Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Bradley May Officially Change His Name

On the articles about her filing for a presidential pardon, the government spokesman said de facto she has the right to change her name. So this should be resolved eventually. As someone who changed back a Bradley to a Chelsea recently (not knowing that the consensus had shifted), I'd say the current "compromise" works. We can change Bradley to Chelsea when it becomes official. Nothing is a failure. You should be proud of yourselves for the great work you've done.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Standard Discretionary Sanction allowed for this article for duration of the arbitration case

Be advised that the Arbitration Committee has passed an injunction, authorizing discretionary sanctions to be applied for this article (as well as United States v. Manning and Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage). for the duration of the case. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Temporary discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions for clarification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means. Don't administrators already have the discretion to sanction any disruptive behavior? What sanctions have been imposed on the affected articles? Edge3 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It means that requests for sanctions can be made through the arbitration enforcement provisions. This process tends to the legalistic (it is likely that a formal notice on the editor's talk page will be needed, notifying of the sanctions and pointing out the issue with that editor's editing, will be necessary for action to be taken). It also means that literal interpretation of policy is likely to be adopted, though my request for clarification of the scope of DS in regard to incivility was left unresolved. EdChem (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich example

I followed a link from redit today to Alexis Reich and noticed the article defines her in the lead as a trans woman. Why not do the same thing for Manning and be done with this (well, after the RM likely moves this to CM)? My only "problem" with this article, and I suspect many others share the same concern, is the issue of confusion. Is there a stigma with using "trans woman" that I'm unaware of?Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention of parole in lead

Hi Srich, I restored the sentence in the lead about the parole: "She was sentenced to 35 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge, but with credit for time served and good behavior could be released on parole after eight years." It seems important to make clear that she won't actually serve 35 years.

Also, "sentenced to ... a dishonorable discharge" is worded that way because she hasn't actually been discharged. Another editor who has some expertise in this decided that was the best way to word it, rather than "given an dishonorable discharge," which implies that the discharge has taken place. What do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

But there is no guarantee that she won't serve 35 years (less time served credit). Parole/good behavior credits are largely discretionary and it is entirely possible that she will have to serve the entire sentence in confinement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL #1 applies. The credit for time served is there, but it does not reduce the sentence issued. Basically the credit means the sentence of 35 years starts at the pre-trial detention date. There is no certainty about parole, early release, pardon, etc. in the future. Using the wording of "could be" should not be included as part of the sentence. Also, NxS Baranof's comments are correct – we don't know how long Manning will actually serve. We do know what term of imprisonment as punishment the court issued. (The DD is virtually certain to be given, but as a matter of procedure the paperwork has not been issued. That question is not a big deal IMO, as we are unlikely to learn exactly when the GCMCA approves the sentence, etc.) In any event, I am satisfied with SlimVirgin's version. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the DD will likely not be issued until the period of confinement is completed, if the Army follows its normal practice. GregJackP Boomer! 10:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be possible she will have to serve all 35 years but it is also seems important to mention she may be released after a minimum of eight years.--Space simian (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Srich and others for the feedback. NxS, just noting that I restored the tighter language. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And I slightly tweaked it to identify the ambiguity - she could be released after as few as eight years, which identifies that it could also be somewhere in between. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed the wording to reflect the actual sentencing. A military sentence is "confinement". The sentence verbiage from the judge is "sentences you to be reduced to the grade of Private E1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 35 years and to be dishonorably discharged from the service." The credit is worded as "PFC Manning will be credited with 1,182 days of pre-trial confinement and 112 days of Article 13 credit for a total of 1,294 days of sentence credit." The dishonorable discharge occurs when confinement ends, not necessarily when the sentence ends (i.e. she has a dishonorable discharge when she is paroled, too). "She will be confined to the disciplinary barracks in Ft. Leavenworth, KS" comports itself better with military-speak. --DHeyward (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the review of sentence can take 6 months but since confinement is longer than that, it's a rubber stamp. The DD will happen, too, but there won't be a period of non-confinement that happens before the review is complete so it's a non-issue. I believe reduction in rank and pay forfeiture doesn't start until 14 days after sentencing which is why the credit statement still had PFC. Don't have a good source to quote though so I didn't add any detail about that. Those dates have passed so Pvt Manning is accurate now. --DHeyward (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Trans woman

I agree with Two kinds of pork's addition of the linked phrase "trans woman" to the lede of this article. It explains to readers, very succinctly, why there have been both female and male names used for Manning, and may thus avert any reader confusion over the use of both names in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is okay, Manning is now notable for both being a soldier and a trans woman who committed acts of espionage, and reliable sources demonstrate the notability of being trans♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the ins and outs (no pun intended) about the phases of trans people, but I took the syntax from another article which seems germane. It makes the article better because you don't have to explain the he she stuff. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing but activist editing, honestly. Notoriety for attempting to change one's name/gender following an espionage conviction is worlds apart from fame/notoriety as a trans woman. It is not at all appropriate for line 1, paragraph 1. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's "activist editing" to help readers understand why Manning has two names, one male and one female? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Describing Two kinds of pork as a trans activist is just plain wrong, I dont see any activists anywhere near this edit♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

delete I'm honestly a bit torn. There has been a fair amount of coverage of the fact that Manning is TG, and what it means for the prison sentence, trans in the military, etc. But, Tarc has a good point - such coverage was intrinsically linked to Manning's espionage and sentencing the day before. We don't know if this will be a source of lasting notability though, or a flash in the pan. Again, given the current edit war, I'd suggest we keep it out per BRD, and revisit this after the move. I believe the article will move, and at that point it may be less important to note that Manning is a trans woman. The example of Elton John is apt - we don't mark sexual orientation nor even gender in the first line of most bios, and I don't see why we should do so here. Let's wait.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that Elton John doesn't have two names. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That is besides the point! But please indulge me. He was born "Reginald Kenneth Dwight". Did he legally change his name to the current or how did that happen? The article on him doesn't tell but since you brought it up as an example I assume you have this information. If so, please share.TMCk (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it - Elton John doesn't have two names of differing genders, which could create confusion among readers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why bring it up as an example???????????? There is no comparison, just apples and oranges again.TMCk (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, I didn't bring him up as an example. Obi-Wan Kenobi did. Slow your roll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually it came from FormerIP's edit summary when they reverted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That edit implies the transgender issue had/has a role on his or her (you choose) notability and prosecution which of course is not the case. Very poor wording for the intro and shouldn't stay or be reinstated in such way.TMCk (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
And yes, it looks like an activist edit, no matter if it is one or not.TMCk (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly no activist. However the Manning certainly is notable for coming out as a trans woman. Why? Because the sources covered this. But I agree with our resident Jedi that this can wait.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a nice comparison: James_Tiptree,_Jr. - clearly a male name, but article starts with a female name. This writer was simply better known by her male pseudonym. But we don't need to say "Alice was an author and a woman" - the reader gets it eventually in the last sentence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In your example the lead sentence contains "a pen name she used", which is analagous to "she was a woman and a writer". To put a finer point on it, confusion is diffused there, not in the next sentence.__Elaqueate (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Alice was not a trans woman, she was an author. This is, in part, why we should avoid examples that aren't about gender identity issues. Every case I've seen on Wikipedia, besides Manning, uses the new name and the new gender pronouns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources state she was a trans woman, so you are incorrect.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That she was transgender or just that she used a male pen name? Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013

 Done - I see the change has been made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Simple change to the article Infobox: Instead of "{{Infobox" -> "{{Infobox person" Tiago Etiene Queiroz (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was done his way to avoid yet another name field, that would appear at the top if this were "infobox person", to bicker over. It looks fine the way it is. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

moved to person and added military sub-box. I think it's a lot more maintainable this way. Let the bickering begin (again). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to change the infobox (to two infoboxes, in fact), and there's no need to keep on repeating the old name. Also, the increase in image size was too much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The advantage is, you don't have the clunky "data1/label1" fields. The military info box means it is formatted like other soldiers' information. Finally, the image size was increased to reduce wrapping, I think it actually looked fine on my screen, I've seen even wider info boxes. It's not "keep on repeating the old name", an infobox regularly sums up important information about the subject. Why don't you share why exactly you think this should be the only infobox in wikipedia without a header option? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Obiwan, please don't start the serial reverting. You made a change and there is an objection to it. The image size is completely absurd looking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, lets wait on the dust to settle more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So why don't we just agree on what needs to lead the infobox. It's not that hard. The birth_name is also not up for debate - why delete that? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

the birth name is fine being placed back in, as for the infobox name what do you suggest? We could do "Private Manning" or just "Manning", I feel we should avoid having the name Bradley or Chelsea in for now at least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The names are in the first sentence. Adding them again in close proximity looks gratuitous given that it's a sensitive issue. The infobox doesn't need a name. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think its gratuitous, and why avoid Bradley/Chelsea when we already have it in the title and the lede? it doesn't make sense? I think the compromise (Chelsea Manning (previously Bradley)) will help introduce the info box, and describe rapidly to the user that there was a name change. Birth_name is standard to place when the person in question has had a name change for whatever reason (esp if they are notable from their old name, which is the case here) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Im in favor of the birth name as that is pretty much straightforward but remain convinced we should wait on the infobox name header. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on pronouns throughout life

Hello everyone - you are all invited to participate in a request for comment on whether or not to use the current preferred pronouns of a transgender person throughout that person's life. Please note that the request for comment applies to all articles about transgender people (not just this one), so please keep that in mind. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The use of Chelsea and the word she when referencing to Bradley Manning

Should the article not use the legal first name Bradley instead of Chelsea, even if he wishes to be called Chelsea. Since he has not had a legal name change wouldn't it be more in line with BLP?? TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No. This has already been discussed endlessly. Do we use the legal name for Cat Stevens, Snoop Dogg and a whole load of other ppl? No, we use the name they are known by. And any BLP vio is in not using Chelsea not in not using Bradley. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that consensus can change, so the question of which name to use can be reopened by anyone at any time. Further, WP:DEADHORSE is an essay (the views of some unspecified number of editors), and does not necessarily reflect consensus. I do not think WP:DEADHORSE is a valid rationale for closing a discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe but all the same neither BLP nor wikipedia demand that we use legal names so its a valid close IMO. Of course you could try to change the naming policy and demand we use legal names for ALL living people though it would be problematic for articles like Mikhail Gorbachev whose legal name will be unreadable to readers used to a western script. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny how you invoke "consensus can change" when the consensus is to use Chelsea Manning in the lede, but God forbid anyone try to reopen the move discussion for a month. The only reason the 3-admin panel's request has any force is... yes, that's right, consensus. Can't that consensus change, too? Or are you saying that some consensuses are allowed to change but others aren't? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not a requirement to use legal names, but it is a requirement to use the name that the individual goes by on a daily basis and is called by everyone around him/her.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That is clearly not so, Jojhutton, eg Cat Stevens is known as Yusuf Islam on a daily basis and used by those in his daily life but we still call him Cat Stevens♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cat Stevens is known by his stage name, not his legal name. You compare apples and oranges here.TMCk (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not right. He hasn't used Cat Stevens in 30 years or something. I don't really know why we think it makes sense to use that title, but it isn't because it's the name he is called by. Formerip (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"...it is a requirement to use the name that the individual goes by on a daily basis and is called by everyone around him/her." So are you claiming that prison guards get to decide the name of their prisoners? That makes zero sense and has zero grounding in Wikipedia policy or precedent. Her friends and family, so far as we know, now call her Chelsea and she uses Chelsea on a daily basis, so far as we know. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A prison guard doesn't decide. They're obligated to use the prisoners legal name (or at least their nick).TMCk (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And thus we go around in a circle, because there is no requirement that Wikipedia use legal names. Claiming that Wikipedia should be required to use the name that prison guards are obligated to use because it is her legal name is nonsensical circular logic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. I simply responded to your comment and gave a clarifying response. Don't put words in my writing that are not there.TMCk (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that you said it - I am pointing out that it is one of the logical problems with the originally-quoted assertion, if what you say is true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the article will end up being titled Chelsea. My problem is with the re-writing of past events before the name change. Why isn't there more acknowledgment of the NLGJA policy? A spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.”

The full article is here. We need to respect history. The "she" pronoun should not be applied retrospectively. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with and endorse Gothicfilm's view.TMCk (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency of pronouns will just confuse our readers, let us remember we are building an encyclopedia before anything else♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(EC) The opposite can be or is quite more confusing. I know it is a challenge but as long as the intro gives readers the basics of his personal feelings of being in a wrong body, that confusion is gone. That's the basic problem and case here: "He" has a male body all his live, was treated as such and just recently made it public that he felt like a woman early on in his live. A self proclaimed name change doesn't change the past, just more than likely the near future.TMCk (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

When building an encyclopedia we should respect history before anything else. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make this a policy for all transgender ppl you need to address policies and guidelines, this isnt the place to do that. In the meantime we should follow policies and guidelines and use she throughout this article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There is disagreement about which policies apply and how, thus this is a legit topic for this talkpage.TMCk (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The pronoun guideline is unambiguous, so there's no disagreement on whether and how it applies. If you don't agree with that guideline, there's no point in objecting on individual article talk pages. Go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style instead. – Smyth\^talk 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it, really?. Noticed the tag?TMCk (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Would that be the tag that states: Until the dispute is resolved by consensus, it is recommended that the guideline remain in effect.? Said dispute would be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as Smyth indicated, would it not? Dolescum (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over there about mentioned guideline, should we just ignore it and play along like nothing is happening? And should we take that guideline as granted and as the only one that applies here? That's the point I was making and you're responding to.TMCk (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

To do anything else is to preempt the result of the dispute, is it not? No-one knows what consensus will emerge as a result, so business as usual and patience in the meantime, no? Dolescum (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Patience is exactly what I see a lack of in regards to the article. And again, and I pointed this out before in this thread, there is more than just this one guideline to think about. But apparently other guidelines and even policies are of no interest for some? We should look at all of them and also apply common sense which I don't see happening here. As I see it, there is more harm done in the name of "protection" than any good.TMCk (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
And BTW, you clearly avoided a direct response to my post.TMCk (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that of the 3+ discussions on WT:MOS about MOS:IDENTITY, the one(s) which pertain(s) to the paragraph on pronouns (rather than to the preceding paragraph) show little support for changing the paragraph, and much support for keeping it as it is. Hence I echo Smyth's comment of 17:19, 8 September 2013: the guideline is unambiguous and unambiguously applies, will continue to apply while it is being discussed, and seems unlikely to change. -sche (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

sche is correct. The current tag refers to an unrelated dispute. The pronoun guideline was already thoroughly discussed 2 weeks ago and resulted in a small majority to keep the current wording. – Smyth\^talk 10:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue of retrospective pronoun use was not settled there. "While there is no consensus to change the current wording, there may be room, as has been commented, for a separate discussion on how to deal with writing about gender specific past moments." - from the closing comment NO CONSENSUS TO ALTER MOS GUIDELINE. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I just opened up a discussion to address this topic specifically. Please discuss the question of retroactive pronouns at the section specifically dedicated to that topic: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC on pronouns throughout life. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As a manner of law, Bradley manning is neither Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, nor female. As such, HE should be referred to by his legal name and gender when reporting on him in an objective fashion. One should note that he desires to be known as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. I understand people's desire to support LGBT rights and be politically correct; however, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts. Political correctness can and should be considered, but given that an encyclopedia's only purpose is an objective reporting of facts, political correctness must take a back seat to objectivity. In this instance, the facts are that his legal name is Bradley Edward Manning, and in every way possible, he is a male human. If you want to write a subjective piece on Pvt. Manning, feel free to refer to Manning as Chelsea or her. But until the facts of Mr. mannings name and gender change, you compromise the integrity of this website and institution. I get that Wikimedia runs solely on donations and the vast majority of us are unpaid volunteers, however, are you willing to sacrifice the integrity of this institution in order garner a modicum of politic correctness and the support of a small group of people who would have you rewrite reality because the facts of the matter make them upset or uncomfortable? Furthermore, there is a reason why you can't simply just say your name and gender is now something else at a whim. If you could, people could simply arbitrarily and capriciously change their information and databases and websites like this would be stuck changing the information at the whims of the people or subjects being profiled. (As for the before and after issue, people are referred to by their name and pronoun in use at the time of the event and as their current legal name when speaking about them in general.). Samleizerman (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Samuel L. 12 September 2013 0805hrs (UTC) 0305hrs (EST)

Surely my learned friend would be happy to back up his assertions concerning matters of law with specific reference to those laws, or at least with secondary sources discussing such laws. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Authorized awards

Photo on courthouse uniform shows no service star. http://www.hdwallpapersinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bradley_manning1.jpg

Head and shoulders shot has Manning wearing the device. Why the discrepancy and is there any sources? --DHeyward (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the original source of your/the upload? Self uploads are sure not reliable for such purpose at all.TMCk (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Send me a pic of yours and I'll make you whatever you wanna be... or not.TMCk (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't upload anything. Most of the media shots (one of which I linked to, all are about the same) does not have the bronze service campaign device. The official Army photo in the article shows the bronze service campaign device on the Iraq Campaign medal. The army doesn't authorize wearing the device without at least one bronze campaign star on the ribbon. I want to know why it is missing from most of his press photos while in custody. --DHeyward (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general talk about the subject nor plain wp:OR. Unless you provide the original sources that for the least show that uploaded pic is authentic and maybe comment on your question, this thread is about to become a wp:BLP violation and will be shut down/removed. So again, please provide those original sources you're talking about.TMCk (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason the ribbons flip-flop here and there is because by many accounts Manning was not an...attention-to-detail soldier. This has nothing to do with the gender issue, so no hackle-raising, please...this is just a general lack of attentiveness. In the hdwallpapersinn.com link above, Manning isn't even wearing them in the right order. They're also spaced 1/8" apart, which is technically allowed but it's just something that isn't done. An ICM without a device just plain doesn't exist, you're awarded them depending on how many phases of the Iraq war you were there for, so any picture where it is missing is just...oy vey. Tarc (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

TMCk: no need to be so aggressive. It was a perfectly reasonable question. Of course he needs to provide proper sources, but there's no call to be going on about "violations" and "shut downs". – Smyth\^talk 10:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that pic is modified, it is correct on all the other pics from the same site (where the ribbons are visible). --Space simian (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the photos were taken during custody, as Manning is being transported to trial hearings. The uniform is supplied by the guards immediately before transport and the guards will have added the ribbons. (The various ribbons & badges have little sharp pins, which can be used as deadly weapons in the hands of an experienced ninja, so the guards did not let Manning handle the ribbons.) Did the guards do a good job in setting up "the rack"? Alas, no. The official photo supplied by Coombs' office is the best source to determine the authorized ribbons as such official photos are set up and taken in circumstances where close attention can be given to detail. – S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

alexaobrien.com as source

am confused by why alexa o'brien's web page not considered reliable source. for long time, was only source for transcript of case--for two year, if memory right. as well, she receive grant from Freedom of the Press Foundation for work regard Manning's trial, and work host on personal web site shortlisted on reporting award Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. because of background as information architect, has also been able for provide database of original document for trial--transcript, evidence, briefs, so on. is consider journalist by huffington post, who write article on efforts in crafting public docket http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/alexa-obrien-bradley-manning_n_3086628.html and has write for guardian on case http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alexa-o-brien . is given respect by journalist "community" (ephemeral idea as may be) as member of ranks. for case with specific as underreported as in Manning case, emergent source as in case of alexa o'brien may rise and is right to give due respect in all fora. Lakdfhia (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes: alexaobrien does not show up on the WP:RSN. But, from other websites, it looks like she is a Wikileaks editor. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that she was given a journalism award, I think this could be easily considered a RS: http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/about.html; indeed, many journalists and members of the public relied upon her site. Who claimed it was not a RS? OTOH, use of trial transcripts is basically a primary source, so should be done with care. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Query: Was she given or nominated for a journalism award for her blog – or other work? In any event, alexaobrien.com comes under WP:SPS and WP:SPSBLP. We cannot use it for Manning articles. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (Revise remark. See Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism & its website.20:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

please read this: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - this clearly qualifies as such. So, yes, we can use it for the Manning article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I considered that. In this case her relevant field is Journalism. That does not give license to use in any subject. And because Manning is a living person, WP:SPSBLP applies. We need her work from sources that are subject to editorial control, and a personal blog or website does not qualify in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Her journalism was the coverage of the trial??? The shortlisting for the award was for her coverage of the trial. [1]. Therefore, I strongly believe her coverage of the trial qualifies, even per WP:SPSBLP. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As BIJ was on the shortlist, that website may be acceptable RS. (A separate analysis of it would be required if anyone objected. IMO, it qualifies as RS.) But since alexaobrien.com is not BIJ, we cannot use it. (We went through a similar analysis in the article a few edits ago. Alexa.com was cited, and then removed. Then the Alexa.com cite was replaced by something from commondreams.org. While commondreams is not a personal blog, it got removed because of its opinion stance. (The validity of that revert is another issue.) All-in-all, commondreams.org and BIJ might work as non-SPS webpages, but alexa.com does not. – S. Rich (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense and you are taking too fine a reading of SPSBLP. The claim in question in any case is NOT about Manning, the claim is about the charges and whether those charges had precedent or not. But again, you need to ease up on the wikilawyering; remember, this journalist has been published, and her journalism of the Manning case specifically was shortlisted for an award for investigative journalism, and she is probably one of the top 5 experts in the world on what happened with Manning's case. The fact that you are pedantically calling for removal of this because you're comparing it to Joe Blow's personal blog is silly. It's not. Read the claim, and judge for yourself whether the source can validly make that claim, and stop reading so much into policy - WP:SPS is clear enough.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the drive-by tagging. You have no idea how much experience O'Brien has in military law, but I'm guessing a lot more than you, and we don't need an opinion tag when the statement is prefaced by the person who stated it. Secondly, there are oodles of sources and documented transcripts that have the "made up charge" claim. Do you doubt, nonetheless, that the lawyer DIDN'T say that? SPS doesn't apply here, please read what SPS says.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This was hardly a drive-by tagging! 1. Alexa had been added Boldly, then Reverted, and the Discussion was ongoing. (WP:BRD does not mean BRDR.) There was not grounds to add her back as the discussion was underway. 2. Frankly, I doubt that she has any experience in military law, but we do not know based on her website. 3. If there are oodles of sources, then those sources should be added as RS (and thereby drop Alexa). But as alexaobrien.com is SPS the greatest care must be used when she is commenting on something or about someone in areas outside of her area of expertise. 4. The tags serve to alert other interested editors to join the discussion. Removing them serves no purpose other than to assert that the editing question is settled – in the opinion of one editor. 5. If we can't get consensus on this talk page I shall be happy to open a WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN thread. – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

when talk about transcript provided by alexa, is important to note that official transcript not only unavailable, but government argue are unnecessary because O'Brien "took such excellent notes" -- see huffington post article above. tag in article calls into question validity of transcript, a thing no one in either press or government wont to do. Lakdfhia (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged the alexaobrien.com link as WP:PRIMARY. Whoever is producing the transcript is a witness to the hearing. Not a bad thing in itself, as Primary sources may be used with care. But the witness admits that people are talking quickly and portions of the transcript miss what is being said. Thus this transcript suffers from reliability problems. In any event, Manning either pled guilty to the particular charge or was found guilty. So adding the opinions of O'Brien & Goodman is not proper in what should be a straight-forward description of the court-martial process. – S. Rich (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)16:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

is found guilty, yes. is notable charge in form, lack of citation for legal base, and in implications, so include mention of in description of charges. is simple and straightforward, only few lines of text still. am not list specific UCMJ and USC violations on charge sheet. still, simply stating charge not illustrate well enough, would only confuse, so draw on source for comment on importance. as for claim in article regard judge lind being expert, coombs is expert too and he say is made-up charge. that basis of charge is source of contention is evidence enough that is notable for mention in brief summary of charges. Lakdfhia (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Decision to revert the move to Chelsea Manning is a disgrace

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.

---

As a trans woman, I am having to reconsider whether I want to have any involvement with future editing of Wikipedia. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for an improvement to the article: change the title back to Chelsea Manning, as MOS:IDENTITY requires. Clear enough? --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

When the next Rename Discussion takes place in ~2 weeks, you have a chance to weigh in then. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that no discussion should happen before the move request begins? Some can state that all discussion is "frozen" but others disagree. It might be a good idea to address actual policy when editors try to participate and are told to withhold commentary for two weeks. __Elaqueate (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And it should be said that I'm sure editors did not mean to give the impression they were hounding a trans editor away from a discussion of a trans subject. __Elaqueate (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This person's "suggestion for improvement" was a name change, to which I responded that we will be holding another rename discussion in a few weeks, that's all. If you're reading something more insidious into that statement, that's really not something I can do anything about. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't speak to your comment specifically. But when there are attempts at discussion by previously uninvolved parties, and people are working to create a welcoming atmosphere for other editors, it might be good if we don't immediately hat their multiple contributions and make it seem like the only way to talk about the move is to wait two weeks. Especially if similar comments had been allowed to be discussed more obviously respectfully. Your comment was not undue, but the net effect of the interventions could be interpreted as unwelcoming. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What is more to discuss here? We have had this song and dance many times now, the move discussion is the place to place these comments not here, complaining about the title here is not helping as nothing is going to be done about it on the talkpage here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can agree to deal with people who have seen the move back for the first time in a more welcoming and helpful way. This editor wasn't given useful guidance on where to register or discuss their views now, and was, on balance, told to come back in two weeks and closed with each comment. I would take it in good faith that they were trying to help, even if you have prejudged their contributions to be unhelpful. A situation to avoid is if people later find there is discussion about the move happening now, as it could give an impression that Daira Hopwood ⚥'s desire to give opinions were being actively thwarted, even if that wasn't your active intent. We should think of how to respond the next time it happens. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the section name given by Daira is indicative of someone venting rather than discussing. The section below this one seems more collegial about joining the discussion. Kudos to that section starter.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I have a further proposal that I think addresses the more general issue: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Conflict_with_MOS:IDENTITY.2C_and_proposed_change --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Name Discussion Is Where?

I've just heard about this article being reverted back to "Bradley," though the individual obviously identifies as "Chelsea." I came here to join the discussion, but it appears to be closed or taking place somewhere else. Could anyone offer a clear update on this matter, and a direction on where properly to log my support for moving the article back to "Chelsea"? Thank you. Startswithj (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request. Thanks for helping. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply…but at the top of that page is printed: "Please do not yet use this page to debate the move per se," and at the bottom: "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion."

It also says: "Keep closed until such time as the move request is filed; current proposed start date is 03:50 (UTC) Sep 30, 2013 per consensus of admins who closed the first move request. Some have stated disagreement with the 30-day waiting period, which has no official status." Who are these admins, what makes them admins, and how are they contacted?

Best regards, Startswithj (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a related discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning_gender_identity_media_coverage#Merge_with_Chelsea_Manning_article/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning_gender_identity_media_coverage#Requested_move_31_August_2013/. Startswithj (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

They are BD2412 (talk · contribs), BOZ (talk · contribs), and Kww (talk · contribs), they are admins because they were promoted by community consensus at the WP:RFA gauntlet, and they are contacted via the links I just posted. Please do not go harass them. --erachima talk 23:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:erachima for your quick, concise, and linked answer. Please rest assured (assume good faith) that I'm here to contribute not harass. There's a huge amount of text to read on these discussion pages; it's not been easy catching up on what I naïvely assumed would have been a given.

For the benefit of others, I've found (in addition to the discussions linked directly above) current discussions of this topic at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request/Comments_unrelated_to_evidence/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_on_pronouns_throughout_life/.

Suggestion: Is there a hatnote or tag we could add to the top of this article making it clear that its title is in contention, with a link to the discussion and the grounds for that discussion's current stasis? Startswithj (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgive a newbie, I've found and added the apparently appropriate hatnote. I left its link as the default value (simply to this Talk page). Startswithj (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the hatnote. Basically, you missed the discussion. The discussion you should be reading is Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why remove the hatnote, the article title is in dispute, no? My understanding is that the freezing of discussion for 30 days hasn't changed this fact…and adding this or a similar hatnote would be informative and time-saving to those new to this matter. Startswithj (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It was in dispute, and there was a discussion, which has been closed. There's no dispute at the moment; in a couple of weeks there will (I expect) be a dispute again. StAnselm (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it is still very much in dispute, if the vociferous rants of a few rabble rousers are any indication. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

is not move thing at top of talk page sign is still dispute? if move to new page, title have to change. dispute is obvious ongoing--information gathering is part of informed debate. is not sensible for say is not dispute when this page itself say otherwise. Lakdfhia (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this one current or useful: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop.....? __Elaqueate (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's in dispute as in people are disputing it. It is not in dispute as in various editors are admins are sitting on all efforts to discuss the dispute and move the situation forwards. Artw (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and transsexual women

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

---

So how precisely does this violate WP:COP? - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We already have a category Transgender and transsexual military personnel that replaced Women in the United States Army, is there a more neutral category we can use for this one that does not have the wording of woman in it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your apparent desire to exclude the word "woman" from this article is supported neither by policy nor by reliable sources. It is indisputable that she has identified as a transgender woman. Therefore, she belongs in that category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not seeing a COP violation, but I do question the apparent current protocol of doubling up on trans- by occupation and trans- by current gender categories. --erachima talk 22:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• • I may have linked to the wrong thing, I do know though that categories should be neutral and not overlap each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • What, pray tell, is "non-neutral" about categorizing Chelsea Manning as a transgender woman? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

categories sometimes are overlapping but not identical. In this case, there's no issue with trans women, we have many in that cat. Read the article if you want to understand the diff between trans men and trans women. Manning has been identified by many sources as a trans woman so its quite neutral.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave the category in then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 15 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.

This was closed way to quickly, and the closer was involved. I disagree with that template and believe it violated BLP and V both and suggest that it be removed  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the category? The person who started this discussion agreed to keep the category, and previous consensus in at least two other discussions was to keep this category. Yes I was involved but sometimes in the interest of expediency I have been known to close a conversation I was involved in. Are you debating whether Manning is a transgender woman, or is your problem with the category itself? If its the former, there are plenty of reliable sources to back up that claim; for the latter I'd suggest you nominate the category at CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

There is a guideline here on a sub-sub page that may not have many watchers, so I'm posting this notice here to get comments from interested parties. The goal is to develop a set of "ground rules" for the inevitable move discussion, with the hope that we can avoid comments hurtful to trans* people, and at the same time avoid overly-broad accusations of transphobia, hate speech, sexual harassment, etc. An initial attempt at these guidelines is in the link, but I encourage you to edit and comment on the guidelines so that they represent a broader consensus. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. So in addition to blocking the move discussion from happening when it does happen it's going to be haeavily policed for tone arguments including, I suppose, the argument that deliberatly mislabeling a trans person is transphobic or bigotted? Maybe we should just all give up on this article and redirect to the relevant Conservapedia article. Artw (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Blanket accusations of transphobia (e.g. labelling all supporters of the Bradley move as having transphobic rationales) is purely and simply unacceptable. I for one will not tolerate such comments. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this discussion and several discussions it has spawned, such as the attempt to write transgender out of the MOS, have revealed a heavy institutional leaning towards transphobia, which remains a form of bigotry even if carried out in the form of passive aggression and WP:ALLCAPS wrangling. This defensive reation at even having that pointed out is part of that, and may be a sign that Wikipedia is too far gone for it to be addressed.Artw (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Artw, perhaps you did not see it, but I have proposed changes that would write transgender-sensitive provisions into WP:COMMONNAME. If you find such actions transphobic, we're clearly editing different encyclopedias. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Artw, as someone who's on your "side" in this thing, I honestly think the guide-to-commenting makes a sensible suggestion. I appreciate your concern -- during the ANI thread there were two moves to introduce a blanket sanction against anyone saying "transphobia," but this genuinely isn't that. It isn't saying "shut up and put up with transphobic remarks," but rather asking editors to (a) give the benefit of the doubt when discriminating between ignorance and malice, and (b) to take the matter up on the offender's talk page before deploying nuclear language in the main discussion. The same guidelines also outline, at considerable length, unacceptable things to say to or about trans people. TLDR: I like Obi's guide and I don't think it has earned this fierce a rebuttal. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This guidance should be completely ignored. Editors should be free to make comments within the general rules of Wikipedia without worrying about some special policy that some editors have made up to police the discussion. Count Truthstein (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

hi Count. Per IAR you should feel free to ignore any guidance, policy, rule, or consensus if you honestly think it improves the encyclopedia. The guidance is simply that - suggestions for conduct - and is not binding as an arbcom sanction might be. I hope nonetheless editors will comply, and if they don't I think arbcom will be watching - discretionary sanctions have already been applied so if you say something an admin decides is out of line, then I guess you'll have to accept the consequences. In the last discussion there were accusations of virulent transphobia and trans hatred and sexual harassment and libel, as well as accusations of trans-activism and soapboxing the promotion of POV and political correctness run amok. I think we'd all be better served by not going through that again, and just talking about the best title for our readers.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Title in Dispute" Hatnote

This question arises as a tangent out of the topic immediately above (please review latter half of #Article Name Discussion Is Where?. I came hear to join the discussion of the Manning re-/un-re-name, after reading about this WP discussion in the news. I saw the (related but not the same issue) current merge hatnote (regarding Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage) first and went there. I've also found this Talk page obscure in its direction as to where to contribute. Propose adding Template:Disputed hatnote to this article to help future readers know the article's current state and direct them to proper discussions. My understanding (admittedly, I came here late) is that the article title is in dispute; the discussion was put on hold due to lack of consensus and civility. Thank you, Startswithj (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. There isn't an active discussion as to which new creative title should be had, which is the intent of that template - there are two options on the table, all other compromises have been rejected, and there is broad consensus to wait until sep 30 to do the actual move discussion. This is not a forum and if we don't hat these sections that crop up they will simply degenerate into more time wasting bemoaning. this is outlined clearly in the FAQ at the top of this page, so if someone was confused about the move I'm sorry but plz read the FAQ first next time, and if the FAQ if confusing please help fix it. The discussion wasn't put on hold for lack of consensus, it was decided to wait 30 days for sources to shift. There was no consensus to move to a new title, which is what you need in these cases, so the default/original title remains..--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you've changed my mind: sounds like a bad idea and will look like a public call for voting - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

there used to be another template which was used to indicate an active RM discussion on the article page. However, overly zealous eds deleted that one, which I still don't understand - why shouldn't readers be informed the title is currently under discussion - esp if its a big dispute...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a discussion to bring that template back, I was also wondering what had happened to it. Definitely was a helpful note, if we still had that Deadmaus probably would not have happened in the first place. STATic message me! 22:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these notes to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request/Comments_unrelated_to_evidence#Notes for people who want contribute, with note that it is to help ensure discussion is framed in constructive way when it occur in few weeks time? link appears on above already, but is buried and hard to find. is good for helping with prepare for debate, people can make good contribution, and extra attention for how framing argument constructively can happen is only good. am not clear on intricacies of situation here, so am sorry if this doesn't make sense. only appear at quick glance to be okay compromise: effort made to not engender what some view as unnecessary discuss while raising awareness that conversation is only postpone, not cancel. Lakdfhia (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the proper thing to do is {{wrongtitle}} whichever title the page is currently at to the other name. --erachima talk 18:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Following WP:COMMONNAME is not a technical restriction though, so that would definitely not be the proper thing to do, I am sure an addition of that template would swiftly be reverted. STATic message me! 22:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

But it's The Wrong Title! --erachima talk 22:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Did not immediately catch the sarcasm, thought you were another editor complaining about the title. In context that was quite funny, nice link too. STATic message me! 22:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I still think it better to be upfront about the current situation, inform interested parties of the process, and direct them to current discussions as possible. User:Obiwankenobi, were you referring to one of these templates: Wikipedia:Template messages/Moving, perhaps { { Old move } }? Startswithj (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember it - it was deleted. I think it used to be on the Ivory Coast page so check history in ~July 2012 around time of last move, I think you may find it. I'd be happy to have it back - we tell readers if an article will be deleted, so we should have the option to tell them It is proposed to be renamed too. Note: those templates you pointed to are talk page templates I think. I'm talking about having an article-space template.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Obiwankenobi, I found at Ivory Coast 2012-07-09T23:38:36this tag: Template:Mrv, which looks like { {mrv|date=2013 September 15} } in code, and when posted reads "This page is currently the subject of a move closure review. Those interested may participate in the discussion. While the discussion is in progress, this page may be edited, but do not blank or redirect this page, or remove this notice from the page." Startswithj (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts for or against the MRV tag? Startswithj (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the text of the template and it doesn't seem to be appropriate since AFAIK there is no formal review in progress. See the first sentence of the template, " This page is currently the subject of a move closure review " and read what is at the wikilink. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The template in question was this one: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_11#Template:Movenotice; I'd suggest reading all of the linked discussions. Consensus at the time was that the movenotice templates did not help and caused more confusion. If we address the issues brought up I assume these templates could be recreated. MRV tag is for move review, which is not the case here. I don't think there are any mainspace tags we can put right now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That general-purpose hatnote looks like it would have been useful for this case. It appears it was deleted with no suggested replacements? Again, I think it's important to be upfront to casual readers that this article title is in dispute. Would the Template:POV-title solve that? Thank you, Startswithj (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that I originally linked to the wrong template. I meant to suggest in the first place Template:Disputed title. Sincere apologies. Startswithj (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. Frankly I think all arguments for and against the move have been mooted, and there isn't any point discussing it, as anything said will not be part of the formal move discussion. This is not the sort of thing a few eds will sort out - there are really only two options on the table. If you want to add that tag once the actual move discussion starts, that would be ok, but we don't need people coming here and saying 'can you move this to Chelsea please' - it's better for them to read th FAQ and wait for the formal move then participate, or join in the move prep and help find sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from people who considered stopping editing due to the controversy here

In the discussions about what to name this article, a number of editors said they'd been considering leaving Wikipedia because they felt angry or horrified by comments that were made here. If you are one of those editors, I'd like to invite you, if you want, to talk about it on my talk page. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you do with these responses you receive, please be aware that these are anecdotal reports, thus have zero stattistical value.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue I hope you consider both sides on the issue, there were false accusations of trans-phobia made as well towards editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, have you made any progress with your definition of "transphobia'? It was admittedly unclear before, I hope you understand. I ask because I'd like to know and be clear about what you mean. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

False accusations of hate towards trans-gendered people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue Gardner, You might also consider how many have been considering leaving Wikipedia because they think that some articles can be excessively influenced, or nearly controlled, by editors who place their own interests above what is in the best interest of an article and Wikipedia. Note that just as in the case you brought up, it's not a matter of whether those feelings that editors may have are reasonable or not, but whether they exist. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Naming solution -- maintain two gender specific articles

Like Manning, Wikipedia is going through gender-identification trauma as to the proper way to use pronouns, etc. And like Manning, there is a solution. Wikipedia can maintain two distinct articles that mirror each other, differing only in the use of pronouns. For any reader linking to Bradley or Chelsea, they first get a choice page. It says "Wikipedia is maintaing two almost identical pages about Manning. (Manning is the US Army soldier convicted by court-martial for disclosing government information to WikiLeaks. Manning later decided to trans-gender from male to female, hence the choice of pronouns.) If you prefer to read about Manning with male pronouns, click 'Here'. If you prefer to read about Manning with female pronouns, click 'Here'." The pages can then be edited and a bot watches the pages for pronoun changes. If the female page gets male pronouns inserted, the bot rejects them. Same thing for the for the male page. If non-pronoun text gets changed, the bot make identical changes on the mirror page. – S. Rich (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

...no. No, people should have to deal with calling someone by their actual name and pronouns, not their dead name and legal pronouns. I hate to say it, but this isn't some kind of subject for academic debate - Chelsea is a woman, and to not respect that is generally agreed by trans people to be an enormous insult, and, furthermore, an act of transphobia in itself. Call her Chelsea and use her actual pronouns. This should, quite frankly, be something to which there is no discussion - it's honestly slightly horrifying that people here are reducing a real, living, feeling human being's identity to some kind of weird, terrible "academic debate". Just. Stop the debatism and respect her. No need to piss all over her identity just because ~policy~ or other such things. 50.68.50.161 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it is up for academic debate, as there are many here who believe that the simple declaration that one is now a different gender actually makes it so. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts on whether such articles should exist for subjects other than trans women?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For people who successfully undergo transformation, like Christine Jorgensen, the articles maintain their female and mixed pronoun usage. (Christine's article is relatively stable.) In Manning's case we don't know what sort of success in the transformation will be achieved in the foreseeable future. But Manning is a hot topic and resolving the issue would be helpful to the community. If this could be set up, it would be the pace setter. The technical aspects for the bot are far, far beyond me. – S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't wait to see how far that gets extended..."to read about an Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, click here", "to read an article about Muhammad sans images, click here", and so on. So, no, not gonna happen. In real life, not everyone gets to walk away from the table a winner, nor does everyone get a star just for trying real hard. If they did, my New England Patriots would've gotten to share the Superbowl trophy with Eli, because, hey, a perfect season is just the same as a bullshit miracle, right? But I digress. There are winners and losers, and sooner or later someone in this debate is going to be on the losing side. That's not a bad thing. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In any case, this is the wrong forum. bring it up at Village pump/technical. I think a simpler solution that doesn't go as far would be, whatever you search with, if there's a redirect, you get that as a title. So someone searching for "Chelsea Manning" will be brought to an article with "Chelsea" in the header, while someone searching for "Bradley Manning" will be brought to something with "Bradley" in the header- so you make the redirects invisible - it's a simple rendering change. But there will still be fights over where the "real" article sits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For Tarc: Actually there is a method to avoid seeing images of Muhammad; see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Israel has a consensus about the capital. Other cases can be handled by consensus. For Tarc & Obi: In Manning's case we are far, far away from achieving consensus as to the "real" article. Thus this idea is up the flagpole awaiting salutes. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually for Manning I think Chelsea will win by commonname, I'd put the odds at 5:1 at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, surely just a matter of time. Rothorpe (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, how does one count the sources? Even if every publisher switched to Chelsea, there aren't very many articles using that new name. Chelsea would be the tip of the iceberg, and Bradley everything else.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A method of avoiding seeing images in an article is not a different article, though. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Same article, different pronouns. As there is a technical means to avoid images in an article, is there also a technical means to chose female or male pronouns? (Has this ground ever been tread?) – S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is just a dumb idea, we're not forking article content along ideological fault lines. If you can't be a part of making the hard and necessary decisions, then let others do so. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a matter of improper WP:CONTENTFORKING. Readers would have a clear and open choice of their own. Indeed, WP:SUBPOV explicitly allows for this. As for putting my shoulder into maintaining this article, I invite editors to look at the contributor edit counts. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How is WP:SUBPOV related to this at all? MaxHarmony (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Guidance for use of personal pronouns

Is there anywhere in Wikpedia that gives guidance regarding the use of personal pronouns for people who have publicly requested to be referred to by a different gender than what they were referred to in the past? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary). Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)." Startswithj (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed that there is currently a discussion in progress on the talk page for that guideline in the section RfC on pronouns throughout life. The RfC is about a sentence in the above excerpt from the guideline, "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I started a section at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Gender_self-identification to get some info about the first sentence of the above excerpt. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see that got shot down quickly, but is this not a WP:CANVAS violation? You probably should not be using this page as a recruiting station. Artw (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It did make me raise my eyebrows when a notification was placed on this page. -sche (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Since editors of all sides have been involved on this page, placing a notice on here will not influence the linked discussion one way or another, but it will help the discussion be more complete. What could be wrong with that? – Smyth\^talk 21:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Gender pronoun retroactivity for notable person may cause confusion regarding sexual identity of non-notable person

In some cases, being pronoun-retroactive about the gender identity of the subject of the article, a notable person, leads to the sexual identity of a non-notable person mentioned in the article being really, really easy to misidentify. I feel the text needs to be updated to avoid this confusion.

Specifically these items:

• It was while stationed there in the fall of 2008 that she met Tyler Watkins, who was studying neuroscience and psychology at Brandeis University, near Boston. Watkins was her first serious relationship, and she posted happily on Facebook about it, regularly traveling 300 miles to Boston on visits.
• By September 2009 her relationship with Watkins was in trouble; they reconciled for a short time, but it was effectively over.
• After her arrest, her former partner, Tyler Watkins, told Wired that Manning had said during the visit that she had found some sensitive information and was considering leaking it.

The last one is even more confusing, as it also seems to be quoting what Tyler told Wired; that quote, which may show his perception of Manning's gender identity at the time (which was after the relationship was already over for quite some time), is in fact this:

“He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”

In general wikipedia-wide, are there any objections to or standards w.r.t. clarifying the sexual identity of a non-notable person which is made unclear by the pronoun change of a notable person who changes his or her public gender identity after the relationship is over, while maintaining the gender pronoun preference of that notable person?

Does anyone know of precedent?

I'd rather for a general discussion to have points made / maybe reach some consensus before any specific re-wordings are suggested, as I feel as though there may be a separate, somewhat independent discussion surrounding that issue, even if there is 100% general agreement that something should be done. It would be useful to not have the two mixed in with each other, as one is more of a policy point, and the other is more of a style point.

— Djbclark (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree that the above-quoted statements are confusing. There may always be room for improvement in any situation, however. You could try reordering words or phrases, or replacing she/her with Manning or the Private, etc., but another reader might in turn find the avoidance of basic pronouns confusing.

Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY#Identity may offer the advice you're seeking.

Please also note, sexual identity specifically refers to a person's self-perception of their sexual relationship to other individuals (e.g. gay, straight, not interested at all, etc.). Gender identity is more a person's self-perception of their mental/emotion relationship to others with regards femininity/masculinity/queerness. Cheers, Startswithj (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One possibility in these situations, which might get the most agreement among editors, is to try not to use gender pronouns. For example, the first excerpt in the first message of this talk section could be rewritten as the following.

It was while stationed there in the fall of 2008 that Manning's first serious relationship began with Tyler Watkins, who was studying neuroscience and psychology at Brandeis University, near Boston. Manning posted happily on Facebook about it, regularly traveling 300 miles to Boston on visits.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that would seem to read better. Startswithj (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Djbclark, I just read over your message again and noticed that I had overlooked your request not to suggest a rewrite. Many apologies.

I think your point is that by referring to Manning with feminine pronouns in mentioning the relationship with Watkins, it might suggest that Watkins is straight instead of gay. That leads me to ask the question of anyone here about the situation where a man such as Watkins has a sexual relationship with a transgender woman such as Manning who is physically a man. Is the sexual relationship considered straight or gay? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It'd be gay, but that's not the point. Manning's still physically a man, so the article should refer to him with male pronouns or just remove all pronouns and call him Private Manning. FokkerTISM 05:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Gender identity is not mediated by surgery, as has been discussed here ad nauseaum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be straight. But can the OP explain why it should matter to Wikipedia what the sexual identity of non-notable persons may be? Marnanel (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentences are only "confusing" if you read them entirely out of context and then assume that Manning had a female body at the time of the events described. But in the context of the article, which clearly explains Manning's sex and gender, there is nothing at all confusing about the text. In addition your claim that "it also seems to be quoting what Tyler told Wired" is odd. Anyone who understands how quoting works knows that you are only quoting when you use quotation marks (like I just did with you). So anyone who thinks this text that is not in quotation marks is a quotation lacks a basic grasp of writing in English. The text is not confusing to a competent language user. 99.192.84.150 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

If Watkins identifies as gay, isn't it harmful to him (per WP:BLP) to suggest that he engaged in a hetero relationship? Kelly ^hi! 13:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

First requested move

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

The result of the move request is the initial move of the article to "Chelsea Manning" is reverted, returning the article to the original title, "Bradley Manning.

The panel of administrators convened to review and close this discussion has unanimously reached the following determinations regarding this requested move:

1. The title of the page prior to the events in dispute was "Bradley Manning"; this was a long-term, stable title, and the brief and limited discussion prior to the initial page move to "Chelsea Manning" does not constitute the formation of community consensus to move the page. Therefore, the default title of the page absent a consensus to move the page is "Bradley Manning".
2. The discussion following the move request provided a clear absence of consensus for the page to be moved from "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning".
3. WP:BLP is applicable to article titles and the desire to avoid harming the subject presents a reasonable basis for supporting "Chelsea Manning" as the title; however, BLP does not require having "Chelsea Manning" as the title. It is not a BLP violation to maintain the title at "Bradley Manning" so long as the prior use of this name by the subject is public knowledge and can be found in reliable sources. Furthermore, the application of BLP to avoid harming the subject is mitigated by the subject's own acknowledgment that "Bradley Manning" will continue to be used in various fora, and by the fact that the name, "Bradley Manning", will inevitably appear prominently in the article lede. Therefore, BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".
4. MOS:IDENTITY is not expressly applicable to article titles, and is therefore not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, "Chelsea Manning".. The panel acknowledges that MOS:IDENTITY is applicable to pronouns as used in the article, and that the reversion of this title in no way implies that the subject should be addressed in the article by masculine pronouns. Although some may perceive this as leading to incongruity between the subject's name and the pronouns used throughout the article, such incongruity appears in numerous articles about subjects whose common name appears to differ from their gender.
5. WP:COMMONNAME remains the basic principle by which article titles are chosen. This policy provides several factors which are weighed in the determination of a proper article title. In the requested move discussion, a number of editors noted that "Bradley Manning" was the name under which the subject became notable and performed the actions which led to her notability; and that readers interested in these actions would be likely to search for this subject under the name, "Bradley Manning". Competing examples were provided of some reliable sources changing their usage, while some retained their previous usage. The change that did occur was not sufficient to persuade the majority of editors, including some who indicated that their minds could be changed by sufficient evidence of changed usage. Although WP:COMMONAME provides that "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change", it does not provide that no weight should be given to reliable sources published before the name change. The total mass of sources is weighted towards "Bradley Manning", and it is too soon to determine whether usage following the subject's announced name change represent an enduring trend, or a blip occasioned by reports in the news surrounding the name change itself.
6. A comparatively small number of editors premised their opinions solely on Manning's legal or biological state. These arguments are not based on anything in Wikipedia's policies, and are contrary to numerous precedents. Such arguments were expressly discounted in this determination.
7. A number of editors who supported reverting the title back to "Bradley Manning" also expressed the opinion that the common name of the subject is likely to change over a relatively short time span, this close is without prejudice to a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days^* from the date of this determination, at which point those advocating the move of this page will be able to present all evidence that may arise during that time demonstrating a change in the common name of this subject as used by reliable sources. In the interim, editors may propose moving the page to a compromise title such as "Private Manning" or "Bradley (Chelsea) Manning".

^* The sole point as to which the closing administrators were not unanimous was the length of time that should be required to pass before a new move request to "Chelsea Manning" is proposed; one member of the panel would have required ninety days.

This was by no means an easy process, and the closing administrators recognize that any conclusion to this discussion would engender further controversy; however, we are in agreement that this result is the only proper interpretation of the discussion conducted with respect to this dispute. bd2412 T 03:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Note: After carefully considering the proposal made on my talk page, I have moved this discussion to: Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request.

This move serves two purposes. First, it reduces the massive size of this talk page (the move discussion is well over 500,000 bytes). Second, it makes it very clear that the discussion has concluded, and further comments are to be made elsewhere. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Note the panel is (BD2412 (talk · contribs), BOZ (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs)) NE Ent 13:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a future date so this doesn't get auto-archived. 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportfan5000 (talk • contribs)

In the future you can use {{DNAU}} for that. NE Ent 13:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on gender identity

Another article has been merged into this article, and the result in my opinion is an undue weight to the gender identity issue. For instance the "Reactions to coverage" (of the gender change) section is just as large as the "Reactions to the disclosure section". The latter is obviously what Manning is primarily notable for. The article already before this had an undue weight on personal issues. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to trim the section down then, I just merged the article per the merge discussion outcome that closed recently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the details are repeated from other sections. For example, the cupboard incident. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it could definitely use some pruning. Feel free to start snipping! Kaldari (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I cut the material that seemed to be merely repetition of text from the "Military" section's narrative earlier, and I reworded some of the New York Times response to be slightly slimmer. However, I would just assume cut the NYT, USA Today, and NPR response subsections entirely, as their effect seems to be summarized sufficiently in the "Initial Media Coverage" subsection immediately prior. Thoughts? Startswithj (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I think this an appropriate place to stop cutting. The overall size of this "Gender Identity" section looks more in balance with the other sections of the article. Startswithj (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If the section is too large, the solution is not to cut out notable and relevant material, but to use WP:SUMMARY and move the detailed coverage to a separate sub-article. Just saying... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

When the "notable and relevant" material is WP:UNDUE weight, duplicates existing material, or is over-expansive and non concise, it should be trimmed and rewritten, now that is it no longer part of a split article struggling to seem important enough to deserve that split. The community has voted. In the end the whole gender identity publicity stunt will probably be forgotten and will fade to black. However, the actions of Manning wrt leaks will be remembered for a long time to come. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the title of this talk section "Undue emphasis on gender identity" wasn't the main reason for my trimming. It was rather that the trimmed parts were too much of a digression from the topic of the article because they were too much about the media coverage of the gender identity, rather than Manning's gender identity itself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a major trim in the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your summary looks good, thank you. Startswithj (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, but can somebody explain: if a man is father, can he also be mother? How can we write: Eva (born Adam)? Can Manning be pregnant? --Ceroi (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the information at the top of the page. This isn't a place for a general discussion about gender. This is a place for discussion about improvements to the article. Totorotroll (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Organization of article regarding gender

Per WP:IAR I would suggest rewriting the first sentence as,

Bradley Edward Manning (also known as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public.

and changing personal pronouns to masculine as described below in the parenthetical explanation. Also, I would suggest moving the following sentence that is presently in the first paragraph to the end of the lead.

"In a statement 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.

Furthermore, I would suggest adding the following parenthetical explanation after the above sentence.

(In this article, when referring to events prior to Manning's announcement, masculine personal pronouns will be used, whereas for events occurring after Manning's announcement, feminine pronouns will be used. When events before and after the announcement are discussed together, or when the reliable sources that support the information use masculine pronouns, masculine pronouns will be used. )

Any suggestions for improving this parenthetical statement are welcomed.

The guideline that would prevent the above edits is MOS:IDENTITY, more specifically the sentence of that guideline that says, "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." This sentence is the subject of an RfC titled RfC on pronouns throughout life. From looking at the responses to that RfC, there is considerable opposition to the sentence, possibly by a majority of the respondents, although it may not be sufficient to delete the sentence. In any case the support of the sentence does not appear to be any greater than the opposition to the sentence, and this gives additional justification for using WP:IAR in this case. For reference, here is WP:IAR.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Thanks for considering this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• You are proposing that we replace true claims with false ones. That is a particularly bad reason to ignore the rules designed to prevent false claims from being included. It might be the first day of spring, but I predict a heavy snow coming. 99.192.48.138 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• How about no. (For details, see the previous several megabytes of this page.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. See also your conversation at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Gender_self-identification Startswithj (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I Support this change and think it really is no big deal, you guys are arguing about swapping names, seeing the article is titled as Bradley, the name Bradley should come first. I want us to start improving the article and have editors leave their emotions out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• No, please see the extensive archives for the reasons why your proposal is unacceptable. Invoking IAR at this stage of the discussion (after extended debate has arrived at this compromise) is not kosher. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Proposals to ignore all rules are likely to be better received if you actually explain your reasons. – Smyth\^talk 21:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

When I read the parts of the article where feminine pronouns are used for Manning's life before the statement of Aug 22, 2013, it seems like they can easily be misinterpreted as meaning that Manning lived and was perceived as a girl or a woman during the first 25 years of Manning's life that came before the announcement. For example, the use of the feminine pronouns for the period during Manning's childhood can suggest to readers that Manning's parents perceived Manning as a girl.

A problem I personally ran into as an editor was with this edit [2]. Because of the current pronoun situation, my edit resulted in, "According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning said that she was gay." I think that this would be unclear to most readers because it seems like the case of a girl being attracted to other girls, which wasn't the case for Manning. I understand that a person who knew and accepted the definitions used by the LGBT community may know, but I think that would be a small minority of the Wikipedia readership. I considered writing it without the personal pronoun but so far I haven't found such a version that works very well.

For reference, here's what was in the reliable source.[3]

Do you remember when Brad told you that he was gay?

Yep.

Can you tell me about that?

Me and [another friend] Zack were spending the night. I went down to get a Mountain Dew or something because we were about to go to sleep. I was in my bed, and Bradley was on the couch. Zack was on a mattress on the floor. And [I] came back, and he told me he was gay. And I said, "OK, well, you know, it's whatever floats your boat, man." And that was pretty much it. ...

How old were you guys then?

I guess I would have been 14. He would have been 13.

Regarding the use of WP:IAR in general, I think I made a new and valid point that it is more applicable to parts of policies and guidelines where consensus is in question, such as the case illustrated by the RfC that I mentioned. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone is reading that sentence out of context of the article, it won't be confusing at all. The article explains that Manning is transgender and when she revealed that fact, so what "said that she was gay" to a person who did not know she is transgender means is clear. But if you still insist that this is a problem, the solution is to write better, not to report false information about Manning's gender. How about "According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning reported being gay." or how about "According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning claimed to be gay." The latter might be better because as a transgender teen, her attraction to boys would make her actually heterosexual, thus the claim to be gay was not correct. I think the text as is is clear. I don't see how anyone who knows what "transgender" means and knows about when Manning transitioned (as the article explains) could be confused by the text as is. But if you disagree propose an improvement, not a lie. Saying "he" is a lie. 99.192.80.113 (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• Short answer: no; please back away from the horse. For the long answer, see the repeated, repeated, detailed discussions available in the archives. -sche (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion is not over though it has just moved on to other places, so no the argument has not been closed and done with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - makes sense to me. The article is currently confusing as hell. I think it's a good idea to have the pronouns/names track chronologically with the public persona of Manning at the time of the sources detailing the timeline. Kelly ^hi! 04:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - not only does it make sense, but it's perfectly respectful. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recommends not using one name to the exclusion of the other in an article, but rather to use the old name when writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been really bugging me that people are citing NLGJA as though they have any special right to an opinion on trans pronouns. Lesbian and gay - no trans in there. GLAAD (again, G and L - no T) say precisely the opposite. 7daysahead (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems they have rebranded themselves - they are now "The Association of LGBT journalists"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the link for the NLGJA, which is now "The Association of LGBT journalists".[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better link: "Because of Manning’s name recognition, we suggest that she be referenced as “US Army Private Chelsea Manning, who formerly went by the name Bradley.” NLGJA Encourages Journalists to be Fair and Accurate About Manning’s Plans to Live as a Woman __Elaqueate (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(Also, to avoid any chance of introduced confusion, "The Association of LGBT journalists" is only a descriptive slogan and obviously not their actual name.) __Elaqueate (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right that "The Association of LGBT Journalists" is their description of their association NLGJA, rather than the name. See also http://www.nlgja.org/about regarding their mission and history.

For reference, I think that this is the excerpt from the RS that was mentioned in the message that began this thread.[6]

And when I asked the NLGJA by e-mail to clarify its policy on reporting about Manning’s past, a spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference too: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Relying on that TIME article means ignoring all other sources in that article, and ignoring their stated policies, and ignoring the author's own summation that "she" has a strong argument for anything past early childhood. And, I suppose an argument can be made for an interpretation that excludes inconvenient evidence. But it clearly doesn't make sense to point to NLGJA to support a change to make "Bradley Manning" as the primary reference, when they state the opposite. I'm not confused here, am I? __Elaqueate (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. Since gender doesn't appear to change, if Manning was female gendered - but not so identified - all her life, it makes sense to use the female pronoun for all her life. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: as per longstanding style in WP articles regarding transgender people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7daysahead (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The NLGJA's recommendations are not to "use the old name when writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender" as suggested by User:Anythingyouwant above. Their recommendations (http://www.nlgja.org/article/nlgja-encourages-journalists-fair-accurate) are to respect the subject's self-identity ("refer to her by her new name and the feminine pronoun … use the name and pronouns that someone prefers"), and in the case of a person who become famous before coming out, to introduce her as she self-identifies, with a brief addendum giving her previous name ("we suggest that she be referenced as 'US Army Private Chelsea Manning, who formerly went by the name Bradley.'”).

GLAAD said it best (http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender) when writing: "Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition. It is usually best to report on transgender people's stories from the present day instead of narrating them from some point or multiple points in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns."

Respect for the subject's self-identity is also the course recommended by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the Associated Press, the Transgender Law Center, and the Human Rights Campaign.

Again, User:Bob K31416 has already started this same conversation at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Gender_self-identification

And I strongly agree with the call above to stop beating dead horses.

Startswithj (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the quote that I linked to previously, from Time Magazine:[7]

“ And when I asked the NLGJA by e-mail to clarify its policy on reporting about Manning’s past, a spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference too: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.” ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am still unclear on this line of thought. Let me know how this sounds to you. 1) You seem to respect the opinion of NLGJA. 2) You cite an example where they use "Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley" 3) We also know they explicitly and specifically advise "US Army Private Chelsea Manning, who formerly went by the name Bradley.” [8] 4) This is to support a proposal to change the lead to "Bradley Edward Manning (also known as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning)"? Help? __Elaqueate (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposal also includes a long parenthetical involving pronouns, which I assume you agree is supported by the NLGJA guidance. Regarding the first few words of our lead sentence, it's worth keeping in mind that we're writing about a whole life, not "last week".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I never thought they were the only source for guidance on pronouns or names. It might be great to see what trans specific organizations suggest, or medical organizations, or AP (heavily endorsed by NLGJA). I was just confused about when you thought the NLGJA were credible. Pronouns: yes; name: no way. But it looks like the lead is written in the present tense, about the current conditions of the subject. I still don't see why you wouldn't go with your expert, unless you thought they weren't? They still seem to be suggesting Chelsea Manning is the way to go there. Are they credible, in your view? __Elaqueate (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the lead is written about current conditions then it needs to be fixed. The notability of the subject is largely due to events several years ago.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on the "notability" of this person (who's been in the news internationally and prominently this month) doesn't seem to have anything to do with your assessment that the NLGJA should be considered a reliable expert. It might not be helpful to re-open and re-argue other positions that have been given here, I just thought it odd that you were promoting an organization of journalists that disagreed with your positions. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not persuaded that they disagree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Elaqueate, as the TIME article indicates, the guidelines by these media organizations tend to be ambiguous about how to refer to past events. It is entirely possible that the NLGJA just meant that they feel the current name and gender identity should be used for events now and into the future. That's the way I read it. Without any clarification from a spokesperson, it's possible they also meant for that to apply retroactively. However, with a clarification from a spokesperson, they apparently didn't mean that. -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't explain how it's possible that specific advice to use "Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley" indicates expert support of the use of "Bradley Manning, also known as Chelsea" as the lead. Even within your extended interpretation here, the lead isn't a retroactive use. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making clear that unfortunate quote from an unnamed NLGJA representative (as reported by Time magazine), which appears to conflict with the NLGJA website's official recommendation. I still would suggest: 1) Take into account the official recommendations of the AMA, APA, AP, GLAAD, TLC, and HRC. 2) Follow Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY or discuss changing the MOS on the appropriate page. I still don't understand why the original poster brought their question back to this page after seeming not to gain traction on the MOS talk page. Startswithj (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I had an idea of how to organize the article regarding gender that I hadn't expressed before. Also in my opening message, please see the last paragraph regarding the RfC and WP:IAR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Elaqueate, I think the point of the Time article was that various organizations didn't give specific advice about which pronouns to use for Manning before the gender announcment. So the author emailed the NLGJA to get specific advice on that. The NLGJA email response was quoted above. Also note that the NLGJA is an association of journalists whereas the other LGBT advocacy groups are not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you like them. They say to use "US Army Private Chelsea Manning, who formerly went by the name Bradley.” [9] __Elaqueate (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Did that include the 25 years before Manning's gender announcement too? The author of the Time article asked the NLGJA for clarification about how to refer to Manning in the past and they responded, “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time."[10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. And let's get this article moved to her name already. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. She identifies as female, so let's stick with feminine pronouns. The move discussion back to Chelsea is a week away anyways. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Question Are we here to edit an encyclopedia? Do we want our readers to be confused as heck when reading the articles? Per WP:NPOV I think there is no harm in using both pronouns and WP:NPOV is Wikipedia's and wikimedia's core foundation - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. is not respectful to subject of article. she has said what she wishes. is easy enough to do, so no reason to not. article read fine as is. Lakdfhia (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL - Bradley Manning's legally and biologically a male (and has been called by male pronouns up to the point where he announced he was going to change his gender. Therefore he's known as a male (just as Billy Tipton was actually a female, but male pronouns are used because that is what she was known for and as. He's a guy and that hasn't change yet (as the army won't allow him to have female hormones or surgery , so his gender change hasn't happened and in this day and age, it's not even notable. Bradley Manning is notable as Bradley Manning, the gender change isn't, so yeah, go ahead, refer to him as a male, because that's just what he is.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Readability

Would editors care to express their opinions about the readability of the article when feminine pronouns are used for the part of Manning's biography from birth in 1987 up to the gender announcement of Aug 22, 2013? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Only a person who does not want to understand will have problems. It is as clear to read as any article is.99.192.70.42 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
• I tried reading it and found that I was able. Formerip (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I look at words, I read them. I don't know whether you've considered this yet, but you may possibly want to give a moment's thought to putting down the stick - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Re stick, one suggestion for you and anyone else that feels that way, simply stop posting messages and my suggestion about organization of the article regarding gender, which doesn't have consensus so far, will just fade away. I'll also consider whether I am behaving stickish.

I started this subsection on readability because I was honestly interested in the opinions of editors here regarding this, regardless of what those opinions may have turned out to be. I also thought it would be useful info for others. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If you are open to any feedback, your comment "I look at words, I read them." didn't seem to have any info about readability compared to the others. Feel free to elaborate if you like. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, if you discourage editors from participating you may get what you wish and lose future contributions such as this edit[11], which editors on both sides of the gender issue seemed to like.[12] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Perfectly readable. Context is given in the lede. 7daysahead (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'll mention that my question was about editors' opinions regarding the readability for the general readership of Wikipedia. Sometimes it's hard to try to see things through their eyes, but it is important to do that for good writing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of different kinds of people in the general readership. Among them are: (1) Stupid people. These people might be confused, even given the clear explanations provided in the article. But then again, these people might read the Max Webster article and get to the end wondering if Max is a man or a woman. We can't and shouldn't edit to the level of the dumb reader. (2) Bigots. There are people out there who have hateful attitudes toward transgender people or who roll their eyes and think that transgender people are all crazy and that to acknowledge the legitimacy of being transgender is "pandering". Those people will have no trouble understanding the page as written, but it will piss them off, so they might pretend that it is confusing in order to try to get it changed to match their prejudices. Those people should be ignored as well. (3) People who are neither stupid nor bigots. Those people will have no difficulty understanding what the page says. This page is as readable as any other Wikipedia page, so the only barriers for the general readership to understanding the page are stupidity and bigotry. 99.192.81.74 (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I've accepted that there are a diversity of editor personalities on Wikipedia so I'll simply thank you for your opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather peculiar reply. If you think that no readers of Wikipedia are stupid or that no readers of Wikipedia are bigots, then just say so. But surely you know that such people exist and read Wikipedia too, don't you? 99.192.81.74 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

If you had a registered account, other editors could discuss personal issues with you on your talk page and possibly settle differences. As it is now, you effectively don't have a talk page because your IP address frequently changes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• These readability tests [13] suggest a readability level of early high school (mid 10th year of schooling) to first year of undergraduate (early 13th year) for this article as it currently reads. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That's pretty good given how convoluted grammar on Wikipedia can get. However, the problem there would be sentences festooned with subclauses and every special case, because the many conflicting editors demand precision - not pronoun usage - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• For comparison, here's a link to the version of the article the day before Manning's gender announcement.[14] The part of the current version about Manning's life before the gender announcement seems less readable with respect to personal pronouns. Just my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Hmm, that old version makes it sound like a person who's unequivocally a man. That doesn't seem to fit when we know this person has struggled with gender identity since childhood. Also, a patchwork of "he"s and "she"s can lead to confusion about who is being talked about, as the subject of this biography is a trans woman. I start reading with she; it's less jarring to be consistent. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a patchwork of he's and she's for example in the whole section Background of that previous version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and if we eliminated the last five years of events in this subject's life, then it would be much quicker to read. But I find it easier and more informative to read when it is based on up-to-date assessments of who the subject is, and incorporates new information and developments. I don't want to have to pretend I'm a person in 1992, with only the evidence available to a person living in 1992, to read about events in 1992. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Re "I don't want to have to pretend I'm a person in 1992, with only the evidence available to a person living in 1992, to read about events in 1992." — That would be a consideration for Manning's reading of the article but the article isn't for only Manning to read, and Manning may not even feel that way about the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Manning reading the article has to do with it. This seems like a non sequitur. I was talking about my own reading. If we know something new about the subject's present and past, I don't mind having it represented in the text, even if it's not something people knew in the past. And I don't find it makes things less readable, as per your query. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your remark. I don't think one would have to pretend to be a person in 1992 and I don't think the NLGJA thought that when they recommended, "When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Other sources suggest otherwise (including current Wikipedia consensus). And most (including NLGJA) defer to AP style, where one should use the name and pronouns that someone prefers, when expressed. People seem to have differing views of "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)." Some people see an implied exception for the past from the phrase "Starting today". (I just see the one exception, official correspondence; if you shake down the sentence it says "Starting now, use the feminine pronoun.", as in, I would like you to do this now, not later, and not as, only do this from this point in time. The second reading requires assuming a parallel preference for "he" that is not expressed, in a letter where she says she has felt female since childhood. But I thought you were asking about readability, not re-opening a previous discussion about pronouns. Talking about the NLJGA isn't discussing readability. FWIW, I find it readable now. __Elaqueate (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Prejudice in the super-section section above

Would the question above (regarding which pronoun gender to use when) have been raised if the subject of the article outwardly appeared more like a societal notion of how a woman should look? Why have parallel complaints not been raised for celebrity transgender individuals such as Chaz Bono or Lana Wachowski? Startswithj (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: This comment was deleted for possible WP:NPA concern. I want to be clear that I question the continued request to change the pronoun usage of this article, and I do not intend to suggest conclusions or assign labels about the editor in particular. Startswithj (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

attempt rewording of statement

am trying rewrite of sentence "According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning said that she was gay." sentence was brought up in previous discuss as unclear, so try to make more clear by say "According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning said that she, then living as male, was attracted to other males." am draw on source that say "Me and [another friend] Zack were spending the night. I went down to get a Mountain Dew or something because we were about to go to sleep. I was in my bed, and Bradley was on the couch. Zack was on a mattress on the floor. And [I] came back, and he told me he was gay. And I said, "OK, well, you know, it's whatever floats your boat, man." And that was pretty much it." (source is at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/interviews/jordan-davis.html ) context of article provides information that manning live as male at stated time and is no ambiguity in what is meant by statement of friend. is not point of view if just rewrite stated fact to more clear communicate intended meaning. Lakdfhia (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere -- nowhere -- does that reference support what you are trying to add to the paragraph. It does not state that "....at the age of 13 Manning said that she, 'then living as male', was 'attracted to other males."' Moriori (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering how sensitive this article is re is/was Manning a he or she, in particular the phrase "was attracted to other males" can not be attributed to your synth. Even a paraphrase would need to be based on a ref that says something very close to that. I could just as easily say the ref says she was saying she was attracted to other females, but that would also be unacceptable synth. Get it? Moriori (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

is no need for provide source Manning life as male at age 13--not real point of contention there. gender identity was not issue in dialogue in re Manning in 2011, time of interviews. however, source provide context such, while not explicit in state that is live as male, is only conclusion to draw. given this, statement that is gay is only point to one thing--Manning was male who attracted to other males. please be more specific in argument, is hard to tell what is meant by what you are say. what should be rewritten as to make more clear? what can reader conclude if not what i offer as statement? why is source point of contention at all when is obvious no original research go into simple restatement of thing friend say in interview? would not be good synth to provide what you say, as is neither true statement and not conclude reachable by reasonable reader. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"....is only conclusion to draw....". There you go -- your words. You simply can't do that. Moriori (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

is not true. very pedantic. am unsure what your agenda is. Manning live as male until recently. is point of public knowledge. i misspoke in saying conclusion drawn at all. is not here or there what i conclude or you conclude. is point of public knowledge. Lakdfhia (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So long as it is clear to the reader that Manning was gendered as male at birth and was identified as male throughout most of her life, the sentence you are questioning does not need to be changed at all. In context there is no doubt what it means. So if you think there is a problem, perhaps it would be better to suggest some revision elsewhere that makes that context more clear. But even then if you still have a problem with the sentence you are questioning, why not just go with the possible rewrite I mentioned above: "According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning claimed to be gay." As it is, I agree with the folks that think your suggestion is not a good one. It does involve interpretive synthesis. It also is unnecessary to add "living as a male" to particular bits of information since that should be the clear context for the entire article. 99.192.49.193 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I think the current form is problematic. My view is that it should be kept as "She said she was gay." If needs be, the word gay could be in inverted commas, as "gay". I think that we need to be wary of putting words in Manning's mouth. If the recorded quote is "I'm gay." then that should be what is expressed in the article. Raewyn Connell has written about how "gay" can be used as a shorthand for "different", "not like the other boys". It's not implausible that that is what Manning was trying to express - we don't know. Totorotroll (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just an aside, but while looking at the article the day before Manning's gender announcement, I found this part that corresponds to the part being discussed above.[15]

"When he was 13 he began to question his sexual orientation, and around this time his parents divorced."

I did this to compare the readability of what we have now to then. Just some info to consider, and feel free to do that or not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed the wording slightly. Previously it said "she was the only American and, living as a boy, was viewed as effeminate" - although it is obvious what is meant, the wording is a little awkward and could imply that living as a boy makes someone effeminate. Even ignoring that, it implies that trans girls living as boys are effeminate, which may not be universally true. Formerip (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a different part that isn't the topic of this talk section. Perhaps you could move your comment elsewhere, for example create a new section? If you do, feel free to delete this message too. Also, I'll look at your point. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. Why are you telling this person to take their comment out of this section? __Elaqueate (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they're saying I changed a different bit of the article to the one mentioned by the OP. I don't see the need for a new section for my comment, but if others think it is a distraction I don't mind if they hat it. Formerip (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

But the other Bob comment makes no sense either. I think they've become confused about which section they're in..... Maybe they could fix it when they notice, or clarify... __Elaqueate (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The interview says, "he told me he was gay". If that is the only source for this point then it should be transcribed as

• "she told him she was gay" or
• "she told him she was 'gay'"
• "Manning described herself as gay" or
• A friend of Manning's said, "he told me he was gay"
• "According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning said that she was gay."

If it seems unclear, it might be because it is unclear from the source, about what specifically that thirteen-word conversation meant. It shouldn't be elaborated on, because that makes funny ultimately unprovable assumptions about what was said between early-teen boys and what "gay" meant to them. And it is actually a point repeated later without needing gymnastics. There are options that don't require defining what 13-year-old Manning thought was "gay". __Elaqueate (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit everyone knows what it really means — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.136.147 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! If everyone knows, then any of those phrasings should be fine. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"According to a friend, at the age of 13 Manning said that she was "gay."" This sentence seems misleading and maybe someone has more information to improve it. IMHO, which is not useful for the content, is that this is related to her gender dysphoria. For those unaware it is common for someone who is trans to be attracted to the same sex both before and after transitioning. Many consider that the norm. So if a man is attracted to other men, then transitions, she is still attracted to men. This is not changing sexual orientation though. She was always heterosexual but now is living in as the woman she feels she is. It's possible she identified with gay people because of her outsider status. But without clarification I think it's misleading to suggest she was gay, as that would mean she is now attracted to women. I think this needs to be clarified and written better. I think:

At age 13, a friend of Manning's said, "he told me he was gay"

This helps the point that Chelsea was living as a young man at the time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Either work for me. I think it needs to be clear and at the same time it needs to avoid paraphrase and putting words into people's mouths. Jordan Davis, the friend, says in the interview cited "...he told me he was gay." In an interview dealing with the period of Manning's return to Wales, Brian Manning is quoted as saying "And he said, "You know, Dad, I just want to let you know, I'm gay."" I think using the quotes in their entirety would go some way towards avoiding any ambiguity. The links are http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/interviews/jordan-davis.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/bradley-manning/interviews/brian-manning.html Totorotroll (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with just using the quote, in quotes, attributed - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

One point. A friend of Manning's said that, when he was age 13, "he told me he was gay". - otherwise, you're saying that the friend said the words "he told me he was gay" when the friend was age 13.

Photograph

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.

---

As Chelsea Elizabeth Manning has identified herself as a trans woman, I have changed the infobox photograph to show her expressing herself female. It is usual for the infobox photograph of a trans person to show that person in the gender chosen. Abigailgem (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed it back. That is a picture of Lauren McNamara, the subject of the interview where the picture comes from. It is not a picture of Manning at all. 99.192.72.176 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Inappropriate photo. This rationalization for using someone else's image, woman, man, or trangender, just doesn't fly. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ummm... You have wildly misunderstood what happened. Abigailgem changed the picture believing that it was a picture of Manning. I changed it back because it was a mistake. No one was trying to intentionally use a picture of someone else. 99.192.69.119 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Those concerned about the current photo may feel better knowing that it is being used with Chelsea Manning's blessing. User:SlimVirgin reported receiving an email from David Coombs (Manning's lawyer), and stated that,

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

That said, while Wikipedia does have policy covering biographies of living people, it does not necessarily cater to the wishes of the subjects of those articles. -- ToE 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

While we of course have no obligation to cater to the wishes of the subject if they are at odds with accurate and encyclopedic coverage, it is still a useful point of evidence that the subject herself endorses one of the proposed ways of handling the pronouns. --erachima talk 22:47, 27 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.

Postpone move discussion

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.

---

Currently the Arbitration Committee is seeking to vote on a proposal to temporarily postpone the move discussion: [16]. This proposal was raised a few days ago. So, to have an orderly discussion on the move proposal, it seems prudent to postpone for the time being, and I am proposing postponing until either the Arbitration proposal passes or fails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Why start a move discussion if it is going to be closed soon after anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The propoosal is failing, big time. Oppose delay. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? It is currently supported by a majority of those who have voted, and needs one more vote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It needs 4 net supports. it has 2. Fromt he top of the motions thing "Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")" Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two committee members left to cast their input if one of them chooses to support the extension or if one abstains then consensus will be in favor to hold off the move discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose delay regardless Thirty days of misnaming was already too long. Allowing procedural issues and policy ambiguities to enable and extend this is just wrong. This whole thing is a gross insult to many trans and allied readers, editors, and so on, and quite possibly to Chelsea Manning herself. Ananiujitha (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I am leaving, and the Arbitration vote is 6-4 in favor of delay, but for clarity this proposal will be automatically withdrawn should that vote reverse (7 is required to pass). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose the suggestion to postpone, and also oppose the principle that ArbCom has the power to determine what can and can't be discussed and when. If ArbCom finds that the moratorium should be extended, I don't think that should be honored. This will cause a shitstorm which will be harmful for both the discussion and for wikipedia. While that is obviously not desirable for a calm discussion, the blame for that will lie with ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that if we don't follow arbcom it will cause a storm on what authority they do and do not have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever storm it will cause, I'm sure it will cause some sort of storm, and that it will be detriment to reasonable discussion. While I'm honestly sorry for that, this is not something I think we should allow. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really understand the reason for the proposed delay (what is the committee trying to arbitrate that requires this delay?), but I do predict that any editors who believe the name of the article should be changed will vote to oppose a delay in the discussion while any editors who are against changing the name will be happy to vote for a delay in the discussion. So the proposal here is likely to really just be a straw pole about whether editors favour or oppose a title change. 99.192.95.215 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• I hope and think (though there may be at least some wishful thinking here) that our editors will judge postponing the request to delay on its merits, and will not let their opinion on the outcome of the move color their judgement too much. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to cast any aspersions on anyone, but I think it is wishful thinking. I don't see anyone who has yet said "I support the move to 'Chelsea', but think we should delay the discussion" or "I do not support the move to 'Chelsea', but think we should not delay the move discussion". I also note (still not wishing to cast aspersions) that you both support the move and do not support the delay in the discussion. Just sayin'. 99.192.95.215 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• I oppose this motion, as we should on act ArbCom's decisions, not on any anticipation of what their decisions might be. I do think that ArbCom should allow us to proceed with the RM on schedule, but if they do act to postpone the discussion, then we should honor their decision. The move discussion last month was tainted by procedural arguments of BLP vs. BRD. This upcoming discussion needs to be held on the merits of the move alone, and not started with a heated argument over ArbCom's involvement and authority. -- ToE 19:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't think we should delay solely to await the vote on the temporary injunction itself. I have no objection to a consensus arrived delay in order to await the results of the entire ArbCom decision or to resolve initial policy concerns. -- ToE 12:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think Arbcom's proposal to delay is unfortunate. If the RM starts and the proposal to delay passes, then people are going to be pissed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see how the Arbitration Committee has any effective authority to prevent a move proposal from going forward. As I understand it their powers of injunction can only prohibit actions by "parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction". In my experience "notified" means "personally notified", rather than "assumed to have read an announcement of the injunction at some central location". So a move discussion could still proceed in theory, with all non-participants in the arbitration case discussing the move until such time as they are warned not to by the Arbitration Committee. Admittedly this could make for a rather crippled move discussion, so I do not at this point presume to judge whether or not initiating a move discussion would be a good idea. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What if the chosen date of the move discussion gets involved in the debate? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support It would seem prudent to for all concerned to exersize restraint and wait for ArbCom to decide on their findings. If nothing else, their input would likely prove useful in attempting to prevent a repeat of the previous meltdown. Dolescum (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any further delays. I think Ananiujitha expressed it well. This is a highly visible insult to trans people and needs to be addressed. If more offensive comments come at least theoretically they will be addressed quickly but no amount of delays will change everyone into a more enlightened understanding of trans issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The move discussion needs to be done fairly and without interference from major things like this so a solid consensus can form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Fairness is not delaying the inevitable any longer, especially when it's an affront on a BLP, which also causes distress to trans people. We don't need more delay maneuvering, we need to finally close the chapter on this misgendering issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ArbCom-imposed delay per Martijn Hoekstra above and Newyorkbrad in the ArbCom discussion. ArbCom has no business telling well-behaved and policy-compliant editors when they may discuss a content issue, and if editors who misbehaved in the earlier discussions do so again they can be sanctioned, per discretionary sanctions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some other issues there, like how the policies, especially "biographies of living persons" (sic) are supposed to work. These could come up here. I still feel like delay, under the circumstances, is an insult. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There may well be good reasons for waiting. If editors here choose to delay, then fine. It is not ArbCom's role or right or in their gift, though, to impose it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Short of remanding this whole thing to a binding RfC, which I don't believe has been proposed at this time, it is beyond Arbcom's authority to dictate an RM discussion's open or start time. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support The issues involved in the arbitration case are many and complex and directly pertinent to the discussion afterwards, especially given the real possibility that some of the people involved in the discussion would end up being topic-banned and precluded from participating in the discussion. It's like holding the wrongful death civil litigation while the criminal trial's still going on. Already, the tone of this discussion appears to be very troubling, both with the direct implication that ArbCom has no jurisdiction and with the direct implication that anybody that disagrees with a certain position is insulting Ms. Manning rather than citing direct, relevant WP policy. If we're already going to start with the casting aspersions, this will be right back on ANI.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  I agree the same problems are popping up all over again it seems. Better to be a non bias discussion than a rushed one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see how ArbCom decisions are not affecting the upcoming move discussion. Some editors will be topic-banned, comments will be monitored, and some other editors will be warned. By the way, I didn't realize that I'm not allowed to vote at the ArbCom page. --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This needs to be said in big text:

THE ARBCOM PROPOSAL TO DELAY MOVE DISCUSSIONS IS FAILING It needed 4 net supports, it has 2 net supporst with 10 of the 12 having voted. It is vanishingly unlikely this will pass, and would be highly controversial if it did with so much opposition. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Will you please address the concerns raised here? If it does pass then it could be a huge issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And if it doesn't, which sseems far more likely? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The absence of an injunction against initiating the requested move is not an affirmative declaration to start the move. There are lots of issues to sort out and lots of people who may not be able to participate in the upcoming move discussion, and these issues persist no matter what color text you use. I strongly support holding off until the arbitration committee is finished its work on this issue, whether or not they choose to formally preclude such discussion or not (and getting 2 votes of 2 admins is hardly some implausibly remote scenario, as you seem to imply)CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And if a BLP shall suffer as a result, not a problem? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If the pronouns did not probably recognize Chelsea Manning as a female now or r, I would consider that a crucial BLP issue under MOSIDENTITY. This is simply about the title, we're still using the stable title, one used for years, one still widely being used in reliable sources, and the one Ms. Manning was known by during the events that made her a person of historical significance. There are strong arguments for both titles -- I'm still leaning to Bradley given that reliable sources using Chelsea almost always still explain that she was formerly known as Bradley Manning, suggesting that the title is not the one a reader is the most likely to search for -- but I don't see any BLP imperative to change the title. This would be different is Ms. Manning was not notable under her original name, that would be a different story, but knowledge of her original name in a title causes her no harm, given that Bradley Manning will not be wiped from the article and the explicit acknowledgement from her lawyer that she understands that historically references -- which Wikipedia is -- would still refer to her as Bradley Manning. So I see no compelling BLP issue here that warrants us deciding while a large arbitration case on the matter is still pending.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Worm That Turned has voted in opposition to a delay, making it impossible for the final outstanding Arbitrator to sway the decision unless another Arbitrator changes votes. Even if an Arbitrator changes votes and the Committee passes a suggestion that the RM be delayed, numerous administrators and other editors have expressed the opinion that the Committee has no authority to actually postpone a RM.

However, there are still reasonable arguments in favor of waiting for the conclusion of the Arbcom case before beginning the RM, provided the Arbcom case concludes speedily.

Whenever the RM starts, it should, per discussion here, take place on the subpage which has been set aside for it, so that the edit history is easier for the closers to follow to prevent shenanigans (and for other reasons). To ensure that editors were aware that is where the discussion will be occurring, I have added a section below noting as much. I am not opening the RM, I am only laying some final bits of framework in place for it. -sche (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that the worm that turned has voted oppose there is yes no consensus by arbcom to postpone the move, however I still see unresolved concerns here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Even if the committee does not have authority and/or desire to order a delay, it would be wise to wait until they have reached a decision on how Wikipedia policies apply to the content of this article and the conduct of discussions about it. That way, we will not find ourselves re-arguing those questions in the move discussion. The case is highly likely to be closed within the next two weeks. – Smyth\^talk 11:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to any additional delay. The last discussion had hundreds of participants; the next one probably will also. The outcome will not turn on the opinions of a handful of editors who might potentially be sanctioned by ArbCom. Editors perceived to have misbehaved in the previous discussion will already be on a much tighter leash under the discussion guidelines that the community has adopted with respect to this discussion. Even some members of ArbCom have indicated that they do not believe their decision will have any effect on the move discussion. Finally, as a member of the closing panel, we determined that a relatively short turnaround for a new discussion was supported by the consensus of the community, wherein a significant portion of editors who supported the reversion did so either on procedural grounds (because of perceived errors with the initial set of moves), or because there had not yet been time for sources to reflect a change in common name. The thirty day restriction was intended to give enough time for passions to cool, for sources to develop and be collected, and possibly for clarifications or alterations to be made to the relevant policies. The first two have occurred, and the third is unlikely to benefit from any additional time. The restriction has served its purpose, and no further purpose is to be served by additional delay. bd2412 T 13:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the nastiness of the original discussion, it only takes a few angry editors on both sides to turn a discussion into a melee. I find it inappropriate to try to hold a new discussion in which some of the participants will likely be topic-banned and thus precluded from the discussion. If you think passions have cooled, if you read this section carefully, you already have people declaring that people with a differing opinion on the title itself are insulting Chelsea Manning and people declaring that the arbitration committee has no jurisdiction. That doesn't sound like a new environment of constructive conversation based on Wikipedia policy has developed.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, you already have people declaring that those in favor of even a short *delay* are insulting Chelsea Manning (the insult reference was based on the delay, not the title change itself)CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a topic that will inspire passionate discourse. Nothing ArbCom does will change that, so counting on ArbCom's final decision to have any effect on the tone of the discussion is indulging a false hope and inviting a disastrous reality check. The only thing that will effect the conduct of the next discussion is the community's own oversight during that discussion. bd2412 T 16:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Administrative note: I know everyone here is aware that this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions, but allow me to remind you of it again. "Dicretionary sanctions" means that administrators have wide discretion to do what they think is needed to keep user behavior under control in this area. Given the heated nature of every discussion having to do with Manning lately, it's imperative that we do our best to keep discussions like this one as calm as possible. To that end, I am going to be keeping an eye on things here. If emotions or a sub-discussion seem to be getting out of hand, I may collapse comments or ask people to step back from the conversation as needed. Remember that you're here to discuss things in light of policy and logic, not to judge other people or to make grand statements of opinion or emotion. Yes, it can be tempting, especially when people are being wrong on the internet, but it will be ultimately fatal to our ability to reach a valid conclusion to the discussion if you can't resist the urge. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose delay for the myriad reasons listed above. — Richard BB 15:21, 30 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.

Starting move request

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.

---

Given there is a pretty clear consensus to not delay the move above, I think we should open the move within 24 hours. Until that time, I suggest editors go over closely the evidence here: Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request and begin crafting the "why move" argument, which will be at the top of the move request. It could be kept simple, e.g. move to Chelsea per COMMONNAME, or you may want to put together a more nuanced argument, but it probably shouldn't be too long. So, let's use the remaining time to finalize the move request and clean up any last bits of evidence and then launch it as of ~10:30 EST on October 1.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked Fluffernutter if he could monitor the going ons of this discussion, as it is bound to get nasty at some point. He said he would try, but time might be an issue. If anyone could recruit other admins to watch this, that might make the discussion less contentious.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note, the limitation set forth in the close of the previous discussion was "thirty days from the date of this determination", not "thirty days from the minute of this determination". In other words, this doesn't need to wait until the clock strikes 03:50. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

well, the clock has already struck 03:50 I think... :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the move discussion can be launched immediately. The proposal itself doesn't need to be lengthy, and certainly not a perfect summary of every issue at play. bd2412 T 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree - it doesn't have to be long, nor cover all arguments. I just think it hasn't yet been drafted, and I wanted to give editors here who haven't been following the move request preparation time to join in and make any last tweaks to the evidence (of course, new evidence can also be presented during the move) and for those who want this page moved to draft a proper argument therefore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd give them an hour. ;-) bd2412 T 17:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: Josh Gorand has just started the move request here, without giving time for others to opine on the move request header, nor with keeping the move request on a separate page as had previously been discussed/agreed. I suggest editors weigh in here, but I agree it would be cleaner for the purposes of tracking history and managing the discussion to

1. put the move request on a separate page
2. Give a little bit more time for editors to come up with a neutral wording of the "reasons" for the move - we have plenty of evidence, we just need to put together a consensus header for the move.

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If the editors haven't built a consensus header in the month of preparation by now, I'm doubtful you'll get anything new in these last few hours. I think the time for hesitancy is past, and we might as well kick off the move discussion. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You cannot remove an active move discussion, and the working space titled something with october (containing a lot of debate of limited relevance to the actual discussion) is more messy than this talk page, and less visible. Also, the header is "requested move" or something like that, added by a template, and nothing to discuss. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I just realized today that we hadn't worked on the header itself. Please, I've already placed Josh's comments over there, and we can clean up the remaining discussions (we've been doing so already). Let's focus on the arguments for the header - I don't want people spending their time complaining about the biased header in the RFC.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No, no more delays, and stop acting like you WP:OWN this talk page. Any editor is allowed to file a move request, and the proposal by the proposer is entirely up to the proposer (as was the case the last time). It was agreed by wide consensus that we start the RM now, and it has started. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Josh, you certainly could have participated in the discussion about where the RM would be be held. IIRC, Obi worked very hard on putting together a framework for the RM, and others solidified that framework. I was only tangentially involved myself, but I was aware of what they were doing and I would agree with Obi that there is a consensus to have this on the sub-page. Please be patient, I suspect the RM will begin quite soon. I would request that Obi explain how long and what are we exactly waiting for.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I remember Josh being warned away by Obi-Wan Kenobi in a manner I suggested, at the time, was uncivil. I don't think it's fair to say Josh was made welcome there. Obi-Wan Kenobi made it clear what kind of participation they thought was acceptable. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Here was the rough agreement to hold the discussion on the sub-page: Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request/Comments_unrelated_to_evidence#Streamlining.. I suggest we announce here the exact opening time of the RM, giving everyone a chance to put final edits to sources and agree on the header. The time should be 03:50 UTC, October 1.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the move discussion should not take place here, (primarily because it is going to be enormous, and edit history can get lost in non-move related discussion). The template should be placed on this page, with an instruction to engage in the discussion on the subpage. However, I see no reason to delay initiating the move - the text of the request can be tweaked even after it has launched. bd2412 T 19:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll support that time. (For those unfamiliar with UTC, that's 11:50 PM Eastern Time tonight.) Let's get the move request started, and perhaps the high traffic for input will help rework the header. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The impatience here, esp when there has been a group of editors carefully preparing the move, is annoying. that said, we shoudl retain the original page for the purposes of tracking edits, vs a massive copy/paste. I'm changing this now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. The big ones always have a few fits and spurts at the start. So far the only edits to the newly created page were my attempts at a header fix. bd2412 T 20:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now pointed the new move discussion to the original evidence page; that way we can have a history of the discussions, all in one place, vs a copy/paste mess. If you already weighed in, please do so again. Also, please feel free to update the header of the RM - I was hoping to get a rough consensus on the header BEFORE starting the RM but people are so anxious we'll have to do so AFTER it's already started.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:11, 30 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.

2nd Requested move

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

---

Bradley Manning → Chelsea Manning – It has been proposed to rename this article Chelsea Manning on the grounds that this has become the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject in reliable sources following the subject's announced name change; and on the grounds that WP:BLP favors avoiding harm to the subject, rendering the subejct's previous name problematic, per WP:TITLE.

The discussion of this proposal took place at Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request.

Specifically the requested-move survey can be found on that page at Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request#Survey. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated link. It's better to use the same place where the RM was developed, so we have a history of who added what to the evidence, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time you deleted an active move discussion. Last time I checked, you were one of the editors who opposed the title Chelsea last time. You cannot obstruct the right of the other side to file an RM. Also, you didn't merely move the discussion, you added personal comments that you should add in the comments, support or oppose sections. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User BD2412 already initiated the move request, yours was a duplicate. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Josh, be fair. You know very well that Obi-Wan put a tremendous amount of work into gathering evidence in support of this proposal. I seen no reason why you can't co-sign the proposal. (Also, re-state your !vote).

@Tarc, actually all I did was correct the errant placement of the template to avoid bot confusion. Josh did initiate the move first, but with some technical glitches. bd2412 T 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, I put a tremendous amount of work into gathering evidence in support of this proposal for a month, I don't know at all that Obiwan put any greater effort than me. As it happens, I legitimately filed the RM per the instructions on creating RMs, late in the day on the date agreed on for a month (after waiting quite a number of hours for any developments or signs of other editors doing it on the agreed date), and I wrote the proposal in question. Obiwan could of course have created an RM if he had so wanted, or he could co-sign the one written by me if he had so wanted, or even add an additional rationale written by himself, but not make changes to a signed comment without permission, because that's against the Requested Move procedure. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin note: Josh and Obi, please stop reverting each other right now. Getting into an edit war before the RfC RM is even used does not bode well for either of your abilities to conduct yourselves calmly on this topic, and I will be implementing discretionary sanctions on this talk page and the RfC RM if they are necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC) edited 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC) , because I got my Rs mixed up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi - could I ask some other editors to weigh in here on a meta-point? I think given the complexity and massiveness of this discussion, the "header" for the RM should not be controlled by one person, but Josh is currently behaving as if it is. The whole rest of the RM (evidence, discussion guidelines, relevant policies) were co-developed by editors across the spectrum, and my hope had been (as I noted above) was to develop a consensus RM header that laid out the arguments for the move, and to use the next 24 hours to do so. Josh, however, is acting as if he owns this RM, and that he is the only one who can touch the precious header space at the top. While for most moves this may be the case, a wide-ranging RFC like this one (I will put as an RFC soon) should certainly behave differently. Any thoughts? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say: Dudes, just calm down a second - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are that neither Obi-Wan Kenobi or Josh or any one editor should own this discussion. You seem to be announcing how you expect people should contribute, rather than getting consensus. I think the move doesn't need active shepherding by a single editor at each contribution. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You may note that above, today, I asked for contributions from anyone towards the move request header. Given the whole RM was co-developed, I felt it only logical that the header also be co-developed - e.g. the place where the case is made so to speak. I was not trying to own anything, nor announcing how people should contribute, I was only requesting help from anyone willing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I note it. You are very clear about how co-operative you are being, how open you are to others' opinions, and how the discussions you envision will be helpful to the project. I would like things to go smoothly as well.__Elaqueate (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear: is this the actual move discussion, or is it off on a subpage somewhere? - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The RM is now underway here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have notified all WikiProjects with which this subject is associated. bd2412 T 20:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@BD2412:: I see you put a notification on the LGBT studies "Person" task force's talkpage; do you think it would be useful to notify the general WikiProject talk page? -sche (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, but in the future, bear in mind that any editor can notify a relevant project of a discussion relating to the focus of that project. bd2412 T 00:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests/Questions

• If you have a request or question in regards to the move discussion please place them here:

@Fluffernutter: Could you please clarify as to whether you will close this move request, or simply oversee it until it closes? Edge3 (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Edge, I don't intend to close the discussion. I'm just here to try to keep things from becoming so overheated that it impacts the community's ability to have the discussion they're trying to have. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Then would you be willing to recruit the closing admins, if they have not already been appointed? Edge3 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The way that's usually handled is by someone posting to WP:AN that closers are going to be needed for Big Discussion X, and then experienced editors who are interested volunteer. I don't know if that's been done already, or whether the people who compiled the RM had made a similar request anywhere else. If not, I imagine that anyone would be welcome to put out the call on AN when it's needed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted asking for uninvolved admins to keep an eye on civility per discretionary sanctions, hopefully that'll help - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:Keilana has agreed to be a closing admin for this discussion. If it keeps going the way it's going, we may not need a three-admin panel this time. bd2412 T 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please clarify where it was decided to exclude the opinions of IP editors and exclude them from participating, without any IP editor having participated or given their opinion? Can you clarify why this decision was reached? 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I did this as a preemptive measure, based on years of experience of high-schoolers gleefully disrupting high-profile discussions. bd2412 T 21:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 :-D But more seriously, it's somewhere for Wikipedians, of at least four days' experience - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Such as myself? Why, then, am I excluded? 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at all the warnings on your own talk page. Assuming in good faith that they were not directed at you, but others editing from the same IP address, it is still impossible to know what your own experience with Wikipedia is. If you get an account today, you'll have the four days of editing history before this discussion closes, on October 7th. bd2412 T 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

!vote request

I request that the following (my !vote) is added to the support section of the move request.
"Support: Either Chelsea Manning is the common name post-announcement or there is no clear common name. In the latter case common courtesy and the spirit of several rules (e.g. WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY) indicate that the article title ought to be "Chelsea Manning". 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)"
As the semi-protection was described as a "preemptive measure" a reasonable IP !vote should be allowed once it is ascertained that the intended forestallment does not apply to the content of that !vote. A reasonable IP !vote should not be discounted. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This vote is a matter concerning the Wikipedia directly, on how to determine what this article's name should be according to the project's policies. It is of no concern to those outside the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It is quite rude to suggest that ip's are "outside wikipedia". They make up a lot of the edits on articles and should not be excluded. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 19:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is a content issue, and therefore not similar to the very few areas (e.g. WP:RfA) where IP !votes are completely disallowed. Secondly, I am clearly not outside Wikipedia, I just don't participate in the same way as you do. Please justify your rejection by citing policy. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I would encourage you to create an account. Secondly, I have never liked the idea of the discussion being protected, and think that IPs should have been allowed. But they have been excluded for almost the whole discussion, and I don't think it would be right to change the rules now. StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

He's not asking for a change in policy, he's asking for someone else to add his vote. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 19:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done anymore Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 19:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition. I think we need to get consensus here first. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A semi-protection does not mean that IP edits are disallowed, just that they have to be requested and checked for problems. It is neither my fault nor my problem that other IP editors have not made formal edit requests. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer your edit summary, it's an anti-canvassing measure, and quite warranted given the several attempts by people to get the tumblrsphere, 4chan, etc. involved in this argument. --erachima talk 19:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I screwed up there sorry. Lets get consensus here and now to prevent any misconceptions or IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is also a discussion on my talk page pertaining to this discussion. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 19:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation erachima. I'm more interested in the purpose of protection in general. I believe the purpose is to avoid "bad edits" rather than edits from particular editors, hence the edit request system. Thank you for being bold Konveyor Belt. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess the canvassing issue is not really related to bad edits. We could easily get 100 "Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME" IP edit requests - they wouldn't be bad edits, but they wouldn't be helpful. So I don't think it's merely a case of checking the edit to see if it's civil. StAnselm (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Canvassed !votes and SPA's !votes are tagged. Registered editors can be canvassed. The stated reason for the protection is avoiding trolls. I am sure it has prevented a number of unwanted comments, but not all as evidenced by the occasional redactions. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm curious as well on the issue of new/IP voters. Has it been decided that only registered and older editors are allowed? If not how can the other editors take part in any of the thread? Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge there has been no decision (I am certain that no discussion was linked to or indicated in the protection log). The page on which the discussion is held is semi-protected. Hence I (try to) take part by filing an edit request. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I feel that the IP's opinion should be added, it does not appear to be canvassing in any way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to (and don't see the need to) comment more on the allowability of my !vote. I trust a policy-based consensus will decide the matter. I'll just note that the reason I wanted to add my voice to the probable consensus is because I participated (in a round-about way due to protection) the last time as well. As that ended in "no consensus" the matter wasn't really resolved and I figured I should take part in round two as well. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The above was not a withdrawal of the request. By "the matter" I was referring to this request as opposed to the move request (though that will probably achieve consensus this time. Sorry for the IP change; as I won't have access to that reasonably stable IP for some days. For this reason I won't add more to the discussion, which is what I tried to convey. I see it can easily be misread as a withdrawal, hence this clarification. (In the edit preview I see this IP appears to be semi-stable as well. If you wish to check the probability that I'm the same person check the 2013 edit history of this IP.) 62.249.160.249 (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to add these types of votes to the page. The point of the survey is to collect arguments and weigh their merit not tally votes. The only thing the IP address said was "no common name, WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY. Those are already well established arguments and add nothing to the discussion. If the IP address can come up with some new compelling addition that adds to or furthers the discussion without reestablishing what has already been said more times than necessary, then it most definitely should be added to the survey. Xkcdreader (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

BD2412 protected the discussion page, perhaps to avoid canvassing and sockpuppetry. However, I don't think that those concerns are valid for this specific user. 88.88.162.176 is a member of this community just like any registered user, and his/her opinion should be considered (see Wikipedia:IPs are human too). Although I agree with Xkcdreader's view that the comment does not add any new arguments to the discussion, we have never stopped hundreds of registered users from posting the same arguments ad nauseam during community discussions. Edge3 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader, I'm quite sure if 100 autoconfirmed users wrote "BLP IDENTITY" you'd let it pass. Why are ips automatially considered lesser members of the community? THe vote adds little, but it's not a vote, and 100 users saying BLP IDENTITY is no better or worse than 1 user saying BLP IDENTITY (or for that matter 100 ips saying BLP IDENTITY). Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 17:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I added the comment back into the discussion. With less than one day remaining until the expected closure of the move request, I think the safest way to proceed is to allow the comment to be posted, and to let the closing admins to decide how much weight to give it in the final decision. Edge3 (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd let it pass? Linking to pages doesnt make a valid argument. It isnt a vote, and repeating "BLP IDENTITY" doesnt change the validity or the merit of the argument. It adds nothing that has not been said to the conversation. Xkcdreader (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Edge3. @Xkcdreader: I am under no illusion that it is the best or most novel !vote. I am indicating my agreement with what appears to be the majority opinion. (Taking your rule to the extreme would mean that one shouldn't indicate approval of other editors arguments as only novel ideas should be posted. Rather few discussions are closed with the objectively best outcome if only one editor has argued for it.) Additionally, in discussions where the same policy is cited on both sides the number of !voters subscribing to a particular interpretation is not entirely irrelevant. Furthermore, it is far from the least thought out or least policy compliant !vote (especially including the previous discussion). Finally, I have not requested special treatment, I have asked for my opinion to be allowed pursuant to the normal semi-protection policy (there was no special consensus for not allowing IP !votes, so the regular provisions must apply.) 62.249.160.249 (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Childhood photo

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.

---

Does anyone have any thoughts about the prominent use of a childhood photo of the subject? It seems strange to have both it and the quote "I wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ..." I don't think the subject had any notability at all as a child. Right now it reads as a deliberate slight more than something that has encyclopedic value. The text has multiple indications that she presented as a boy at the time, so I don't think anything is gained by the photo other than the possibility of harm and the appearance of malicious intent on our part. What do people think? __Elaqueate (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

From looking at the photo, it seems this was made available by Manning's family for unrestricted use. I don't think it causes any harm. Recall that people asked Manning's lawyer about the military photo, and the reply was that Manning was proud of that. So we shouldn't presume that photos of Manning as a male cause the subject undue harm. I don't think Einstein was notable at the age of three, but there his photo sits. Childhood photos are astonishingly common in biographies; in fact, it would be odd to read a proper biography without one. I think you're looking for problems where none exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

By itself, I see your argument. But it's not by itself, it's with a quote that the subject would rather be in prison for life than see photos like this one here. On first read, with photo and quote, it reads as arguably non-neutral. I think the quote is more germane to the subject's notability, and shouldn't be removed, and after reading the quote, the picture is distracting and casts the article somewhat badly. I don't think it's a major question of harm, but I think one option is both more neutral and appears more neutral. I am not against the use of children's pictures in biographies. But if Einstein was 1. Living, and 2. Expressed revulsion specifically at the picture in question, then I think it would be worth considering removal if the same material is repeatedly covered in the text. I understand that Wikipedia is under no absolute requirement to care about feelings, but it should be neutral in tone and structure and not give the appearance of being deliberately provocative. (And I wasn't challenging the military photo here, people seem happy with the original research that was done there for the moment.) __Elaqueate (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Shorter read: I don't think it's illegal to have the picture there, I think the quote and picture are distracting together and it makes the article "less good". __Elaqueate (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If we have evidence that Manning hates that particular photo, then we should remove it - we regularly work with subjects to get photos they prefer. But so far, we don't have any such statement. Manning's statement above about plastered all over the press could be read to be "With me presenting as male" and not "Pictures of me as a boy child". Until we know, I see no reason to remove - esp given this photo came from his family from this set [17], and was made available for unrestricted use. Don't you think if Manning hated these photos, he would ask his family to not release them?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make an assumption about her current relationship with her family or her involvement with releasing the photo. You want me to speculate here; according to our own sources the relationship is either happy or fraught. I am just saying that the quote and picture on the same page can currently be interpreted as an attempt at non-neutral provocation rather than simple illustration. I never claimed the picture is a copyright violation. I'm talking about how we choose to use it or not to appear broadly neutral. Some people will see a nice picture, others will see a rejoinder to the text. In any case, the child photo seems problematic in both of your readings of the quote (while we have an unsourceable okay for the other pic). __Elaqueate (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When I read the article, it's not on the same page, at all. The quote in question is at the bottom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I read it in good faith. I saw how two elements of the article could be read to have a relationship. I saw how it could be made better while remaining strongly and equally encyclopedic, and maintaining the focus on the most notable and sourced activities of the subject. You (and other editors) can choose what you want to take from that, but I don't think I'm going to get in a discussion about how some people have bigger screens, faster reading speed, or longer memories. I'm just saying on first reading it looked less than neutral. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, is the policy, "If something is questionable, leave it in until we know for sure it's bad?" __Elaqueate (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate in any way, shape or form that a photo of Manning as a child, provided by his family and part of the Save Private Manning Network official flickr account, is nonetheless harmful or not desired by the subject. There's an oversensitivity attached to this article which is frankly ridiculous at times.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The direct quote in the article itself can be read as not desiring most of the personal photos here, or only not wanting the one of her as a child, as you have interpreted yourself. I don't share the idea that this is ridiculous oversensitivity. Are you saying it's impossible to think that this picture is unwanted or undesired based on the reading of the direct quote? __Elaqueate (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The direct quote was from chat logs from 3 years ago, while Manning was under considerable stress and going through a crisis of identity, so I don't think we should take anything from those logs as guidance on what to do here - that smacks way too much of overinterpretation of a primary source. The very fact that we have a high-profile wikipedia article on Manning, when at the time of the chat logs Manning was unknown to the world, is evidence that the world has changed quite a bit, so any worries about publicity in those logs I would give basically zero credence to at this point. She is now a public figure, and has the ability to make requests about her preferences; in the absence of hearing such a preference about a boyhood photo (or any photos for that matter), I think this is a complete non-issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So if she doesn't say ouch, then we can assume she would be fine. Again, if someone other than you thinks there is the possibility that the article would be more conservative and neutral without a prominent picture juxtaposed with the subject expressing distress at thought of it, I think it would be worth exploring. I haven't heard any argument to keep the photo so far. I think people should consider the burden of proof here. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, you're arguing to delete the photo of Manning as a child, and no other photos, solely because of one quote from a chat log 3 years ago, on the off chance that this particular photo, or any photo of that time period in Manning's life, may somehow harm her, but that all other photos of Manning as a young man are fine. Seriously, that's all you've got? I think you need to do better than that...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The suggested change is too moderate and too small to be considered? That's new. I think the article is more unarguably neutral without that picture. I didn't think that was a controversial goal. You haven't explained why the picture is more important to have than to remove. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I think early childhood photos without as many gender markers are less likely to be problematic than later photos. Ananiujitha (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too. I just thought the quote can give the impression that we're editorializing instead of illustrating by inserting the picture just after the announcement. But I was curious what people thought. The stable version from the Aug 21st looks more neutral and conservative in this regard. I'm not completely comfortable assuming we look or are neutral enough here. Does the picture add more value than it risks? __Elaqueate (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is to leave the picture in, it adds to the article as it shows Manning as a child in context with the text, we can not sugarcoat everything here see also WP:NOTCENSORED - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How is having the picture not sugarcoating? What do you think the picture expresses? __Elaqueate (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

arg. Your questions are tiresome. The picture represents Manning as a child. This is an encyclopedia. Any filled-out biography I've ever seen has multiple pictures of the subject at all stages of their life. In this case, Manning was said to be small and frail for his age, and it helps the reader to understand by SHOWING them what Manning actually looked like (which to my mind, doesn't look that bad frankly). I'm generally an inclusionist, not a deletionist, so especially when we have a very high profile subject about whom SO much has been written, about his childhood, about his youth, about his gender identity, about his parents, about how he came to be who he is, the idea of suppressing a cute photo of him as a kid based on, really, no evidence at all, just boggles my mind, and then you attempt to turn it around and say "Justify why this picture MUST be included" - why don't you go around to the tens of thousands of other bios and start deleting pictures that people have found and sourced and uploaded and tell them "prove to me why we should have this photo". We should have it because pictures tell a thousand words, and people reading this will want to see what Manning looked like when he was a kid, it's a simple as that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you questions here. If you don't want to discuss, don't discuss. I attempt to "turn it around" because the material should be justified to be included, something you weren't doing in your previous responses (which seem more about leaving things in despite concerns). Knowledgekid87 was the first one to answer in a way that attempted to justify the inclusion of the photo and I wanted to hear their reasons. I think both removing challengeable pictures in people's bios based on concerns of neutrality, and asking for justification for inclusion after deletion, are encouraged and normal actions on Wikipedia. You seem to be stating that these actions are inappropriate somehow. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, you say this posed picture indicates to you that Manning wasn't that frail, and looks smiling and happy. If it is placed here to put the lie to the text and sources about aspects of her past, then it is arguably not neutral, however cute. I wouldn't support having a picture of Kissinger smiling and joking next to text that described him as being in serious wartime negotiations. I'm not saying the picture is objectionable in and of itself, I'm saying (pending a chance for arguments for its inclusion) it makes the article less unarguably neutral. If the picture causes you to say that the text overstates her height issues, health issues, level of childhood happiness etc. then it is arguably not an appropriate image based on the text and sources describing her past. __Elaqueate (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Were the photo captioned with his quote or even moved to Email to supervisor, recommended discharge, that would amount to baiting the subject of the article. Its placement in the Early life section is proper; such photos are common in our biographies. Further, given the context of Manning's quote (a discussion of her female identity with Lamo), I doubt that many readers will interpret "boy" in the restrictive sense of "a young male child" but would instead understand it to mean "a young male adult" or "a male of any age". The photo seems appropriate, is not intended to harass the subject of the article, and is unlikely to give the appearance of doing so. Let's keep it. -- ToE 13:55, 2 October 2013‎ (UTC)

This is a reasonable defense, and one that doesn't reject that pictures could be challenged on issues of neutrality. I would suggest here that most biographies do not have childhood pictures, even when available, and I don't think a encyclopedia where every biography starts with a picture of the subject as a baby would be taken very seriously, even if it was more comprehensive that way. If it's neutral, it's fine. If it seeks to make a point, I think it should be evaluated against policy. __Elaqueate (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Manning's original notability is obviously around wikileaks. But it is clear they are developing additional notability in the context of being transgendered. The youngest photos do not shed much light on this subject, as the appearance was controlled by others, but the older-age photos ARE relevant to that discussion, because at that point it was showing how Manning chose to present themselves. Those photographs are clearly illustrative of how they chose to present themselves at that time period, which is relevant to the biographical information we have in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal name

Question answered in FAQ - This is not a forum AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Chelsea his/her legal name? Even if we are to identify former Pvt. Manning with female pronouns, (s)he should still be listed under his/her legal name, should (s)he not? Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC) See the FAQ above. There is nothing whatsoever within Wikipedia policy that states that a biographical article title has to match the legal name of the subject. A great many don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Our article titling policy is at WP:AT, and an important section of that policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Regarding your specific question about the name "Chelsea", you may want to see our article Name change#United States which states, "As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change." Some states further restrict names changes of convicted criminals, so it is a complicated question. As far as the U.S. government is concerned, this soldier's legal name is still "Bradley Edward Manning", but as Andy stated, Wikipedia does not title its biographical articles sole based on legal names. -- ToE 01:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC) The answer is no, and is as far as I'm concerned, never existed. We should always state that he is a "he" (and or variations of) because we have no sources to support it. In my opinion(take it as-is, may be insensitive or even mean) and I'm sorry if I broke any rules, is that he is a he, period, and this should remain until we know for "sure" that he is really a she, because I know for sure that isn't true, and I think we all know deep inside this. Whether that means is anyone's guess.--Lesbiangirl (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Actually the evidence is yes, Chelsea is her legal name, although she may have to take some legal steps to chenge her birth certificate and to get the military to respect this change. We indeed have the sources to respect this - international press has publicized the change, and we are bound the respect her wishes. I think this is obvious from a point of dignity and the spirit of BLP which is to minimize harm. No guessing required. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Where is the evidence? Show me some links, because I can't find any. We need to show proof, because name change is a long process... in the US, and some states even prohibit it to persons convicted of crimes. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. This question has been asked and answered previously. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Yes - this is not a forum. If you wish to debate what Manning's name 'really' is, do it elsewhere. As has already been explained, Wikipedia is not obliged to use legal names for biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Also, news articles cannot be used to support names, that is unacceptable. The right way is through government records, which will show his name and as far as I'm concerned, the right name, as name change has not happened. As long as the government has his name registered, his legal name is unchanged until it processes his request. I don't know what state he was in, since some prohibit it to persons convicted of crime(which only happened after he was convicted) so no, news articles cannot be accepted. United States of America Government records are proof, and that is what we should base the name off of. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm very worried that..

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.

---

Discussion moved from 'closed page Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request. bd2412 T 23:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

...the article will stay at Bradley Manning after the requested move is closed. I suggest that if it stays, then there needs to be some alteration to Wikipedia:Gender identity revealing when it is proper for a trans woman's article to be at her male birth name. Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed. It would be better to raise additional matters at Talk:Bradley Manning. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that it would be better to allow the intrepid volunteer RM closers to do their work (they state above that it will take a "day or so", which seems reasonable), and then deal with any repercussions of the outcome. Neutron (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Besides...that's an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Essays can be a minority or majority view and it explicitly states that if inconsistencies arise we should consult the appropriate policy or guideline. No worries either way it closes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean, it's okay to break the essay sometimes?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You're being sarcastic, right? Essays are just the opinions of whoever wrote them, and in no way binding. --erachima talk 23:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

But the essay answers lots of questions. Any questions the essay has the answer to that you disagree with?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Haven't read it, simply addressing your flabbergasting question about whether a decision can violate an essay: Essays are not and have never been a type of rule and I'm honestly and genuinely shocked you didn't know that. If this is a common misconception it may be worth updating Template:Essay to explain just what "are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines" means. --erachima talk 00:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

On rereading the above statement, it comes across as more aggressive than I intended. So I preemptively apologize if it sounds insulting, wasn't meant to be. --erachima talk 00:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Although essays are not policies, that is not to say that they are necessarily all wrong (as may be implied here), although you can ignore them when editing.

And yes, this article might and should help in some way to set precedent for gender identity switches and the ambiguous area of people like Manning. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 00:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec, response to erachima's first comment) I wouldn't bother trying to "update" that template, it is already crystal clear. The problem is that some people don't read it, and some people ignore it. You could put the operative words in bold-type red-flashing all-caps, with an audio file reading the words out loud, and those who don't read it still wouldn't read it, and those who ignore it would still ignore it. Neutron (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC) (Note, this comment was based on the "Essay" template, not the "Supplement" template, which I now realize was on that essay for some period of time (sometimes alone and sometimes with the "Essay" template.) The "Supplement" template never belonged there, and it has now been removed by another editor. Neutron (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC) )

I read Wikipedia:Gender identity. It was created on Aug 23, just after the beginning of the debate here. It seems unreliable and created for the purpose of influencing the debate here towards one side. An example of its unreliability begins with the first question and answer there, where the term gender expression is misused to mean a person's verbal statement about the person's gender identity, whereas the term actually means a person's appearance and behavior with respect to gender. See for example http://gillfoundation.org/grants/within-colorado/gender-expression-toolkit/gender-expression/ . --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it reads totally like a one sided opinion piece more than anything else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

actually either or both can be correct - what a person expresses in appearance or in a self-defining speech. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarified the essay by swapping "gender expression" for "gender self-identification", which I think the following sentence makes clear is the intended meaning, revert if you want etc etc Chris Smowton (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If it stays at Bradley Manning, frankly, I think there's going to be the Wikipedia equivalent of a riot that consensus was so comprehensively ignored. And rightly so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd think there's a chance that it could remain as "Bradley". The consensus was so obviously in favour of "Chelsea". — Richard BB 13:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The count was over 3-1 in favor of "Chelsea" last I looked, I don't think there's the slightest bit of worry about what the outcome will be. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not unpack our Spiderman costumes and Reichstag-climbing equipment unless and until there's a clear need - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Even beyond that, I'd hope that if anyone ends up feeling the closers really screwed up, they would calmly talk to the closers first about why they feel as such and, if they must, request a move review prior to deciding to burn down parts of Wikipedia. Simple Sarah (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to confirm what others have said above, that an essay is just the "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." It has zero authoritative weight and should not be cited as if it were a policy, guideline, or other consensus-backed statement. My thought in creating it was simply that every RM involving a trans person seemed to restart the discussion from the ground up, and that it would be helpful to capture at least one articulation of answers to the most common questions that come up repeatedly.

As for the charges above that it is merely an opinion piece, well, yes. Exactly what it says on the tin.--Trystan (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking tht some such opinion piece and an faq would be useful. So thank you for creating it. I've followed it and might be interested in contributing to it in the future. Ananiujitha (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There are essays by themselves, and there are essays that a hundred editors say represent their opinion on a specific issue. I don't think it's useful to base decisions solely on the first case, but people shouldn't pretend the second case is exactly the same thing. Consensus is the only thing that makes something policy, it seems. We shouldn't ignore it if consensus forms around a guideline or essay or comment affirming it is important. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean, many Wikipedians are against Wikipedia:Gender identity?? Which question in the essay are there at least 10 Wikipedians who disagree with?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Beyond what i think is a reasonable amount of editors opposed putting Chelsea's article at the correct title so it wouldn't surprise me if there is opposition to every facet of the essay in light of what we've witnesses so far. That the same discussion will be played out repeatedly seems guaranteed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one wikipedian (myself) that although agrees that the artcle should be at Chealsea Manning, is extremely aggravated by the arogance and inability to even consider other opinions shown by your two comments, and the title of this section. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, try to give this section a new title. Now, what I want to know is what we have to wait for before deciding whether the article should be moved. Georgia guy (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You have to wait for the 3 admins that are determining the consensus to make a decision. Then one of them will post their decision and move the page (or not) accordingly.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Where should I go to check the status of the decision?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You're looking at it. I'd also like to second Wombat's comment, you have a severe attitude problem. --erachima talk 17:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably clear that we'll know about it immediately - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This talk page will have the results. That being said, I'm going to suggest you (And anyone else stressing out waiting) take a deep breath, try to relax, just focus on something else, and maybe check back here every hour or two. No amount of hand-wringing will affect the RM one way or another, so it's probably best to try not to worry about it. Simple Sarah (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to read Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?, specifically "Consensus is not a majority vote." Mike (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus may not be a majority vote, but a numerical majority shouldn't be ignored either. And the greater the majority, the more weight it should be given, presuming the majority vote hasn't been corrupted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Once the bogus support/oppose votes are eliminated of course. There were some stunningly assinine arguments made all around.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, numbers mean nothing someone can easily put "*Support Chelsea is the name of my daughter who supports Manning so I agree." now this is just an example but not all support or oppose arguments are weighed the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly too far often, it comes down to a numbers game on these issues. Not many admins will go against such a lopsided "vote" type consensus, although I've seen it happen before. Most sources are universally using "Chelsea" now. So it would seem like an open and shut case of COMMONNANE. I personally believe that the media isn't exactly following its own criteria. Usually when someone wants to called by a different gender than their biological one, that person usually lives a type of lifestyle that encompasses that new gender. That's not happening here so the media isn't following it's own criteria. And as usual, Wikipedia gets stuck in the middle. JOJ ^Hutton 21:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin triumvirate decision on requested move

Per this decision, the requested move to Chelsea Manning has been carried out. Move protection remains in place for the time being. Guerillero | My Talk, 28bytes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this.--Antiqueight ^confer 23:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for a balanced and excellent decision. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean, thanks for a decision which you agree with. Ah well, at least you'll be permanently topic-banned, that counts for something. --89.0.237.85 (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant thanks for a balanced decision, in which I agreed with much but not every word, and that properly reflected consensus and evidence in the move discussion as well as Wikipedia's own policies. Um, I'm not topic banned from anything for my ultimately successful efforts to move this article to Chelsea Manning and objection to discriminatory speech back in August, despite endless and routinely failed efforts by the editors who just lost this debate over three months now, and I'm totally confident the site owners have no such plans. Are your actual account banned or something or why are you using an IP address with no prior contributions to address this month-old debate and derail discussion here? Josh Gorand (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering how consensus was clearly in favour of "Chelsea" over "Bradley", I'm pretty sure Josh isn't talking about his personal feelings on the matter. — Richard BB 09:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't use numbers as being equal to weight. I am glad personally that this wasn't a super long drawn out decision, meaning that they all felt that the move was based in policy without any major hang ups. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how using numbers as being equal to weight has anything to do with the topic here. As I see it, the above post was a nice way of asking 89 not to personally attack people. Cam94509 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)