bradley Manning, in contravention of Chelsea's explicit wish, so long as enough ignorant journalists refuse to conform to said wish, or else are aggressively transphobic. When you have consensus-based policy, and these two groups form a sufficiently large proportion of the whole, you get the outcome we now have: the right thing to do cannot be done because too many people are in the wrong. An analogous outcome would present in the case of a sufficiently large number of "weak" and "strong" antisemites where "the sources" start using Stücken: you would have "weak" antisemites (either out of ignorance or whatever) who would have no problem with retitling a page Stücken (got to follow the sources!!), and "strong" antisemites who see no problem with such a title under any circumstances, sources or otherwise.

What I take away from this dreary chapter in the life of Wikipedia is that applying the site's consensus-based policies to an issue, when a critical mass of editors are either ignorant or calculatedly prejudiced about it, means you get ghastly outcomes that are rightly slaughtered by external observers, like our New Statesman writer, who do not share such ignorance or prejudice. The fundamental issue is the amount of ignorance and active intolerance of all things trans there is out there—and in here.

Shortly, it seems, when enough editors and journalists start doing the right thing, the "passive transphobes" and "inadvertant transphobes" will start following The Sources, and so will move over to the view of people who aren't transphobic, to the view of people who have been advocating the article's move to Chelsea Manning from the get-go. The critical mass that is keeping the article's title as Bradley Manning will thus crumble away, since the only group left not wanting a change will be the "active transphobes", who will not alone be a large enough party to maintain the original consensus.

Shortly, in other words, the Wikipedia policies will crank out the right outcome at last.

WPs not to blame; virulent ignorance and intolerance is to blame. Shame that many are more interested in protesting their innocence than taking the opportunity to have a think and change their mind, learn a lesson, or look in the mirror. As it is, thanks to ignorance and intolerance, we still have WPs girding ignorance and intolerance.

Nothing profound in what I've said. Musings complete. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, there does however seem to be an awful lot of footdragging on the way to a forgone conclusion (assuming the best of everyone and that Wikipedias own guidelines are followed) and it would be best for everyone if we found a way to skip that. Artw (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Or, more succinctly, if sources change, then wikipedia changes. Yup, that's pretty much what our LONGSTANDING policies state. What's so wrong with that? Why should wikipedia be ahead of the world? Remember WP:NPOV?
Think about it this way - when we look at advertisements from decades ago, we find them racist and offensive. In the same way, when people 80 years from now look at wikipedia, there will be OODLES of things we say and do and title and write about here, a whole frame of mind that dominates here, that will be considered DEEPLY offensive to our future looker-backers. And you, for all your ludicrous tripe, cannot even see today how much you offend - you are completely blinded by dozens or hundreds of ways of thinking and viewing and categorizing the world that to our future bretheren will seem so completely backwards as to render you - and all of us - as blithering small-minded idiots.
We have a micro-version of the same here. Those on the side of Chelsea are perhaps on the winning side of history, but they were perhaps a bit too early, a bit too eager. News organizations took time to shuffle, many are still confused, pronouns and euphemisms and anxious calls to that one TG person-you-know to find out wtf is going on... It shouldn't surprise you! These things take time. Some outlets made the shift today - almost 2 weeks after the announcement. Some may never shift.
I think rather than taking away from this that consensus is ghastly, you should take away that consensus here doesn't always produce the result a minority may want, even if in their heart of hearts, they are right - but it also doesn't produce a result the majority wants. Consensus often results in a compromise. (e.g. Article title=Bradley, lead=Chelsea, pronouns=female - two out of three aint bad!!)
Democracies have addressed this issue through protection of minority rights, and wikipedia tries to prevent this by editorial policies that protect living people and ask us to adhere to high quality reliable sources vs following our gut instincts, and starting (more recently) to look at issues of systemic bias. If this episode brings more trans editors to wikipedia, all the better - we need more editors. But the constant painting by advocates here and in the media of people who are just trying to reflect sources as transphobic idiots doesn't bring them to your side of the court, it just pushes them away and pisses them off. What do you want in the end? To be righteous, to point fingers and call people names, and feel superior to them because of your evolved conciousness and the fact that you've never once done something offensive to anyone on the planet? Or would you like a world where TG issues are better understood? If so, consider dropping the drama stick, try to see the other side, and explain kindly and gently why you think people should change their minds.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure adverts from decades ago are analogous. The article is titled in a way that is antedeluvian now. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure the "compromise" is the good thing you're making it out to be... it just underlines how broken the title is. Artw (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Try reading some of the news coverage on this. We even have conflicting guidelines from two different LGBT agencies around use of pronouns in the past, and mixed messages from Manning's lawyer on same. Read this story, and imagine the tortured copy editing that went on to craft it: [17] - notice how they avoid pronouns, and introduce her as a soldier in the title, then as Chelsea, formerly known as Bradley, Manning? Like any breaking news story, we are (correctly) playing catchup with reliable sources, we aren't (and shouldn't be) ahead of them. And FormerIP, I think you missed my point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
We're not playing catch-up. We're playing dumb. Formerip (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's beginning to seem like it. Certainly I'm not seeing a great argument for resisting the inevitable change to proper title other than we CAN resist the change to the proper title, which at best is a fetishisation of Wikilawyering and at worst actually is the institutional bigotry Wikipedia is accused of. Artw (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Artw: the argument is very simple - WP:COMMONNAME. We go by what reliable sources report, and at least a quarter of them, as far as I can tell, currently use "Bradley." We will reconsider this at a later date, since the sources have changed. If we are guilty of perpetuating "institutional bigotry" in this case, there are plenty of other examples. We don't honor Yusuf Islam's preferred name, despite what appears to be an earnest and thoughtful conversion to Islam. We refer to Côte d'Ivoire using a name the government of that country prefers people not to use. The list goes on. What I'm saying is that if you see "institutional bigotry" here, it's going to be in a whole lot of other places, and you may wish to seek policy changes that will steer titles away from that kind of "institutional bigotry" on Wikipedia. I have a proposal on article names that would do something along those lines, explicitly allowing us to use more-preferred names if they're still common in reliable sources. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Restoring the article name to Chelsea Manning, per real-life, most of the media and the actual article, would seem fully compatible with WP:COMMONNAME. Artw (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
As of 6 September 2013, you may be right. On Aug 22, you would have been wrong. Timing matters...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Timing does indeed matter. In retrospect it would be easy to whitewash all the controversy the move request caused back in August. However, the drama was real and the contentions were legitimate. The revisions to WP:COMMONNAME are intended to clarify our policy so we don't run around in a maniacal craze when trying to figure out titles in such cases. We can introduce more useful criteria for dealing with future articles about transgender people. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Aug 22 is irrelevant. Or are you saying that the article should be left in a broken state to somehow as some kind of punishment for some perceived infraction? Artw (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Try to get to stage 5: Kübler-Ross_model#Stages - I feel like you're still at Anger. All good things come to those who wait. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is the thing... Manning is most notable for his wikileaks story, he will serve years in jail and after time be forgotton about 8 years from now. Now in my opinion I think he did this as a way of grabbing one last bit of media spotlight before going into jail as he had nothing to lose and wanted the world to know that he was trans however if you look at the support in the LGBT community it is split as well here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The suggestion that she will be "forgotten" is just wrong. Nobody of that fame is forgotten. Considering the rest of the world considers her a human rights hero of great historical significance, she will remain extremely famous for the rest of her life, receive prizes, give talks, write books, be treated like Soviet dissidents were in the west, and like Liu Xiaobo will be if he is released and makes it to a democratic country. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Human rights hero? Hardly. The indiscriminate leak of information more likely a big "FU" to a system and society that he never felt a part of.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
My problem with this lament is that a critical mass of editors have agreed to call her by her chosen name: The first word of the lead sentence of the article is "Chelsea". That name and the feminine pronoun "she" are used throughout. Her birth name "Bradley" occurs hardly at all.
Yes, it's true, one of the few places the name "Bradley" still appears is in the article's title, but it's a matter of interpretation whether that's the same as calling her Bradley, or disrespecting her wishes, or abusing her, or any of the horrible alleged offenses that some here are so very worried might have occurred since the move was reversed.
The title is arguably wrong, and is quite likely to get fixed again, probably sooner than later, but in the meantime, I don't personally feel that there's any big failure here. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Another way of looking at that is that the RM close obviously does not reflect community consensus. Formerip (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
well, that's obvious - the finding of the close was "no consensus to move". Therefore, it's clear the community is divided here. Just be patient - sheesh! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's outrageous to be labelled as "stupid transphobe" for following Wikipedia policy. Perhaps the journalist you quoted could read our policies on article titles and our process for requested moves before making assumptions about the motivations of editors. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Meh im not offended by it, if one journalist wants to go ahead and be like that let him/her, you will find that per WP:NOTCENSORED there are alot of things on wikipedia that im sure some group is opposed to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Its not like wikipedia actually followed policies by reverting back to Bradley. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason given in the move request appears to be a direct contradiction of WP:BEBOLD. Artw (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention BLP, NPOV, IDENTITY etc and generally we are treating Manning very differently to how we have treated ALL other notable transgender people we cover. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:BEBOLD is only the first step in WP:BRD. No amount of boldness circumvents the need for discussion when a proposed action is disputed. bd2412 T 00:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly my point, although I don't think it came up in the move discussion. For every bold there is a revert. Well, I hope it's not that bleak, but in any case the discussion is essential. You gotta complete the first round of BRD (which we have) before beginning on the second (in which we are currently engaged). BRD is an inflammatory process IMO, which is why I support waiting 30 days. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So you're reverting the article with the argument that that it should be done with discussion then blocking it being done through discussion with the argument that discussion has already happened? That's quite the two-step. 174.239.197.31 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
IDENITY is a joke as written. But the activists will fight tooth and nail to keep it as is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Labelling ppl who want 21st Century polices for dealing with transgender as activists? Nope, just concerned wikipedia editors wanting to create a good, informative encyclopedia. Discussion is the one piece of policy we have truly followed here, BD2412. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
For better or for worse, a lot of the media still has 1900s era policies in terms of how they report about transgender people. Apparently TNYT used the word "homosexual" in preference to "gay" up until pretty recently.
Part of the irony is that some of these media organizations with such old policies have very progressive editorial boards -- just read an editorial about Romney or abortion or gun control in TNYT. (: So I think the style guidelines may not reflect their actual beliefs about gender -- just as Wikipedia policies do not necessarily indicate "hateful bigotry" on the part of editors. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The Manning case is clearly pushing the boundaries on this one, one reason why his transgender statements are so much more notable than some are claiming them to be, IMO. I cant think of any policies that support hateful bigotry though I have unfortunately read some individual editors who clearly do though by no means all who support the Bradley interpretation. Wikipeia is always going to be what its editors make it regardless♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
SqueakBox "Wikipeia is always going to be what its editors make it regardless." Ah, now there you've hit on an interesting point. I do think there's a common thread of unfamiliarity with trans issues among many editors, so people instinctively lean toward the more conservative side on this. I think there's a lot of knee-jerk "I don't know what that is, so the burden of overwhelmingly clear proof is on you." People tend to invoke policy when they feel they need to defend something; in this case, their understanding of gender as it exists so far in their life.
We can contrast the effortless invocation of policy with cases where people are less enthusiastic about bringing up policy. There are times when no one is terribly offended either way, as with the person formerly known as Kate Middleton; in that case, it's sort of a yawner as far as what we call it. In this case, there's a lot of trans-not-understanding (I'd avoid calling it transphobia because that terms serves only to inflame). I do think we're working on learning, myself included, so that when we deal with this sort of situation in the future we'll "make it" something with new considerations in mind. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of these comments are really going into how edirtors personaly feel is there a point to this discussion that is going to improve the article or is this going to be another im right and you are wrong debate? (WP:NOTFORUM) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we're having a very civil discussion about what motivates different people to think differently about this topic. At least the people I've been talking with. Ideally, we can learn something so that, when the 30 day RM rolls around, we'll understand one another better and have better guidance on how to proceed. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the point is that the article is going to be moved to Chelsea Manning soon, so why are we hotly debating whether to treat someone with respect to their gender identity? Being on the right side of history is something to be proud of, shoving Chelsea back into an open closet is not. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If you hope to convince others of your perspective, telling them that they are "shoving Chelsea back into an open closet" is probably not the most persuasive way to do so. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
But this is how many ppl will see it♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Wikipedia". Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay, now your comment makes sense. I would note that the post it cites no evidence for the statement that "That distinction hasn't gone down particularly well in the wider world." The problem is that these statements on the part of the media (which trash on Wikipedia editors as a bunch of "savages" and hopeless ignorants -- ironically, sounds oh so familiar) denies the opportunity for editors to learn, grow, adjust, change perspectives, switch sides. Let's reach out to the other side and actually listen to the arguments they're putting forth! CaseyPenk (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Many if not most of those arguments boil down to Chelsea is doing something strange that I don't understand - and I already have convicted her in my mind as anti-American - so this is further evidence she is strange and should be destroyed in some way. That be a bit simplistic but that's what I'm generally hearing. The rest is essentially red tape bureaucratic maneuvering to use the system against respecting her gender identity. Instead of looking to how to best serve the readers and subject of the article we're wasting time arguing over her right to come out of the closet as transgender. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"bureaucratic maneuvering" In many cases I agree the bureaucracy is over the line. But a certain justification for the bureaucracy is that it forces us to hold controversial decisions up to light of scrutiny, tossing ideas back and forth and testing our views by fire until we forge a steely and battle-tested compromise. If we had a hyper-inclusive policy on article name we wouldn't give the topic as much thought as we have. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The negative description of the arguments for placing the article at Bradley Manning is diametrically opposed to what I actually read in the debate on the article title. There was a lot of discussion of policy and virtually nothing along the lines of "Manning is strange" or "Manning is anti-American". In fact, I read many dozens of comments, and I can't recall any editor whatsoever arguing that any supposed "anti-Americanism" of alleged lack of patriotism as grounds for titling the article Bradley Manning. Personal attacks against proponents of the Bradley Manning title will probably backfire. The best way to convince people who argue for the Bradley Manning title is to engage the arguments they made rather than the strawmen they didn't. The repeated attacks on proponents of using the Bradley title for now are violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. But beyond that, the attacks aren't supported by the evidence. Over and over again, one sees support for titling articles with a transgendered person's self-identified gender when policies like WP:COMMONNAME actually support that result. In the Manning case, the article was retitled to Chelsea Manning and then protected against moves super-fast after the first time the Chelsea Manning article was announced to the public. In fact, I think I actually saw this Wikipedia article retitled and protected prior to even reading any media reports on the name change. --JamesAM (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
My reasoning is that Manning has had more coverage in reliable sources with the name Bradley. Per WP:CRYSTAL however, I can not really make an arguement beyond that but if Manning does not get the pardon from Obama I feel will fade over time in the eyes of the public. As for the LGBT community as there sources point out: [18], [19] seems to be split over the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for my interjection, but I'd suggest against weighting LGBT sources more heavily than others on this topic. The community is as riven with politics over these issues as everyone else and there are a fair number of L's and G's who are just actively hostile to the T grouping. Normal service resumes in 3..2..1.. Dolescum (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"there are a fair number of L's and G's who are just actively hostile to the T grouping" Absolutely -- see this blog post for one take on that. I would note that a handful (or maybe it was just one) editor has suggested that we defer to the wishes of the groups themselves on how they want to be reported on -- in this case, defer to GLAAD's media guidelines when reporting on Chelsea. While I don't think we should defer completely to such guidelines, I would consider them highly credibly reliable sources on LGBT topics, albeit dinged in their reliability because of the aforementioned LGB-T clashes, and muddled by the differing advice. In short, I think we should give media guidelines from related communities a fair amount of airtime. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How can it be contended here that there was a "failure" to transform the article when it has, in fact, been transformed from top to bottom except for the article name? The very first word is "Chelsea" and it goes from there. Aside from the title "Bradley" gets mention in the article proper just once, as "born Bradley..." That's it. Yes, "Bradley" actually appears more than 80 times if you include sources, but the fact that there could be such an enormous discrepancy between source usage and article usage looks like a major victory against usage of "Bradley" if you ask me.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Undue weight has actually made this article lopsided in the other direction now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What on earth does Stücken mean? If you want people to follow you, why repeatedly use a word unknown to most English-speakers? Moncrief (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Name-calling, accusations, and trying to shame others will never, ever, convince them of your position. Try a new tactic.--v/r - TP 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So, do we do the right thing, or do we follow the policies? Tough choice if you ask, I prefer when both are the same. --NaBUru38 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not just rename the article to "Private Manning" and replace all pronouns with "Manning" or delete the fucking thing entirely and replace it with a soft redirect to the article on US vs Manning? FokkerTISM 06:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Manningstatement22Aug20132 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning/Archive_10&oldid=1136607563"