Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 13

Special message
When I click on Edit the article, I get a special read-only message saying to use she/her. I think this message should be on all trans woman articles on Wikipedia, because it is read-only, in contrast to the traditional:

, which can be edited. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is currently debate at the WP:MOS as to this exact issue, I don't even think that that message should be on this article. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a seperate argument NO we shouldn't have special messages for every little thing, I know often slipery slope arguments are not particularly helpful, but if we start putting a warning on the top of all articles for all things that *might* be an issue, a lot of stuff is going to get ignored. Why is this message essecially nessicary? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I too support that the message should go in a few days. Like with any protective measures, we should assume good faith and only do actions once a disruptive pattern has emerged. Preemptive actions are in general disruptive to that process. However, if a disruptive pattern do emerge then some protection or warning message should be used. Belorn (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and gender titles
I would like to point out that the article seems to have been moved per WP:COMMONNAME and as noted there is currently co consensus if WP:BLP played a role. This being the case do editors want to find a solution to this problem now or wait until another one of these debates comes along? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where you see that information? What is the problem that needs to be solved? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a policy debate, or the site owners (the Wikimedia Foundation) need to issue clear rules (like they have done before in similar matters) to ensure that living subjects of biographies are treated with dignitiy in the spirit of the policy on biographies of living persons. This can and should happen independently of specific articles. Note that the COMMONNAME policy favours titles which don't have "problems", even if another title is more widely used. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way, this is no longer the right page to have this discussion. why don't ya'll saunter over to WP:BLP.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this discussion will have to be continued elsewhere. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just flagging a source that may be of use in article
'I'd like to thank everyone who has avoided misgendering me and switched to using my new name and feminine pronouns.' ~ http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/09/chelsea-manning-statement-full-document (10 October 2013)AnonNep (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Before anyone gets excited about the letterhead, that's reported as being army-enforced enforced. She signs as Chelsea. __Elaqueate (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added Statement from lawyer on Chelsea's letter clarifies 'she understands that the exterior of any letter will need to be addressed' as per former name. AnonNep (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also known as Bradley Manning
I tried to add "also known as Bradley Manning":
 * "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (also known as Bradley Manning and born Bradley Edward Manning December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier..."

but it didn't fly. Any suggestions, comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Move on, maybe? Formerip (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain your comment? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The horse is dead. Stop trying to think of new ways to make it stand up again. Formerip (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is not appropriate. The fact that you and others refuse to recognize her name and gender identity does not make her "also known as." Chelsea is not an alias, it is her name. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the article already says her birth name in the first line. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Formerip and Baranof, if you are unable to give actual answers to editing concerns broached in good faith, then kindly unwatch this page and go find something better to do. Honest editing concerns deserve honest answers, not gutter-sniping.Tarc (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Free lectures on "honest editing" now, it is? Hilarious. Formerip (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As the person who did the reversion originally, I'd remind everyone to assume good faith, please. I don't think the inclusion of "also known as" is all that important, and I think it might be problematic, as well. That said, I'd like to know why Bob wanted to include the line before I read the attempted inclusion as a rejection of Manning's name or gender. Cam94509 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cam94509, Thanks for AGF. I have accepted that this article will use the title Chelsea Manning, and have accepted that this article will present Chelsea as Manning's name, along with using feminine pronouns. Although I have accepted that Chelsea will be used as Manning's name in this article, I  recognize that Chelsea Manning is also known as Bradley Manning and we should mention that, as I tried to do. I don't think that  giving "Bradley" only as the birth name says that, because the reader would have the impression that Manning is no longer ever referred to as Bradley, for example by the Army, in legal proceedings, and in some major news media.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob: it looks a bit pointy, saying the birth name twice in quick succession like that. Whether or not you intend it, it's likely to come across like you're trying to emphasise Bradley at Chelsea's expense, which isn't likely to go down well. I think people will assume that a birth name implies an AKA, particular as they are very likely to recognise it. Chris Smowton (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with asking about this sort of edit, y'know. Those that are screaming "DROP THE STICK!" appear to be rather oblivious to the large-size piece of wood protruding from their own hands.  To the matter at hand, "also known as" implies a name that a person currently uses, not one that is in the past.  A weak case could be made regarding the fact that one still has to use "Bradley" in official postal correspondence, but that's not really enough of a justification. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Son of Sam is a good comparison, as that "name" is synonymous with Berkowitz. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is (formerly known as, "Bradley Manning"). Almost no one really has name when they are born.  Although the current "born" is fine, the "formerly" seems more informative -- at any rate what we DO NOT want is names twice in the paren. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With that wording it would be unnecessary to have the full birth name, as that usage is repeated in the info box. I do think it's fine as is as a first choice, but think tripling or quadrupling Bradleys is undue weight and not concise. __Elaqueate (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, one thing is clear to me. There's a lot of opposition to the edit so I'll forget about it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the way the article stands now (born Bradley Manning...) should stand. We have moved the article and renamed it in order to honor her wishes however everyone forgets that this is an encyclopedia. The fact of the matter it this: Chelsea manning was born Bradley Manning. Is is a irrefutable fact and should be included. Anyone who wishes to revert it should post here first with a concrete answer. This isn't a fight between two sides, this is a consensus between encyclopedia editors. Mike (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is fine as it stands, and honestly, I think we're splitting hairs here. Either "born" or "formerly" works fine, I think formerly might be a tiny bit better, because it sounds a little less weird to say, but honestly, as I said, the distinction sounds to me like splitting hairs. Also known as just doesn't fit very well, IMO, and that's why I reverted the change. Cam94509 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Since her last name hasn't changed, should it only be listed once? I don't think it's a very big deal, but something about seeing it listed twice strikes be as a bit off for some reason. Simple Sarah (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a big deal, it shows that Chelsea was not born a girl. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh? Leaving aside the whole "not born a girl" statement, how does listing both "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" and "Bradley Edward Manning" on the first line indicate anything different from having "Chelsea Elizabeth" and "Bradley Edward" along with "Manning" once on the first line? I don't follow. Simple Sarah (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Kk87 replied to the wrong thread there :) FWIW if I read "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward)" I'd probably think she had changed her surname from Edward. Chris Smowton (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That would make sense. I was thrown off because Kk87's phrasing mirrored mine so much. Also, I was thinking something closer to "Chelsea Elizabeth (born Bradley Edward) Manning", but I'm vastly overthinking this, I think. Simple Sarah (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just Wondering
If Pvt Manning had no gender identity issues and stated he wanted his name to be "Ben" would this article's name really have changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.202 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I reckon no, that name change would have had less weight unless it became evident it had psychological and political significance like a name change associated with coming out as trans*. Similarly if someone changed their surname to make it easier to spell, that would be considered a less thorny issue than if they changed it to dissociate themselves from a messy divorce, for example. In short: the reason for changing your name alters their weight of BLP-esque concerns. Chris Smowton (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed per WP:NOTFORUM. Discuss the move on the appropriate venues.  Konveyor   Belt  20:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: This discussion has been reopened per discussion below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) I do not see the point in asking this hypothetical question. No answer to this question will help with any actual question that might or might not be relevant to editing this article. If you think your question is relevant to a real issue of editing this page, then you should probably make that clear when asking the question. As it is, asking this question just looks like a back-handed way to complain about the recent decision to move change the article title. Your edit history shows that your question here seems to come from a concern about the title of the Snoop Dogg article. Your misgendering Manning both there and here also suggests that your question is motivated by a complaint about the recent title change here.


 * (2) If you really want a productive discussion of the question you have asked or any similar hypothetical questions that seem to have no bearing on editing this article in particluar, then you should first read Article titles, which explains how article titles are determined and then if you still are not sure of the answer that you post a question at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, the appropriate venue for general hypothetical questions about article titles.


 * (3) But if you insist on discussing this question in the context of this article only, then the answer to your question is pretty clearly found in the presentation of the decision for the recent renaming of this article. The admins who decided the matter explained that while many sorts of considerations were raised, COMMONNAME was the basis for approving of the change. So, going back to your hypothetical and keeping in mind what Article titles says, if Manning had changed named from "Bradley" to "Ben" whether or not the article title would have changed would have depended on whether or not "Ben" became her new COMMONNAME. You don't specify whether that happens in your hypothetical, but that is the crucial issue. 99.192.88.45 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)
 * 99, Actually, I think you made a good point re WP:COMMONNAME. The hypothetical of the OP is missing the condition of whether "Ben" became the common name. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just some feedback. The rest of your message wasn't useful and just an inflammatory distraction. If you'd like to discuss it more, please come to my talk page, as your talk page location is frequently changing because of your dynamic IP address. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Bob, my entire reply was informative. If anything is a distraction it is asking pointless hypotheticals and then someone else writing dozens of messages in defense of pointless hypotheticals. But when people engage in pointless hypotheticals (or is it pointy hypotheticals?) and others defend them because their hand is glued to a stick, it is informative and productive to mention that this is what is going on. People never like it when they are told they are being pointy or beating a dead horse, but it does not make it automatically "inflammatory" to point out that this is exactly what they are doing. 99.192.88.45 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Just wondering — discussion on hatting above discussion
WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply because this section is about the title of the article. The OP seems to be trying to make a point about the title by using a hypothetical situation. The editor who responded tried to make a point questioning the OP's reasoning. Suggest unhatting this discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly, there is no productive direction that such a "what if?" tangent is going to go. It was just idle speculation, nothing that would have advanced the editing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Tarc  (talk • contribs)   16:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like censoring that is not supported by policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Censorship is completely supported by policy per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG.  Konveyor   Belt  18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true, per the first sentence of my first message here, "WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply because this section is about the title of the article."   --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussions of 'hypothetical situations' don't belong here, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical situations are legitimately used on talk pages. Are you suggesting that the talk page guidelines be modified to prohibit the use of hypothetical situations? If you feel that way, I suggest you go to WT:Talk page guidelines. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussions of hypotheticals are only relevant on a talk page if they are being used in aid of an issue under discussion. The above hypothetical is only relevant to this talk page if it is part of a discussion about what the title of the page should be. ("If we wouln't move the page in hypothetical situation X, why move it in actual case Y?") So the question was asked as a backhanded way or reopening the debate on the title for the article. But keep beating that horse if you like. It might come back to life if you pulverize it enough. 99.192.52.53 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192...)
 * You might want to bring up your point in the original discussion if it is unhatted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since my "point" was that the original discussion never should have been started and I was explaining to you why, unhatting it would make no sense. You really don't get it, do you? The move discussion is over. 99.192.52.53 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (99.192...)
 * That would still be a point for the original discussion, and you shouldn't assume that you wouldn't get a meaningful response from some other editor that might cause you to reconsider your comment. Also, you might want to tone down your comments. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, there doesn't seem to be a reason for hatting the above discussion that is based on a policy or guideline. I'd remove the hat myself, but there doesn't seem to be consensus for doing that, which reflects badly on the editing environment of this talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the OP breached TPG or NOTFORUM but their point has been mooted several times already in the archives so I can't see much to be gained from pursuing it. So, I wouldn't oppose unhatting it, but if no one bothers to follow up please don't take that as either rudeness or acquiescence - we're all just a bit tired. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then how about me unhatting the original discussion, and suggesting you make your comment re "mooted" in the unhatted discussion. Any objections? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you deeply feel you must, but I still can't see it being productive in any way - it's a hypothetical that verges close to topics that have proven highly sensitive - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of giving editors a fair chance to express their ideas on this talk page as long as they don't violate any policy or guideline. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Collapsing a discussion is neither censorship or a block to anyone expressing further opinions. All comments are available to read, the editor can add more, and contribute more. Eventually these comments will be archived; that is also not censorship. The comments will probably be fine either way, but I suspect you aren't going to find a significant consensus on the idea that people haven't been given a fair chance to put forth views on this article's title. __Elaqueate (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion wasn't just collapsed but closed to future comments. Also, refactoring by collapsing doesn't seem justified per Refactoring talk pages, which also says, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject has been discussed time and time again, just drop it.  Konveyor   Belt  23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the OP's point being brought up before. If it has, then that should be noted in the original discussion rather than here. In any case, your comment would be better placed in the original discussion, although I would hope that you would tone it down a bit.
 * It's a matter of giving editors a fair chance to express their ideas on this talk page and without them being hidden, as long as they don't violate any policy or guideline.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Asking a hypothetical question is not to express an idea on the subject. It is just a question. (2) Here's another "point" that was not brought up before: Suppose Chelsea Manning were not transgender and instead had just changed names from "Bradley Manning" to "Eli Manning". In that case, would this article become the primary topic for the title "Eli Manning" and if not, what would we have used here to disambiguate? The answer is: It really is irrelevant to this page to ask such a speculative question. This is not a forum. I can come up with 100 more irrelevant hypotheticals if you want, but what's the point? 99.192.52.53 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)
 * [I think a previous response of mine is appropriate here, so I'll just copy and paste it for reference.]
 * That would still be a point for the original discussion, and you shouldn't assume that you wouldn't get a meaningful response from some other editor that might cause you to reconsider your comment.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I don't see anyone supporting your POV; continuing this complaint here is, again, irrelevant to this article - if you want to continue you can take it up on the talk page of the person who hatted above. If people want to talk about hypotheticals, they should do so at WP:AT and propose any needed changes there. The original thread was properly hatted, and someone should hat this one soon as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to call out BobK31416 just because nobody else voiced an opinion, I'll say that I wholeheartedly agree that there's been entirely too much hatting of comments and closing of discussions around here recently. Per WP:TPO, you shouldn't close a comment if there's even the slightest doubt whether or not it might be controversial ("Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution.").  If people are sick of responding to questions about Ms Manning's name change, I would suggest that the solution is to ignore comments that you don't feel are interesting or worth responding to and not just closing discussions that you don't like.   AgnosticAphid  talk 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per AgnosticAphid's comment, my previous comments, and Refactoring talk pages, which says, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted", I am reverting the hatting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And as discussed previously, the hatting has no basis in any policy or guideline. There is currently edit warring by editors who are ignoring the above quote from Refactoring talk pages and the quote in AgnosticAphid's message, along with other points there. Instead, editors have tried to hat this discussion. It appears that this talk page has become like a small town that has suspended constitutional rights. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not have Constitutional rights here, you have whatever rights are granted by the bureaucracy of the project. I won't re-close it again myself, but don't be surprised if someone else does at some point.  It has no relevance to the article topic, it is just idle chatter related to name-choosing and "what ifs?", clearly afoul of WP:NOTFORUM.  Refactoring talk pages is a how-to guide, about as low on the wiki-rules totem pole as one can get. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was just an analogy. And thanks for not jumping on the revert button.
 * Re WP:NOTAFORUM, as I mentioned in my first message here,
 * "WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply because this section is about the title of the article. The OP seems to be trying to make a point about the title by using a hypothetical situation. The editor who responded tried to make a point questioning the OP's reasoning."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's the two-message discussion and note that it was closed only 1 hour after it began.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Bob: "It appears that this talk page has become like a small town that has suspended constitutional rights." That's interesting, because this particular section looks to me more like a petulant child who won't stop complaining because his parents didn't let him have his way. But you're right. These are just analogies, so no one should be troubled by them. 99.192.88.45 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * "This page was previously nominated to be moved. Please review the discussions and previous page moves if considering re-nomination: ". Starting a discussion on the title without doing this strikes me as unhelpful if done through ignorance, and if done with active intent, disruptive to the task of making the encyclopedia better. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 99 responded to the OP in the original section, and I think 99 made a good point, as I mentioned there. I think that may end the discussion naturally. But who knows? It wouldn't be the first time that someone has come up with an idea in a free discussion on a talk page that I haven't foreseen. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tarc, Was my response to you regarding WP:NOTFORUM satisfactory? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely, no; saying "this section is about the title of the article" is just...dumb. Yes, it is tangentially about the title, but it is not a suggestion for article improvement or even an editing concern.  We've spent more bytes arguing about being off-topic than the off-topic topic itself. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone else note that the discussion of hatting the discussion has been way more disruptive that the discussion itself? I suggest dropping it. This horse has been quite thoroughly killed. &mdash;(っ◔◡◔)っ Ross Hill 15:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like this to end too, but you should recognize that the source of the disruption was the hatting, and this discussion resulted from trying to work that out. It'd be fine with me if there was no more hatting and this would be my last message here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob, as far as I can tell, you have unilaterally reopened the above discussion section, against a pretty clear consensus that you shouldn't, and refused to drop the issue, even when it's pretty clear that there's a consensus that the above section of the discussion should have been closed. It's not so much that the hatting of the discussion was disruptive, or even the discussion of the hatting. As far as I can tell, your unwillingness to deal with consensus is what has been disruptive. Cam94509 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close
Per WP:NOTFORUM, as the initial question was a hypothetical and not actually related to article improvement, both the "Just wondering" and the "Just wondering, discussion" should be hatted. Perhaps a poll to hat a talk page section is a bit unusual, but IMO it is the way forward with less rancor. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Discussion on irrelevant hypotheticals does not belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Tarc. Cam94509 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Y'all have dickered around with this hat stuff long enough already, and for what purpose? No one is forcing anyone to read the original question.  It seems ignoring this would have been the prudent thing to do.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo
Just noticed a small typo under heading "4.2 Release of material to WikiLeaks" it reads as "...they posted 570,000 pager messages from the September 11 attacks attacks.[42]" Surely the word "attacks" should only be there once. 2.219.22.50 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed it for you. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Summary: Need for clarity
Its helpful if edit summaries explain as much as possible within the (brief) space. Recent edit phrases such as 'not necessary' & 'modified my last edit' require anyone watching to look at the diffs to have any idea of the what the change was. Any possibility of summaries more engaged with the context of the edit? AnonNep (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 - We have 255 characters ... in case of need for longer there's adding "see talk" and adding something here - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On the removal and re-inclusion of the line "lived as a boy in her early life. She"
On one hand, I'm of the opinion that the statement has factual accuracy (even if we understand trans women to have always been women, "living as a boy" means "presenting as male", not "being male").

On the other hand, Tarc, I think if the reasoning you gave was the only reasoning available, it wouldn't be grounds for reverting the edit. Were this merely a matter of "personal ideology" and not a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the removed removed phrase, it would be appropriate to leave the phrase out, as "trans women have ALWAYS been women" is not a fringe view, thus making no assertions would be the most NPOV possible stance for an encyclopedia to take.

So... Leave the phrase in, but I'm not a big fan of the reasoning you gave to revert it's removal, and I hope you'll avoid using that particular reasoning in future, unless the view your handling is a fringe view, OR if the question is about inclusion of content and not removal of content. Cam94509 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's misleading and simply unneeded. The only reason it might be needed is in contrast to Chelsea eschewing traditional gender roles. The only thing that seems to come close to that is the gay statement which is what it is but makes sense given the gender dysphoria. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to include the phrase, but if your worry is that it is misleading, an alternative phrase could do the job. Cam94509 says (correctly) that "lived as a boy" means "presented as male", so if "lived as a boy" is problematic for you, how about "presented as a boy" as an alternative? Given that some transgender people begin to present themselves as their actual gender at quite a young age, it is worth noting the difference between someone who does and someone who does not. So to say "Manning presented as a boy in her early life" is both accurate and useful information. 99.192.75.132 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * On the surface that seems reasonable but I don't think we can make that leap without more from Chelsea stating something to that effect. I could see somehow working that in the next section near the gay statement as that does cause confusion as we refer to 'she' and then have a gay statement which is misleading that she was a girl attracted to women rather than a boy attracted to men. I'm open to anything well written that can clarify that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I objected to the idea of "illogical for a trans woman to be born a boy, she was born a girl but assigned male at birth" (the edit summary), as that goes a bit to far into history revisionism. We still have the neutral point of view to consider here.  That was very late at night when I made that edit, though, I think I may have been under the mistaken impression that that edit summary above was worked into the body of the article as text. As the section currently reads, I do not have issue with it, so my apologies. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We could speak (and, I hope, write) "it" instead of "he" or "she". What do you think it would be? E.g., 5 or 10 years later? A man or a woman? --Ceroi (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In it's present form, the subject text is a sentence fragment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I messed that up. Let me fix it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As the section currently reads, it gives mixed signals regarding how Manning's gender was perceived by others. I think the problem some had with "lived as a boy" was that it might imply that Manning's gender self identity was male at the time. To avoid that, another possible sentence would be "In her early life, Manning was perceived as a boy by others." I think this would help clarify that the use of feminine pronouns does not imply that Manning was perceived by others as a girl in her early life. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need reliable sources to show what people perceived. Frankly, she was raised as a kid and possibly in a very strained family. Besides that I'm not sure what can be reported until there are more sources spelling it out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the statement is a summary of a fact contained in the way the ten reliable sources that support the section treat the subject. If you are concerned that the statement might not be true, I suppose we can wait for a reliable source to come out that explicitly mentions  whether Manning was perceived as a boy or a girl in her early life.    --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Related discussion
United States v. Manning has just been protected for one week due to edit warring. Interested editors are invited to participate here to help build a consensus about how to phrase the article's first sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk:Adrian_Lamo and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies also have questions related to this topic. Thank you, Startswithj (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re gender use
I suggest you use male gender or gender neutral words like Manning for the period up to Manning's coming out as a woman. As someone reading the article for the first time - using "she" for a time when Manning was a child living as a boy is confusing and silly. (Take it or leave it...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.189.92 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is currently following the guideline at WP:IDENTITY, elements of which were disputed and discussed at WT:MOS. -- ToE 01:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur that the male gender pronoun (He) should be used. All because I want to be the Queen of England, I should not be referred to as "Her Majesty". Until Gender Reassignment Surgery has been successfully completed...HE is a HE! Pardon the vernacular (I know that you won't), but...if it has a dick...it's a dude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.150.48 (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This argument has been used dozens of times before on this page. Please read through the archives. Ross Hill  ( talk ) 02:50, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC) 02:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert
There was a recent revert of an edit of mine. Here is the way it was before the revert.
 * Chelsea Manning was born Bradley Edward Manning in 1987 and this was her name until she changed it to Chelsea in 2013. Born in Crescent, Oklahoma, she was the second child of Susan Fox, originally from Wales, and Brian Manning, an American.

I added the part about the name change so that someone reading the background section would have a better idea of when the name Bradley was used in Chelsea's life. This also might help avoid the implication (which comes from the use of feminine pronouns) that Chelsea was treated as a girl in her early life and which is very unlikely. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to revert the recent edit because it is A) verbose and B) this section is about her early life. The name change timeline does not need to be in every section Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: It was restored by another editor and then reverted again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another edit war! Oh boy oh boy oh boy.
 * I'm inclined to agree with Two kinds of pork here. The extra wording seems unnecessary. NickCT (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I also concur with Two kinds of pork. The additional wording was certainly on the clunky side and I don't think it really adds anything to the section in question. There is already a section later covering the timing of public name announcement and I think that's the cleanest location for it. Simple Sarah (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that section is at the end of the article and wouldn't be very useful here. I have the impression that this isn't going anywhere, so I won't pursue it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can help convince you this addition isn't necessary. Readers are going to start with the lead, which indicates when Manning announced she was a she.  This "early life" section appears right after the lead, so it is redundant.  If we were to look at the section by itself, then I'd concede to your point.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Two kinds of pork. The name change timeline doesn't need to be in every section. -sche (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Call me Chelsea
Ignoring pointless asides like legal name, how the army refers to Manning, she asked to be referred to as Chelsea. That is what the sources reported, even the sources that continue to call her Bradley.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gender expression
Editors here might consider whether some mention should be made in the article about Manning's gender expression while growing up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Is it significantly more important here than in other biographies? 2. Is there enough reliable information? Given that some children switch back and forth between more 'feminine' and more 'masculine' interests, outward expressions, etc., and that these may not reflect one's underlying identity, I worry that a flawed selection of events might present a misleading picture. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We can only discuss it to the extent that it is referred to in reliable sources - and then we have to consider issues of due weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if they did move the article, most of the important bits of Manning's life happened before she announce she was a woman and we should remember that in terms of due weight.  Konveyor   Belt  22:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, she still made choices to present as a woman before she did any of the things that made her famous. The announcement wasn't something decided that day. It looks like her gender identity issues predate almost everything of note in the biography. So if the biography reads as if she suddenly changed her mind about her life on August 22, then it is not as neutral or accurate as it could be. When we write about events that somehow surprised the world (revolutions, coups, plots, crimes) we write about what really happened, not only what the world thought happened. She was a woman before she made the announcement, and it seems clear the trial delayed the announcement, and the article is better the more it reflects that reality. And how do we know this? We read it in reliable sources __Elaqueate (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for information, please note that gender identity and gender expression are different concepts. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. __Elaqueate (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Legal Name
Just make it say "legally" at the beginning because it's misleading the way it is now. It may imply to some people that she has changed her name legally, or that legally changing your name isn't required when choosing what you would like to be called. Other articles make this distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.155.20 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the actual legal name of Manning is unclear. The current phrasing implies that a legal change has occured, which is non-verifiable, however, editing to state her legal name is still Bradley is also non-verifiable, as best as I can tell. Perhaps something like "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, legal name uncertain)" is the way to go here. Nothing against her choice in name, I'd just rather Wikipedia didn't make assumptions without sources. lavacano201014 (yell at me here) 02:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See no reason to bring the legal status of her name in here. Not all people on Wikipedia are identified by their legal names. Happeningfish (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "legal name" of Manning is no more or less clear than the legal name of almost any other biographical subject in Wikipedia. I'm not aware of a single biography here which sources the subject's name to a birth certificate, deed poll, or similar legal document.  Or are you suggesting that the wording "legal name uncertain" also be applied to the thousands of other articles, such as Percival Lowell, Paul McCartney, and Louis XIV, from which sourcing of a legally recognized name is also missing? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is little to no doubt that Private Manning's legal name is still Bradley. Manning's full name was on the court documents used for the court-martial and court-martial documents are going to be based on the name the service member enlisted under barring a legal name change between enlistment and the trial. Unlike civilians, as an active duty member of the Army the process to change your name (outside of the change being the result of getting married) is a little longer and requires a lot of extra paperwork. It is highly unlikely the Army would even entertain a request to allow somebody to change their name to reflect gender reassignment due to it technically being against current military medical regulations to be transgendered, especially the day after they was just handed a sentence for a serious crime. However, since Wikipedia doesn't use the same rules as the Army for names I don't see Manning's legal name being a reason in itself to add that disclaimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amducker (talk • contribs) 09:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Referring to the "Common Name Policy" arguments which have won out on the "Derry" page referring to Londonderry in Northern Ireland, why has this page been renamed? A Google search for both Manning's names returns 52 and 20 million names, favouring "Bradley". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.132.147 (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How about you go and read the full, lengthy debate on this topic that the rest of us engaged in recently before wandering in here with poorly-formed analogies? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Does Manning "feel female"?
I don't know. But I do know that she didn't say so in her coming out statement. She said that "I am a female." To a lot of people this may seem like a trivial distinction, but I think it's important. Someone can "feel" something without it being factual. For instance, I FEEL ugly. . .but logically I know that I'm NOT ugly. I simply feel ugly because that's the message I've gotten from the outside world, just as most women do. But logically, I know that I actually conform relatively well to most mainstream standards of appearance, and besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. So in other words, I'm not ACTUALLY ugly, and I recognize that despite my feelings to the contrary.

Manning clearly stated that "I am a female." This is a fact (at least, in her opinion). As we are all aware, the factualness of her femaleness is something that is heavily disputed by many other people, but Manning is quite clear that according to her it is a fact. It is reality. She stands behind it unequivocally. It is not simply a feeling, which she may give credence to or she may not. According to Manning, she IS a female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picture of a Sunny Day (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's more of the statement that Picture of a Sunny Day quoted.
 * "I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible."
 * Here's Picture of a Sunny Day's proposed version,
 * 1) "...Manning said she had been female since childhood..."
 * and here's the original version from the Wikipedia article,
 * 2) "...Manning said she had felt female since childhood..."
 * It's a choice between "been female" or "felt female". The only mention of the past childhood is when the source says, "have felt since childhood". So it looks like the source supports "felt" over "been". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the latter option, see MOS:QUOTE - we don't normally put wikilinks into quotations. The wikilinked implication that 'Gender identity disorder' can be summarised as 'feeling female' is questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have a point and we might remove the wikilink while keeping "felt". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another option is to change the wikilink to the gender identity article: felt female. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Does Manning "feel" female? I don't know, do you "feel" like a human?  Konveyor   Belt  04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not just directly quote the relevant piece of the statement, thus avoiding any potentially dodgy synthesis? Strike the end of the sentence and replace with:


 * "...Manning said "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible."

Chris Smowton (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably the simplest solution. -sche (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That quoted part of the Aug 22 statement leaves out the important info that Chelsea is a new name, which is contained in another part, "I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Readers aren't idiots, but we could easily explain any part instead of using a direct quote for that part. I think we do need a direct wikilink to gender dysphoria however. Most people have no clue what the condition is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re wikilink, please see User:AndyTheGrump's above comment of 00:17, 19 October 2013 and my two brief responses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are reporting on her gender dysphoria so there is no reason why we cannot. Again, our readers are not idiots, it's a simple matter of finding the best way to write about what has already been widely reported. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chelsea Manning awaits diagnosis in prison before possible hormone therapy, Though Manning was diagnosed with gender dysphoria twice, the army requires re-evaluation upon changing facilities is a fairly typical example of media coverage so it's a NPOV violation to now omit this information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem reasonable that gender dysphoria should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Using the wikilink that you suggested for the subject sentence may not be the way. Editors have expressed opposition to the wikilink of "felt female" to Gender dysphoria that you're suggesting. We might consider instead a wikilink to Gender identity for "felt female", which seems more appropriate and hasn't incurred any opposition so far. This doesn't mean that gender dysphoria can't be included in a different way in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to drop a little bombshell like that in the first paragraph with little to no explanation. The very least would be a wikilink to gender dysphoria. Presently we have Manning said she felt female since childhood. Perhaps we could expand that slightly to read "Diagnosed twice with gender dysphoria, Manning said she felt female since childhood." We have reliable sources that cover this and we would avoid making some conclusion on our own. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No matter what I don't think we should link to "gender dysphoria" directly from Manning's statements - you could have that as a separate sentence if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm proposing, a separate phrase that can link to gender dysphoria that is not a part of her direct quote. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Startswithj (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the new sentence would look something like... In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning, who has been diagnosed twice with gender dysphoria, said she felt female since childhood, her new name was Chelsea, and she wanted hormone replacement therapy. Does this work, or do we need to change anything? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's an important distinction between Manning saying "I am female. Given the way I feel..." and "I feel female." The one can refer to dysphoria, and doesn't imply that there's one way to "feel female," the other does. So without very strong very specific sourcing that she "feels female," I'd prefer to avoid the phrase. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should be directly quoted then? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this come closer? In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning, who has been diagnosed twice with gender dysphoria, stated "I am a female ... and have felt since childhood," her new name was Chelsea, and she wanted hormone replacement therapy as soon as possible. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, gave her new name as Chelsea (not Bradley), and expressed her desire to seek hormone replacement therapy." I would avoid quoting in the lead (implies too much weight). Startswithj (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a guideline that talks about using quotes? I think it puts the writing into her own words but it is a bit clumsy. But if we should avoid quotes altogether than we need to find a different way. I am opposed to repeating her former name as we already have it in the very first phrase. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, the emphasis of "instead of Bradley" would be an unnecessary repeat. Regarding my suggestion not to quote, my feeling is that you'd have to include the full quote to give it proper meaning/context, and that would give it too much weight. Startswithj (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean by using the whole quote. I'll think on it more, I hadn't considered also adding a link to transgender but that too makes sense. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Linking to transgender might be more neutral than linking to gender dysphoria (the latter might be seen as an endorsement of the position that transgender identity is an illness, a position with which some would disagree). Startswithj (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could also see it as at least partially addressing the concern of what's going on with the gender issue. I still think we should at least report on the gender dysphoria diagnosis but maybe that could be in a footnote rather than in the prose itself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever quest you seem to be on, this isn't the place to do it. Why not use the full quote  "I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun.", which is far more accurate than the version you keep pushing? Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one's pushing anything but an accurate narrative. It does little good to add to the confusion of readers. With more eyes on this I'm sure a good version will come about. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I ask that you revert yourself with respect to the edit that is in disagreement, as that was the version there was no disagreement until you made a change.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually that would be counterproductive taking us back to several edits that are in dispute and rough consensus is that the corrections needed to be made. Lets see what other editors have to say and see if the entire sentence can be rewritten to address many of the contentious points. Simply blocking all changes isn't helping anything so let's see what other editors add to the discussion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

proposed new sentence
Currently we have - In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she felt female since childhood, she wanted to be known as Chelsea, and she wanted hormone replacement therapy.

incorporating the comments above what about:
 * In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, said she wanted to be known as Chelsea, and start hormone replacement therapy as soon as possible.

Thoughts? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your new content is an improvement. I'm not sure "as soon as possible" is necessary. Also, to keep subject–verb phrasing parallel, I suggest: "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, asked to be known as Chelsea, and indicated a desire to start hormone replacement therapy." (All verbs being past tense and paired with the subject "Manning"). Startswithj (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "desire" word trips me up a bit, maybe we can omit it? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, asked to be known as Chelsea, and start hormone replacement therapy.
 * "Desire" could be replaced with "intention," "wish," etc. But grammatically, that wording effectively says "Manning start hormone therapy." The three verbs that begin each phrase in the series (set apart by commas: "Manning came," "Manning asked," "Manning _____") need a parallel tense.
 * Another option:
 * "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning came out as transgender, asked to be known as Chelsea, and requested hormone replacement therapy.
 * Startswithj (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That works! Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not an improvement over the current wording, and less accurate to what the sources state.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It reduces the matter down to the pertinent facts, without projecting vague interpretations or suggested endorsements. Could you elaborate on how you feel it represents a loss of accuracy? Startswithj (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * we need to mention Bradley here. The reader knows she was born as Bradley, but they don't know from the text that up until aug 22, she was known as Bradley by all and sundry. There is no reason to hide this fact, and we should make it crystal clear. I also think if we're covering her statement, she did not 'come out as transgender' and never used that word. What she said is, I'm female and have felt female since childhood.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree but perhaps we are getting at some of the disconnect in the entire opening. I do wonder if this little sentence bombshell isn't both premature and too little. What if we moved this to the end of the entire section and made it into a few sentences. After all she did become one of the most visible trans women in the world. And there was an incredible amount of media attention given to just this announcement. Perhaps this whole sentence should be dropped to the end of the lead and turned into a fifth paragraph making clear some of the salient points that are being too easily glossed over? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, not an improvement.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What would you consider an improvement? I think removing the ambiguous references to having felt female is an improvement. Are there any ways you think this would be worse than the current text? Are thee any ways you think it could be better? Ananiujitha (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The paragraph essentially begins with "Chelsea Manning (born Bradley)…" The sentence in question is the last sentence in that same paragraph, and the suggested rewording includes "the day after sentencing…[she] asked to be known as Chelsea." That makes it pretty clear that she was known as Bradley until the day after her sentencing. Repeating her former name in the same paragraph is overkill.
 * "She didn't come out as transgender"? If a male-bodied person publicly states "I am a female. …[U]se the feminine pronoun," that is, by definition, coming out as transgender. Startswithj (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Both male bodied and transgender are controversial terms. There are different interpretations of what sex and gender mean and how they relate, and how they relate to trans experience. A lot of this language is contested or is in flux, I'm not sure how to resolve that. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We resolve it by parroting what the sources stated. Wait, that's what we are doing already. Frankly I don't understand the desire to do otherwise. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, shoot. How about leaving the wording as it stands now, and wiki-linking "felt female" to gender identity (as Bob K31416 suggested three days ago, two pages up from here)? Startswithj (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Somoene handed me a wine cooler over the weekend, and that being the only alcohol left I drank it. I felt female.  Isn't there a link to GI in the article already?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, what? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

 * "While in the army, Manning was known as Bradley and diagnosed with gender dysphoria. In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she felt female since childhood, wanted to be known as Chelsea, and requested hormone replacement therapy."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it. Gets the GD link in, and mentions that up until Chelsea, she was known as Bradley (which isn't obvious and needs to be stated).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That will work. IMO Bradley is needed here (as well as all the other spots that were cleansed by Sunny Day).  Not that we should be rubbbing her pre-trans name in people's faces, but this article is first and foremost about the person who leaked the largest tome of classified data to the public, and that person at the time and until quite recently was known 'Bradley Manning', and undoubtedly is still the most recognizable form of the name at the moment and for the foreseeable future.  Anyone claiming to possess intellectual honesty knows this to be true.  The COMMONMAME argument used for the recent topic change, was based upon the recent switch by new sources.  I've no interest in rehashing that subject again.  While we need to be cognizant of the sensitive nature of gender identiy, that does not give editors who appear to be on a pro-trans mission to to scour this and other articles of relevant information.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Saying I'm on a "pro-trans mission" seems like an ad hominem attack to me. My motivations are irrelevant; what is relevant is whether particular changes I propose will improve the article or whether they won't. The only problem I have with Bob's proposed sentence is the phrase "felt female" being used in that context, but I understand most of the other editors don't agree with me on that so whatever. On the other hand, I'm actually OK with the usage of "Bradley" in the sentence. I'm generally in favor of as full a treatment of Manning's gender in the lead as possible. I think it's good to clarify for people when exactly she came out and how. And it's pertinent information that her entire time in the army--the most notable time of her life--was under the name Bradley.


 * On the other hand, it does not seem to add anything to the article to say in the Early Life section that she was born "Bradley." This is redundant; this exact same information occurs in the first sentence of the article. The fact that she was known as "Bradley" for most of her time in the public eye is important; the fact that she was born "Bradley" is fairly insignificant, and I believe is really a subtle way to mark her as being different for being trans, applying a standard to her that would not be applied to a non-trans person with a similar life history who had made a non-gender-related name change.


 * I mean, seriously. How is including the former name in BOTH the Info Box AND the Early Life section not "rubbing her pre-trans name in people's faces?" What extra information does this add or clarity does this provide? How many people skip the first sentence of an article where such information is clearly stated? I honestly don't understand how anyone could support inclusion of her former name in either the Info Box OR the Early Life section. . .but we should at the very least remove the former name from ONE of the two. I would say removing from the Early Life section is the most important since the use of her full former name here is verbose and clearly goes against Wikipedia's traditional surname guideline. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel fine with the proposed rewording and linking above (proposed by Bob and supported by Pork and Kenobi). I still think it would be overdoing it to repeat her name in that sentence, as it's already given in the paragraph's first sentence (and in bold print), as well as in the infobox to the right. Startswithj (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sunny, I knew nothing about you before making that statement, so there is no ad homniem. In fact, I was not even thinking of you when I wrote that. From what I gather, infobox entries should be able to stand-alone from the rest of the article, so there is a need for Bradley being used there.  Early life is the first use of the name other than the lead.  After that, it's all Chelsea, except for the issue of the name change when the usage of Bradley is unavoidable.  Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia guidelines state that after the first mention of a subject's full name in the article, only their surname should be used from there on out. This guideline makes sense as it cuts out unnecessary words, enhances readability, and provides for a uniform style throughout all articles. And it seems especially advisable to follow this guideline here given how contentious the issue of Manning's first name has proven on Wikipedia. What is wrong with saying "Manning was born. . ." in the Early life section? It is clear to the reader who is being referred to, it follows Wikipedia style guidelines, and it avoids inflaming the name controversy. I do see now your point about the infobox, how it needs to stand alone, and how it is therefore important to include an alternate name, "Bradley," that she has been very famous under. But I really believe that including Manning's full birth name in the Early life section is breaking Wikipedia guidelines and singling her out for different treatment because she's trans. Do you disagree with my reasoning and if so, where? Rebecca Weaver (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * John Wayne, Snoop Dog, Muhammad Ali. I daresay those are the only articles where the birth names are repeated in an "early life" section.  In fact, I think you would be hard pressed not to find most articles following such convention.  I agree some are singling her because she is trans, as advocates.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with TKOP here. The early life section should be able to stand on its own. Take a look at Bill Clinton or Calvin_Coolidge or Jimmy Carter - and many many other examples. The lede is supposed to be a summary, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to state the full birthname at the time we talk about his birth. I don't think Manning's first name has proven to be controversial at all, and I don't recall - except for a recent set of edits by yourself - anyone making a big deal out of excising "Bradley" from the article. The debate was over the title and pronouns, not over when and how much the word "Bradley" could appear in the running text. I think once is not enough, and 20 times is too much, so we just need to find the middle ground.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Does "his" in "..talk about his birth" refer to Chelsea Manning?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. . .I don't want to police your language, Obi-Wan, and I don't think MOS:IDENTITY is necessarily intended to apply to Talk pages. All the same, I'd like to ask you if you could avoid misgendering trans women on this talk page, and simply omit using any pronouns for Manning if you don't want to use female pronouns for her in a particular situation. I do believe I have valuable input to contribute here, and I want to keep contributing here, but it will be difficult for me as a trans woman to emotionally handle participating if the idea that trans women are (or were in the past) actually guys is something that gets repeatedly expressed here. So even if this is what you think, I would prefer you don't express it because it will detract from my ability to participate. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * there is an active debate at MOS about removing the requirement to use the new pronouns throughout life. I generally avoid pronouns but they do slip in from time to time and I suggest you just ignore them if they bother you in a particular tp comment. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to ignore people misgendering trans women. It is profoundly disrespectful and bigoted behavior. Also, I wasn't appealing to the MOS. . .in fact, I specifically said that it may not apply here. But regardless of what the MOS currently says or may say in the future, what you did, Obi-Wan, is quite wrong. And the fact that you defended yourself, rather than apologized, is sickening to me. Since you have made it clear that you don't respect trans women as autonomous human beings with dignity, I will just have to entirely refrain from interacting with you from now on. That is too bad because it will make working on this page more difficult. Anyway, consider this my final interaction with you. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * wait, just to be clear, this is about a single 'his' above, when talking about Manning's birth? I don't know what good an apology would do, as I don't plan to self-censor myself from using different pronouns as seems appropriate to me in a given context. Nonetheless, I am sorry you were hurt by that word but I think you're overreacting, and I don't think me being sorry for hurting your feelings is the apology you were looking for in any case. The fact that you equate a single use of 'his' with not respecting the dignity of trans* people is evidence that you are taking things too personally that have nothing to do with you. Multiple sources that were cited copiously, including an lgbt journalist association, propose use of old pronouns for pre-transition descriptions. Even trans* people themselves, use a variety of pronouns for pre/post transition - your imposition of 'my way or the highway' here is not fair either.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain, but I think Sunny read Georgia Guy's comment as yours. Either way, sunny should take a deep breath.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I did not read Georgia Guy's comment as Obi-Wan's comment. I WAS responding to Obi-Wan's comment. And I am perfectly calm. I simply refuse to interact with people who view me as having ever been male. Being forced to live as a guy against my will, based off of some bogus belief held by others that this is who I "actually was" was the most traumatizing experience of my life. Excuse me if I take a zero tolerance policy to those who continue to hold these toxic, inaccurate beliefs about trans women. In any event, I don't plan to continue making a big deal out of Obi-Wan's behavior. As I said, from now on I will simply not read or respond to anything Obi-Wan writes. This is how I always respond to any person who misgenders me or another trans woman and then refuses to correct themselves after their mistake has been pointed out to them. You may disagree with this, but I certainly am not going to make an unprecidented, one-of-a-kind exception in Obi-Wan's case. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "refuse to interact with people who view me as having ever been male" - I never said anything about you being male - though I'm not sure why I need to point this out... You have no idea, nor do any of us, about what pronoun Chelsea would prefer when discussing their birth and early life, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, other people, including other trans* people and LGBT journalist organizations, feel differently about this than you. Part of editing wikipedia is encountering people with views different than yours. I am tolerant of your views, you should accord the same to me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the use to be needlessly offensive as well. Especially in the context of all the previous discussions on this article and elsewhere that misgendering someone causes real harm and makes for a toxic environment for trans* and sympathetic people. I hope your intentions were above board but the lack of empathy after it's been pointed out speaks to an entrenched attitude that doesn't respect a trans person's transition to being their true selves. That is a core concept of some culture wars that see trans people as one of the last bastions for rather unpleasant public treatments. I hope you never have to experience the hurt that is caused by being treated as less than human by strangers and even friends who just refuse to grasp how a core identity issue gender is, and how potent words are when dealing with other people. I'm glad we are making some forward movement but it's unfortunate that those of us who are sensitive to these issues still have to weather comments that sure feel unwelcoming, hostile, and yes transphobic at times. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * well I think there's a sort of godwin's law for trans* discussions - given enough time, someone will bring out the transphobia stick. Anyway, I'm sorry for those whose feelings were hurt but I do not plan on watching over my pronouns like a hawk esp when speaking of pre-transition Manning and especially their birth as a boy; if such restrictions were in place it would be impossible to discuss MOS changes for example. None of this should be taken To imply that I support discrimination or bias towards trans* people nor as a commentary on their 'true' gender, but self identity is not the same as social identity, and as the many debates over cotton ceiling or wymyn-born wymyn indicate for example, there are still differences which are important - our society needs more time to sort out the boundaries of trans* identities, but beating ppl with a transphobia stick for a minor issue like 'his' in a sentence about Manning's birth is not helping the case.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's a discussion about how to talk about a trans* person in an encyclopaedia, but if you're making casual reference in personal speech, why not just pick the polite option and avoid the appearance of bad faith, an appearance which you are surely very much aware of by now? You don't need to watch your pronouns "like a hawk" to adopt a blanket policy of she/her for this subject, and if you slip up it's easy to say "oops, sorry, fixed" and thus avoid threads like this one. Chris Smowton (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, how did my comment get a hat for not being related to improving the article?? It's related to the discussion. Here's the comment again:


 * Does "his" in "..talk about his birth" refer to Chelsea Manning?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's related to the above discussion, so it is relevant. Georgia guy (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree for several reasons. The person's comments who started all this off should probably let someone uninvolved censor any discussion.  That being said this entire thread probably can be closed by someone neutral as the original concern has been stated and resolved. Based on the Arbcom involvement based on these very same issues of abrasive comments and the reaction/non-action steps that followed it would follow that everyone would take extra steps to avoid offense. And if I offended anyone I will state unequivocally that that is never my goal. I'm here to improve the article and I hope everyone is as well. Addressing talk page comments is a part of ensuring that trans* people don't feel hesitancy to even comment here. We can disagree but be polite about it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright. . .given the examples that have been provided, I'm willing to acknowledge how the reference to Manning's full birth name in the early life section is within the precedent of what's been common practice on Wikipedia for other people who changed their name. So I'm no longer to going to push for entirely removing Manning's birth name from the info box or from the early life section. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this version as well. It makes clear that Chelsea was known as Bradley and hadn't transitioned earlier, and addresses the chronological problem as her gender dysphoria diagnosis seems to predate most of not all of the leaking materials. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there's consensus for this change, so I implemented it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Objection to main involved editor hatting discussion
After being reversed a hat of the above discussion was redone, even moving other comments out of order. I mainly object to shutting down this discussion as it parallels past discussions in that speech some editors felt was disparaging to trans* people was dismissed as trivial, even though this has been the core point of the past several months on this article. I suggest the hat be reversed so the discussion is more accurate to what happened and that if no one else needs to say anything then close the entire discussion, not just the part where one editor's actions are being called for accountability. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the rest of the discussion above is about article contents, so I don't see any need to close that, and I moved the comments to organize like parts of the discussion together. Can you please let this go? That discussion has nothing to do with the article. Nothing. Whatsoever. The whole thing is about a single word "his" - used on this talk page. If you have a real concern with user behavior, come to my talk page or drag the whole thing to ANI. If you'd prefer to archive it vs hatting that would be fine as well, so it's visible for all to see.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly disagree, what happens on the talk page directly impacts the article. By distressing other editors, after this issues have been explained over several months is making the talk page hostile, for no good reason. I'll let others weigh in, I think I've stated my case. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Close?
I've certainly said my peace, if anyone else feels they haven't can certainly do so - I do support closing this entire thread but I'm not neutral here so will leave it as a suggestion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just come upon this, and I do agree that the "felt female" verbiage is a little bad, since Manning never really said that. How about "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she identifies as female, wants to be known as Chelsea[...]".  This would dodge the ambiguity in the statement about when such a gender identity may have developed, leaving the matter to where it can be better addressed in the dedicated section which quotes the statement.  Gigs (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently we have; In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she felt female". The direct quote is "I am a female," followed by a statement giving how I feel and have felt since childhood, etc. Perhaps we could amend to; In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said she was female". I would support that. Anyone else? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better than what is there now. Gigs (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"In a statement on August 22, 2013, the day after sentencing, "
In a statement on August 22, 2013, the day after sentencing,  is unneeded, especially for the opening paragraph. It puts some huge significance on the date itself which is misleading.

I think The day after sentencing does the job just fine or at the very most In August 2013, the day after her sentencing ... . Any thoughts? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The same idea that you want might work a little better with the wording, "The day after sentencing in August 2013, ...".  --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How about after "Manning was sentenced…" we add "…in August 2013…" (paralleling the earlier "…who was convicted in July 2013…")? And then begin the paragraph's final sentence simply as "In a statement the day after sentencing, Manning said…"? Startswithj (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Trans paragraph in lead
Sorry I kinda ducked out of the conversation for a while. Anyway, I like SportsFan's idea about removing the sentence about Manning coming out from the first paragraph and then adding a final paragraph to the lead that talks about it more in depth. I think the new paragraph could cite several sources about Manning's gender and the public reaction to it, including perhaps a brief direct quote from her coming out statement. Although Manning is still chiefly notable for her role in Wikileaks, it does seem like her role as a prominent transgender person is also worth more than a single sentence in the lead. This would allow for a more full treatment of her gender situation to clarify things to readers, citing multiple sources, and without having to resort to any potentially inaccurate paraphrases of Manning's statement. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back, but in your abscene the article has stabilized, all of your recent changes are going to be contentious, so I've reverted them.  There is no consensus to whitewash "Bradley" from the article.  While the use should be minimized,  most feel it is needed in a few places.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need more than a sentence. The only reason the announcement garnered any press at all was the particular circumstances of when it was made (immediately after the sentencing in the middle of a news cycle) and the fact that she was headed to prison.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands though is a bit illogical as it flips out of chronological order. That can be fixed in two ways as far as I can see. Either we mention her first diagnosis of gender dysphoria which predates the leaks or we bundle all the gender situation into a final paragraph. She came into wide prominence for the leaking of materials but her gender identity announcement was heavy reported and commented on regardless of the circumstances. Far more than most trans* celebrities. I think the first option would be better and would meld with the concurrent proposal above. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's possible but we may consider restructuring the article to have a 'personal' section first that deals with birth, early life, sexuality, GID, and announcement, and then dive into the leaks etc. I'm not sure having them blended as they are now is necessarily the best way to tell the story, even if they are intertwined. But that would require major surgery. But yes we should make it clear somewhere that manning was diagnosed with GID before the leaks, although I don't think there's any evidence that this issue precipitated the leaks themselves - in other words, I don't think anyone is claiming Manning wouldn't have leaked if they were not trans*.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well this is at the core of some of the disputes. I think her outsiderness definitely led to ostracism, even if some was self-imposed, and led her to thinking the leaks were a noble gesture toward a wider truth (or something). Were she not a sexual/gender minority a case could be made that she would have integrated into the military more successfully and would have found other avenues for her passionate stances. We may never know until the book(s) come out. Until then it's important to note that all this surrounds the same person so treating something so dramatically and personally impacting to her existence as trivial in any way, like a personal life section, seems like a mistake. Instead we likely should just let the sources lead the way that discuss what if any impact her gayness/trans* ness may have had on her decisions to leak materials. I've seen many trans people take risks and dare themselves onto new paths that they attributed to being an outsider of mainstream culture so they felt the risk was well worth it. Hopefully some well-crafted interviews will pull that information to the forefront. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any evidence, anywhere, on any article, that a 'personal life' section is considered trivial, so I have no idea where that came from. People get married, have kids, etc and none of that is trivial to them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Chelsea's gender transition is a profound importance to her and is outside community norms so cannot be reasonably compared to commonplace activities like getting married or having children. This change is fundamentally her stepping off a cliff to do something about her core identity that is disparaged by society and puts her well into the common path of violence targeted at trans* people, trans women in particular. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, having children was of profound importance to me, as was getting married. Person X coming out as gay was profoundly important to them. Or quitting one's job, or marrying someone of a different faith/ethnicity, or converting to a different religion, or moving to a new country... and so on. Let's not get into equivalencies here, ok? My point is, you said putting something in the "personal life" section trivialized it, and I objected that personal life sections were trivial.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm setting aside all the other statements for now, as I was responding mainly to "consider restructuring the article to have a 'personal' section first that deals with birth, early life, sexuality, GID, and announcement." I'm generally opposed to that approach but until actions are undertaken toward that this issue can lay low for now. I think it's in the best interest to stick to chronological as much as possible. I think there is way to much detail on almost every aspect of the leaks but that will take time for others to accept that some of those details are better off in articles that aren't biographies. Regardless she is best known for leaking classified documents and I think that is best told chronologically. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

embittered?
embittered traitor seems very POV, should "embittered" be removed or can we cite a quote for that? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to go to the source cited and see what it says, as that line is paraphrasing a source.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding anything that tells me exactly where that came from or the original text. Any ideas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a citation from a book as far as I can tell - you need to find the book.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like that characterization either, but it's meant to stand in contrast to the heroism of the Tank Man. Perhaps we could adjust to read: "…Manning was viewed in the extreme as both…" (italics for clarity on this Talk Page only).
 * Here's the quote: "To some, Manning was a whistle-blowing hero, a brave soul who took a stand alone against an imperial military collosus, a Tiananmen Square Tank Man for the 21st century. To others, he was the worst kind of traitor, an embittered snake who had betrayed his country and the army he'd grown to hate." http://books.google.com/books?id=GE_yDipSkYQC&q=traitor#v=snippet&q=embittered%20traitor&f=false Startswithj (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of adding in the extreme as both or something similar. Possibly adding quotes around embittered would also make more clear this is not a Wikipedia judgement but reporting on a noted criticism. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not include the entire quote? (Meaning the two sentences quoted above.) It really gets the point across much better than a paraphrase, would make it clear that this is not Wikipedia saying any of this, would not take up much more space than the paraphrase, and would avoid any need to use the word "extreme", which we really should not be using except when absolutely necessary, which it is not here.  Anyone reading this quote will know that the writer is attempting to present two extremes, and doing a good job of it, too.  If there is a concern that the intro is already too long (which I think it is), there is some other stuff that can be trimmed here and there.  The sentence about the different facilities in which Manning was housed while awaiting trial can probably go into the body of the article, if it is not there already.  Now that she has been tried, the intro does not need to detail where she was detained pre-trial.  (I am not sure it was "intro material" before the trial either, but it surely isn't now.)  Neutron (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the part about the different facilities was retained because of the solitary confinement and the domestic/international attention in connection with that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the whole quote except that when you do we're not really suppose to use Wikilinks which are needed IMHO. Also in another discussion someone pointed out that using a lengthy quote may give too much emphasis when it's not needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Too much emphasis on what? (Admittedly I have not read all of the discussions about this article.  As someone who has not been very involved with this article, I am trying to see whether I can help resolve some of the disputes.)  Neutron (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:WikiLeaks
Please weigh in at Template talk:WikiLeaks about violation of WP:BLP by insisting on linking under Manning's former gender and name. Yworo (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing to Wikipedia talk pages not allowed
We aren't even allowed to source to other articles. Policy certainly prohibits sourcing to Wikipedia talk pages. So either The Register source stays (or another more accurate one is found), or both the sentence and citation should be removed. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to find a reliable source saying that this article was moved back to "Chelsea". So maybe Wikipedia is not as important as significant as we like to think. In any case, the issue is tangential to the actual person, so I propose that we remove the paragraph on wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, see WP:SELFREF. I'd say if the refs are not easily found (because it didn't get a lot of coverage), then we should go with "The first rule of Wikipedia" which is "Don't talk about Wikipedia." :-) Yworo (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There likely is a source around, you may look at the box at the top of this page - "This article has been mentioned or used by the following media organizations:" and see if one of them mentions it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Source found and added. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You guys are so busy wikilawyering that you don't even bother to read the f*cking source - which claims that the page move was due to an ARBCOM decision. Given that this is patently false, the Guardian source cannot stand. WP:SELFREF discourages links to wikipedia talk pages, but there is an explicit template Selfref which is used on hundreds of articles for exactly these kind of links. Using a link to a wikipedia talk page as a primary source about what happened on that wikipedia talk page is so obvious it kills me to have to explain it - of course it's a primary source, there isn't on heaven or earth a more primary source about what page move wikipedia performed than the page that discussed the page move. Until we find a better secondary source, the wikipedia link should stay, with the selfref template. Please stop the reverting - selfref is just a guideline and this is a great example to IAR.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:WPNOTRS, even Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. Talk pages are covered under WP:RSOPINION and WP:OR (original research from primary sources). If you still believe you are in the right, then come back with a favorable opinion from WP:RSN, okay? Yworo (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Spewing acronyms like a water fountain doesn't advance your argument.  Konveyor   Belt  00:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would never use a wikipedia article as a source, and we're not using the talk page to cite an opinion, we're using a talk page as a source for what happened on that talk page. Why do you want to waste our time dragging this over to some other notice board - try just reading what I wrote. The best primary source about what happened in a wikipedia administrative process is the page where that process took place, and at the top of the link given there is a very clear description of the fact that the page moved, and even why. This is eminently useful for the reader, so they can see what happens behind the scenes, and the interpretation of this primary source is impeccable, so there's no WP:OR. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We are never allowed to interpret primary sources, even when it is "impeccable", even when it's not a Wikipedia talk page. All interpretation of primary sources falls under the prohibition of original research, no matter how "good" the interpretation is. Yworo (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yworo, you've been here a long time, so I'm rather stunned that you continue to cite things without reading them. Do me a favor - go read about our policy on primary sources, then come back with an interpretation that supports that my reading of the move request is flawed based on that policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read them and am deeply familiar with them. You are wrong. Again, if you are in the right, you will easily come back from the reliable sources noticeboard with approval. Again, if you are certain you are right, why wouldn't you seek this confirmation? Yworo (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

to make it easy, read this PRIMARY. Then, read this CIRCULAR - allow me to quote: "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case, and may be used following the policy for primary sources." - this is a POLICY, e.g. WP:V. Can we end the wikilawyering now? I mean, you couldn't ask for a more explicit statement, in policy, of exactly what I've been saying. Yworo, you are obviously not deeply familiar with WP:PRIMARY, because you ignore this line: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Are you trying to claim that someone reading that page could not deduce that the page was moved? Seriously? Please go back to the law books. WP:V just whooped you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, because this is a WP:BLP and sourcing requirements are much tighter. You'd better get approval from both WP:RSN and WP:BLPN, come to think of it. Yworo (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yrowo, the claim in question has nothing to do with Manning, so, no, the sourcing requirements are NOT much tighter. Again, try to make a policy-based argument - quote the necessary sections, and tell me why the WP:V and WP:PRIMARY sections I already cited above do not suffice. If you want to drag this to another noticeboard, go ahead, but WHY????? Everyone agrees with the claim! No-one is disputing the claim! You are only warring about whether to add an inaccurate guardian article which got its facts WRONG, or link to the primary source that has the facts RIGHT. The rest is just a cloud of wiki-bullshit and an enormous waste of time. Cite policy, cite policy, cite policy, or go away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are certainly free to go away voluntarily. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cite policy Yworo. Please. I can wikilawyer with the best of them if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the main (non) policy you are violating is "Don't be a dick" (since you specifically asked for it). Yworo (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is pure crap as Obi points out. If we can't use Wikipedia, we should just remove it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DICK isn't policy, not even on Meta.  Konveyor   Belt  02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:V on use of wikipedia to describe wikipedia; I think people confuse the idea of citing a wikipedia article (which should frankly never be done, at least not for a fact) - vs citing a background wikipedia process (for example, an article on Wikipedia's sourcing policy could cite Wikipedia's sourcing policy! - and in this case, a claim about a RM can cite the RM as a primary source. It's a common misconception this is not permitted, but as WP:V (a pillar policy) notes, there is an exception, and this is it. Konveyor, while I appreciate your asides, I'd also appreciate your views on this matter - cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The one commenter who weighed in at RSN (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) agreed that my interpretation of WP:CIRCULAR was correct. I have thus restored the reference to the wikipedia move discussion as a primary source for the claim about the page move on wikipedia, as an explicitly permitted exception to the "do not cite wikipedia" rule. The Guardian article is an unreliable source for the claim about the move, since it claims the move was made pursuant to an arbcom decision: "The arbitration committee, a group of senior editors elected by and from Wikipedia’s pool of volunteers which acts as the community’s court of last resort, was called in to make the final decision on which name should be at the top of Manning’s page." - this is patently false, and shows that the author did not read the arbcom case carefully nor track the RM discussion which happened in parallel.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found one person who agreed with you somewhere. However, I don't think a single error of interpretation invalidates the Guardian as a source of commentary on the events. Not wanting to include any outside criticism doesn't seem neutral even if you don't like their interpretation personally. And I don't think this part holds up as notable without all indications that sources outside of Wikipedia have commented on it anyway. __ E L A Q U E A T E  16:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could use without the snark; obviously the community agrees with me, as they saw fit to add an exception to WP:CIRCULAR. This has nothing to do with criticism, this has to do with whether the source in question is a good one for the particular claim made. It is not, as it is WRONG. I've thus removed it. I'm sure another article will come along that doesn't have the Guardian's flaws.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin note: Given that in parallel with this discussion, you guys have been edit warring on the article, I have now full-protected the article for a week. Resolve the issue on a noticeboard or here, but not by repeatedly undoing one another's edits to the article. And let me remind you all again that a) edit warring never solves anything, no matter how right you think your edit is and b) this article is covered under discretionary sanctions. If you can't conduct yourselves here without butting heads over and over, it might be time to step back from the article entirely before discretionary sanctions become necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Elaquate has now re-added the Guardian source, again. As I've noted above, the Guardian is NOT a reliable source for the claim made; it suggests, if you actually take time to read it, that the arbcom was the group which locked the page, and that arbcom was the group that made the decision. As such, citing it as support of the page move at wikipedia will only serve to mislead the users with known-false information. I have no idea why Elaquete wants to cite this article, but I have a feeling it's something about "criticism" and the fact that this article is highly critical of wikipedia's treatment of trans* people; it may be a useful article to list somewhere else, but for this particular claim it is INCORRECT and should thus be removed. The claim itself is trivial and easily sourced through the primary source of the wikipedia discussion, and if another 3rd party source is found we could easily add another one, but I repeat that the Guardian article is a crap source for this claim. EQ, if you want to re-add the Guardian, please take it to RSN and see if they agree that it is a good source for the claim made.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the editor who originally added it. Again, the claim was that there was discussion and the article was renamed. The Guardian article looks at more than just the ArbCom decision and the "Move Request" page alone doesn't encapsulate the entirety of that discussion. I'm assuming that's why it was added in the first place, and I thought the article was poorer without it. __ E L A Q U E A T E  16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The guardian made at least three clearly false statements:
 * 1) "A long-running argument over whether the Wikileaks source should be called Bradley or Chelsea Manning in Wikipedia has caused a split among some of its most senior editors." - WRONG. The argument was "What should the title of Manning's article be" not "What should we call Manning" - it's a subtle but very important difference that most media missed. Indeed, there was broad agreement to call Manning "Chelsea" in the running text of the article, and lead the article with that. The debate was over the title.
 * 2) "The arbitration committee, a group of senior editors elected by and from Wikipedia’s pool of volunteers which acts as the community’s court of last resort, was called in to make the final decision on which name should be at the top of Manning’s page." (No - ARBCOM ruled on editor behavior, and a totally separate process took place to decide the name of this article)
 * 3) Wikipedia’s administrators, who are all elected from the general pool of editors on the site, decided that there wasn’t enough consensus for the page to be moved, and locked it under the name “Bradley Manning” pending a decision from the arbitration committee. (No - the page was locked for 30 days for sourcing to develop).
 * Again, in a different article there may be a place to link to this particular Guardian article, but since the claim itself is so simple and not under dispute, I really would like a clear, crisp and detailed explanation from you as to why we should link to a source WHICH GOT THE BASIC FACTS WRONG about the page move, in order to source a claim about the page move itself. Read CONTEXTMATTERS - it is obvious that this particular source is not reliable for the claims made, as the Guardian source implies that the discussion referred to was an ARBCOM discussion, which is was not. Linking to it implies that the Guardian got it right w.r.t. to ARBCOM running the move request and the page being locked for 30 days pending an ARBCOM decision - all false.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unfair to say there was disagreement about what to call Manning. Your personal experience may have been that it was only ever about the title, and the title alone, but I don't think that's a universally held opinion. And that's the point, you have a very strong opinion about "what this was all about". The way you are evaluating this source is about how closely it corresponds with your subjective viewpoint of what happened. (If you want to be honest with yourself, think of all the times you had to helpfully remind people that it was "only about the title". Why did those people need "reminding" if everybody involved in the discussion shared your perspective?) You may be so close to this you fell in. __ E L A Q U E A T E  17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * EQ, plz stop the silly wikilawyering. My views are not subjective - (a) Arbcom did NOT move the article (b) the page was not locked for 30 days pending an arbcom decision. Both of these things are objectively true, if you're in doubt then you must have missed the past two months. I really don't understand what game you're playing - why do you want an inaccurate source kept? Why oh why oh why?? In what way is this in the interest of a reader? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The source describes parts of the claimed "discussion" that are not covered by the move request text alone. It is true that the moves were ultimately decided by Closing Administrators judging the value of arguments, not specifically ArbCom, and the Guardian article conflates the two types of administrative oversight. Huge error, treating two types of administration as if they were the same thing. It's still a third-party reputable source giving specific and valuable context to the sentence it is cited to support. And context that is missing from your source alone. We can always add a note explaining the error you found, if we keep the section written as it stands, which seems unlikely anyway. __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Guardian article describes how ARBCOM banned several people, and what those people felt about it. So what? The one claim we're trying to defend (which is that the community came together, had a discussion, and moved the article by consensus) the Guardian got WRONG. The rest of the Guardian article is irrelevant here, and would fit better in a "wikipedia in the news" or something like that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you want a source that supports a specific view of events, instead of communicating what sources actually say. The community coming together and working together against the odds sounds neat, but that's not what the sentence says and it's not the whole story of what sources reported. It might be how you see it, but only using sources that support that view isn't neutral. In any case, I don't think there should be this much focus on Wikipedia under this heading. But if it stays it should be balanced against something other than an inside baseball view; your source only provides what could be found by clicking on the talk page; less even. __ E L A Q U E A T E  20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm done responding to you.... Bring forth another source that is reliable and actually gives a reasonably accurate description of what transpired, otherwise plz stop wasting time. The fact that you think I'm trying to use a biased source here, when I'm simply pointing users to the actual discussion that actually took place, indicates that you have lost your way. Then, somehow indicating that other sources give a more complete story than the actual primary source?? When the Guardian got it all wrong? The claim is simple, the Guardian source is wrong, and you are wikilawyering like crazy for some unknown reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All I know is that an editor, (Sportfan5000 I think?) added a source; you tried to find a consensus to remove it here on the talk page and failed, got approval to reference a different source as well, removed the source you didn't like, and I added it back in. I didn't remove the source you added. (All while you accused multiple people of wikilawyering if they had a different view of the value of the source.) __ E L A Q U E A T E  21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way "Then, somehow indicating that other sources give a more complete story than the actual primary source??" is a funny thing to say you support on the Chelsea Manning talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E  21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the three sentences at the end discussing Wikipedia's title changings seems more for Wikipedia editors than Wikipedia readers. How about getting rid of them and just adding Wikipedia to the sentence near the beginning of the paragraph so that it becomes, "While Reuters, The Guardian, the Daily Mail, and Wikipedia changed name and pronouns immediately ..."? Also note that this change includes mention of pronouns, which isn't even mentioned in any of the three sentences.--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would have worked if wikipedia moved and didn't later flip flop. But it did, and this flip-flopping was covered in the media with wikipedia as a subject of special interest.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think discussion of the flip flopping is too much of a digression from the topic of Chelsea Manning and isn't worth mentioning, let alone being given that relatively large proportion of space in the section. It's more about Wikipedia than Chelsea Manning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are currently 3 sentences explaining what happened at wikipedia. If we could compress into one sentence that would be fine, but I don't think it should be left out, since, again, wikipedia was called out as a media source of interest in terms of naming here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think about including Wikipedia as I mentioned in my message of 18:02, 28 October, adding a footnote there about the flip flopping, and removing the three sentences? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Inclined to agree. As someone who is personally invested in trans* politics, I definitely understand just how monumental this particular case has been. However, to me the whole section about the reaction towards Chelsea's coming out seems oddly situated in this particular article. It starts to read like she put out a film and this is how the critics reacted. :P I think eventually the reaction towards Manning's identity change will be seen as more notable in terms of social politics, so I do think it's noteworthy; just perhaps not on Chelsea's own page. Happeningfish (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Citing the successful RM to support the statement that there was a successful RM is, as Obi says, allowed; I think it's what should be done. However, I recognise that there are other policy-compliant courses of action, including citing the Guardian piece to support a statement that the article was moved by ArbCom (and pointing those who think that statement is untrue to wp:Verifiability, not truth). -sche (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Verifiability not truth is an essay, that is widely disputed. Also, you should note that this essay states: "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy... Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability." We all KNOW, as a matter of fact, and this is verifiable by reading talk pages, that ARBCOM did not move the article. Implying that it did is willfully misleading the users, and I can't think of any good reasons to do so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, since, if anything, that just shows what kind ridiculous situations can result from slavishly and blindly following that creed. I second everything Obi-Wan says above. The idea that Wikipedia can best be served by reporting as fact something that can be easily, objectively, and (I'd hope) uncontroversially shown to be false simply because some writer didn't bother to check their facts is, to put it bluntly, completely asinine. Simple Sarah (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's take this to DRN rather than making outrageous statements.  Konveyor   Belt  18:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the source, it talks way more about Wikipedia than the subject involved and the source hints at negativity towards editors involved here. We already have a source why do we need a second one anyways, this is looking like it hurts more than it helps. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus poll to add/remove The guardian wikipedia reference
The question being should the guardian reference --> be added at the end of "After further discussion, Manning's Wikipedia page was again renamed to Chelsea Manning on October 8, 2013." Please place Add, Remove, Neutral or w/e you want, and state your opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove Source a) the source is wrong b) the wikipedia reaction should be treated like a fart in the wind, hopefully not heard and never to be smelt again and c) how does this relate to Manning?Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's almost as though under the summary style used on Wikipedia this would be more appropriate in an article about the media reaction to Manning's annnouncement! Oh wait.  You already considered that. AgnosticAphid  talk 22:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did someone turn Wikipedia into a media source while I wasn't looking?Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * remove Guardian for the particular claim we are defending, which is that the Wikipedia community decided to move the article, the Guardian got all of the details wrong. Whether the rest of their article is accurate is irrelevant. I think it's important to state that Wikipedia moved to Chelsea, and for now I haven't seen any RS that cover this, so sourcing from Wikipedia makes sense and is permitted under policy as an explicit exception to the 'do not cite Wikipedia' general rule. I'd be happy to shorten the whole thing to one sentence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove Source Per my statement above: "It talks way more about Wikipedia than the subject involved and the source hints at negativity towards editors involved here. We already have a source why do we need a second one anyways, this is looking like it hurts more than it helps." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep source as The Guardian is considered a reliable source and the fact that its talking about wikipedia is irrelevant as an argument not to keep it as we dont try to avoid self-referencing (as wikipedia) when reliable sources allow for it♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. I don't think anyone is arguing to remove Guardian b/c it's talking about wikipedia; they are arguing to remove because as a source for the particular claim, e.g. details of how the page was moved, the Guardian simply got it wrong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By linking we dont claim they got it right♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are proposing to link a source that you admit is wrong? That's a rather silly thing to propose. Shall we go around and start adding incorrect links to out of date/inaccurate news sources all over the wiki, just to give a different perspective? That's not what WP:RS suggests.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep source —Pawyilee (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove Source - Sometimes a source simply gets it wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. Even those who support its inclusion admit in the previous section that the Guardian piece gets many basic things wrong, including (crucially) the bit of information they would like to use it as a reference for (namely that a RM resulted in the article being moved back to "Chelsea"—the Guardian says it was an action by the Arbitration Committee that moved the article). The use of the Guardian piece as a reference for a claim about the RM / the article title thus seems incompatible with WP:BLP's "very firm" requirement to make "use of high-quality sources" to support claims. Furthermore, because another source (in this case, a primary source) can be cited to confirm that a RM resulted in the article being moved back to "Chelsea", nothing is lost by preferring that source to the problematic Guardian piece. -sche (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove Source per Obi-Wan Kenobi et al. (It is disturbing the Guardian got so much wrong.) --Space simian (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove Source Since there are already other sources talking about the original moves to Chelsea and back to Bradley, I do not think this link serves any purpose in making the event notable (Which I'm not really sold on, but that's not at issue here). Given that, as things currently stand the Guardian link really would only serve thr purpose of sourcing that the change back happened. However, as has been pointed out by others, a link to the actual RM (Never mind the fact that the page is currently back at Chelsea) seems more than sufficient for this purpose and, on top of that, the Guardian article is mess of incorrect information and will only serve to mislead readers.


 * Now, if the link to the Guardian article was being used to help support something stating that there was outside criticism of Wikipedia of how it handled the aftermath of the first move, I might be willing to support that, but there would need to be several more good sources before I would even consider it making sense to add such a statement to start with. Simple Sarah (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This Page Listed His Name Wrong
This page has his name listed wrong. It calls Bradley Manning "Chelsea Manning." Indeed, Manning did take on the nickname Chelsea, and one article said he was looking into legally changing his name, but he has not yet changed his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.250.50 (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please just take a cursory glance over this talk page before commenting in future; pay particular note to the FAQ at the top. Her legal name is irrelevant. —  Richard  BB  08:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Strained relationship
I recently partially reverted an edit of User:Elaqueate because it removed a useful quote from the father and implied that the father's quote was questionable about Manning growing up happy because they had a strained relationship and was often absent. It seemed like WP:SYNTH to imply that the father's assessment wasn't reliable, which was the intent as mentioned in the edit summary, "Father shouldn't be used as untempered source of whether childhood was 'happy' ". There is an implication that the father wasn't there enough to assess whether Manning was happy growing up, which isn't supported by a reliable source. I moved the strained relationship info to the paragraph that discusses the father's absences. I thought the father's quote was also useful because it showed that in 2011 the father referred to Manning as a male. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources that say Manning's father was mostly absent from the majority of her childhood. I know that you are trying to put more and more references to Manning being described as a boy, but you are giving undue weight to someone described as abusive by other sources. You can't put the father as a somehow neutral source alone. You seem to want to include "Manning is a man" references for their own sake, when we seem to have plenty. __Elaqueate (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the time period described as "happy" by her father: "The absences strained Bradley’s relationship with his father, family members said. And when Brian was home, he was, one relative said, “far too strict” — in contrast to a mother who was “far too soft.” Bradley was “afraid of his dad,” Davis said. He recalled how Bradley once told him that “he had to hide out in a tree” or that “his dad was going at him with a belt.” Once, when Bradley was in the second grade or so, his father gave him a spanking so severe that the next day at school, he told his teacher he could not sit down, his mother and sister said. His father was also “abusive with words,” Susan Manning said." __Elaqueate (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll pass on your invitation to turn this into a forum discussion about whether or not Manning was happy growing up, although I could give the other side if I wanted to. As I mentioned, your edit was synth, I explained why, and you haven't addressed that. Regarding the father mentioning in a 2011 interview that Manning was a young man, I think that is useful there because we use feminine pronouns there for the father's narrative, which gives the false impression that the father referred to Manning as a female in the inteview and in their relationship. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "...gives the false impression that the father referred to Manning as a female..." Nonsense. If the article said "Manning's father said that Manning has always liked carrots" it would not give the false impression that the father referred to his own child as "Manning". So if the article said "Manning's father said that she has always liked carrots" it similarly would not give the impression that the father referred to his child as female. Only a reader who does not understand how the English language works would get a false impression. 99.192.66.17 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)


 * 1. Multiple sources describe Manning's father as mostly absent and not an unbiased source about the quality of Manning's childhood.. The quote alone does not address that. I added a note to the source to back up the addition. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2. It is represented multiple times in this article that Manning presented as a boy in early childhood. I understand that you want to give it much more weight, but I think you are going overboard. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re 1, perhaps you should give the excerpts and sources for your statement, especially the part about multiple reliable sources saying that the father was not an unbiased source about the quality of Manning's childhood. Also, the father's absences were addressed in another paragraph, where I also added your contribution re strained relationship and absences, without the synth.
 * Re 2, we have no other info in the article about how the father referred to Manning and as I said it is useful for avoiding the false impression that the father referred to Manning as a female in the interview and in their relationship. Also, I think the father's comment is needed for NPOV because of the impression elsewhere in the article that Manning had an unhappy childhood.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a widely held view that Manning's childhood was happy. It is normally described as difficult at best. I have quoted from sources already, and the other sources referenced certainly do not claim a happy childhood, so I don't know what more I can point to here. And otherwise, I think it has been made clear multiple times that Manning presented as a boy, including to her father. You are pushing your point here. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that now's the time to hear from other editors. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What it comes down to is this edit. Restore the quote or not? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My earlier edit balanced her father's assertion that she had a happy childhood with the widely asserted belief (in all of our other references) that she did not. You can't just have the father's word as gospel about her childhood when other people describe him as being abusive at that time. And it is especially bad to do it just to emphasize that people saw her as a boy, again for the fifth or sixth time. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

comment We shouldn't be assigning any value to the statements made by Manning Sr. as being factually true or false. We should rely on the sources to make that judgment. If the sources throw out his opinion and leave it for the reader to decide, well then that is what we should do.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's true that Brian Manning said that our subject had a happy childhood, and that all other sources we reference seem to disagree. It's not a synth to indicate the father doesn't represent the majority view, I'd hope. I'm sure the father thinks the childhood was just fine but it doesn't seem encyclopedic to showcase his opinion in a standalone quote when our sources disagree. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be wrong to use his father's statement to sayManning DID have a happy childhood. But it is not a violation to quote the father and attribute his statements as his opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My original edit retained the father's opinion. Bob K31416 objected to adding other sourced opinion and wanted the father's opinion to stand alone, when it is arguably fringe. __Elaqueate (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was the way it went and you might check that by reading this discussion from the beginning. If you do, note that I raised the issue of SYNTH in your original edit and you didn't address that.
 * So far I haven't seen any reliable source or quote in a reliable source that said Manning did not have a happy childhood. There has been mention in the article about some  incidences and aspects of Manning's childhood that one would expect were difficult for her, but that doesn't mean that overall Manning's childhood was not happy and it would be questionable OR to advance that position. The father's statement is meant to somewhat balance the negative impression  from those other parts of the article for NPOV.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The father is repeatedly reported as not a great source for what you want us to rely on him for. If you want to include that quote, it has to reflect what sources say. "For Bradley, who was born in 1987, eleven years after his sister, his father sometimes seemed like a stranger. “One time, I came home after six weeks away and Bradley [then 3 or 4] didn’t recognize me,” Brian said. Bradley excelled at school, an A student and a math and science whiz who won the school’s science fair three years running. He did make a few friends among the smarter crowd, though in his father’s mind, Bradley was a loner who refused to make an effort, which perplexed his sociable father. “He’d get off the school bus, and he’d either go upstairs … or be downstairs on the computer,” he explained. “Basically, to put it in a nutshell, Bradley never showed any interest in anything outside [the house].” By the late nineties, Brian had essentially moved overseas for his job. “I’d call home every day and talk for a few minutes with my wife, but I don’t think I ever talked to Bradley, because usually he was busy on the computer doing something.” "Sourced __Elaqueate (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And again, it has been reported in the sources we cite throughout the article that Manning's upbringing was "troubled" and was being raised by "neglectful" and "alcoholic" parents. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-lonely-soldier-childhood One source of many]. The father's claim should be balanced against what other sources say, most of whom call him an absent and neglectful parent. We shouldn't give him undue balance just because he said something you want to use to emphasize Manning's gender presentation, as you have stated. __Elaqueate (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you responded very well to my last message, so I'll just accept that we have different views and leave it at that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will add some more from the actual journalist cited, to reflect their assessment that Manning was "an isolated young man with a troubled family life". At the time of the interview, they also made the interesting and explicit disclaimer that Brian Manning's assertions were "not necessarily consistent with other accounts." I don't think it's a synth to repeat what they specifically reported about those other accounts at the time. __Elaqueate (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns changing
Use of female pronouns in the entire article is frankly ridicolous, for two reasons I suggest the complete restoring of male pronouns at least in the part prior the last declarations, and change the title back on Bradley as he was known as Bradley, an user usually search Bradley and not Chelsea Elizabeth. Respect for his decision, but these kind of changes create a lot of confusion in the Wikipedia users. Wikipedia purpose is to informate, not an absurd search for politically correct. Thanks, from a foreign user. Lenore (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * he "was" male on the whole event
 * sex change is only limited to simple declarations


 * Look, this argument has been done to death. You can go over the pages and pages and pages of arguments about this subject if you'd like, in the form of the two move discussions, but in the last one, there was a clear consensus that the page should be titled "Chelsea Manning". If you'd like to argue against that consensus, you're welcome to do so, but you're not going to get anywhere. Cam94509 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So should I conclude that Wikipedia is policed by monothematic users and LGBT sockpuppets? Great. Lenore (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would not follow. First, one needn't be lgb or t to think Wikipedia should usually defer to people's preferred names, and in this case, preferred pronouns. Second, we're supposed to be trying for a neutral point of view, and only allowing cissexual points of view on trans-related articles would not achieve that. Ananiujitha (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If a multiple murderer asks to be called a samaritan what will you do? Will you change the profession from "criminal" to "samaritan" only because he asks it? Manning is biologically a male, you can't change pronouns that for millenary conventions are referred to biological sex only because he "feels" a woman. When he will change sex, you can use the right female pronouns to expose facts from the sex change to the next sex change. During the Wikileaks issues (and now), Manning was (is) a male, so it should be used the male pronouns. As I red, few LGBT users have closed the legitimate objections from a lot of users who have rightly exposed this absurd editorial politic. Please be serious, this is an encyclopedia. Lenore (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been through two contentious, heavily-debated Requested Move processes and an ArbCom case. Consensus has been established that the female pronouns and name are appropriate. Consensus can change, but you're going to have to discuss, not revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, no it hasn't, the name certanly has, but the pronouns debate has not been had. Consensus only talked about the name of the article not the pronouns used. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, put the stick down. Your comments here are fairly insensitive. This is an encyclopedia, and it reports the world as it is - which means that the widely-recognised existence of trans people should not be contentious! AlexTiefling (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Too much has been made of the name, which is honestly not an issue. Per the MOS the last name is used in the article text after the first use of the full name so it only pops up right at the start. Not to mention that it is just a name and neither name is inherently masculine or feminine, but only seen that way by society. I do think the use of pronouns here can be most confusing for readers wishing to adequately understand the nature of Manning's life, which should be our first priority. A faithful relaying of history should not take a back seat to political correctness or even the personal feelings of a living subject. This is simple enough, Manning should be described as a boy when Manning was commonly considered a boy, but described as a girl when that consideration changed. Seems the discussion over MOS:IDENTITY has been heavily leaning towards endorsing that approach.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first priority on wikipedia is to inform. Objective and almost immutable qualities such as biological sex should have priority on subjective, highly-variable aspects. If Manning tomorrow will change her mind, you have to change all pronouns and page title, and so on. Biological sex, instead, can't be changed easily and in a short period, so it has a more informative connotation and should have priority on the rest. The only reason of this irrational, illogical and absurd change of gender and name based only on free declarations that are susceptible of variation in few days, hours or minutes and don't reflect widely known aspects of this event is politically correctness, but it's a damage for Wikipedia accessibility and credibility. On Google Bradley gets 29.200.000 results, Chelsea gets 11.700.000: wikipedia guidelines impose the most-widely known title, not the politically correct one. Many users are very concerned about this issues. Actually, many reasonable opinions of users were censored by very aggressive edits from LGBT sysops, giving the idea their reasons are minoritary. Almost all the threads I have opened on this issue were closed by some LGBT users and sysop: they are minoritary, but their aggressive methodology gives the wrong idea that their "ideas" reflect consensus. But illogical ideas don't reflect consensus, objections gived here in fact are very generic and actually aren't true objections, only boycotting of legitimate replies. Lenore (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing you're saying here hasn't been already addressed many times, and your wording is bordering on baiting for users in the LGBT camp. Please. Happeningfish (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear not to have participated in the discussions surrounding this article before, so you may not be aware that the points you make have been made and rejected many times before. You can see the previous rejections in the recent archives of this page; for discussion of which name is most common, you can see also the last RM. I apologise if my response, or the responses of other editors, seem(s) curt; perusing the aforelinked archives may, however, give you an idea of why there is so little interest in beating this dead horse any more. You may also find it helpful to consider what WP:HEAR says (italics mine): "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." -sche (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think that the majority of people are rational. If the issue was addressed many times, it means simply that a rational opinion supported by a lot of people was suppressed by few irrational users only because these users have sysop powers. So, there isn't a community who "hear", but a restricted oligarchy who dictate editorial politics. I call this dictatorship. Lenore (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Manning is going to be in jail for at least the next 8 years, the hype of the whole my name is Chelsea thing I feel has died off. I would just let it go and wait for history to decide what the final outcome is going to be and what name manning is going to be most notable under. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Claiming it is LGBT ppl and even LGBT admins who are enforcing this in some kind of dictatorship is so far from the actual truth that it is hard to take yuou seriously, Lenore♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * suggest you go to WP:MOS where there is an ongoing discussion about pronouns. If you disagree with using the new pronouns for the whole life, that discussion is about just that. So better to weigh in there and change guidance first vs battling it out here. As for the article title, that was not done by a oligarchy of LGBT admins, it was a broad community consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This. The name is pretty much decided, the pronouns are fairly clearly a matter of policy (MOS) which should be debated there, but eveyone who is saying that pronouns have been decided probably has an agenda. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you use the most widely known name?
It's kind of strange for an encyclopedia to use the name of someone that isn't the one that most people would recognize. Prince the artist was at one time known as a symbol "the artist formerly known as prince" but his page correctly refers to him as "Prince" which is of course what most people would associate him as. The same applies for Bradley Manning. It isn't a gender issue. It's just a referencing issue. Feel free to mention that he's actually a she in the article, but for the sake of clarity it should be Bradley manning, to avoid confusing the majority of people who only care about Bradley Manning because of his actions, not because of his gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you are wrong, most ppl would recognise her as Chelsea Manning this October 2013, hence the name change♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I invite you to look at the archives esp for the last move. Most editors felt that commonname had indeed changed as evidenced by news media switching. In any case barring some new major development the article wont move to a different title and I suggest no future discussions on the name be started until 6 months have passed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP is going by which name is the most recognizable, which wasn't the criterion for the RfC result. The most recognizable name may well be Bradley, considering that Manning has been in the news for several years as Bradley. Chelsea has only been used for a couple of months, where the reporting of the case has been sparse, except for the few days after Manning's gender announcement on Aug 22, 2013.  IIRC, the criterion of the most recognizable name wasn't discussed in the RfC, although I wouldn't be surprised if an editor could show me where it was discussed there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most people who know about Manning wont have missed the trans statements he made either so its certanyl not proven that he is better known in October 2013 as Bradley♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is highly speculative and almost certainly incorrect. Most people who know about Manning, in fact the vast majority, only know about him through what they've seen in the media. Without having done any analysis of the number of stories using Bradley vs Chelsea, we won't have a true picture, but I it is most likely greater than 10:1 favoring Bradley.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The point, 2 kinds of pork, is thta it is equally speculative to claim that he is better known as Bradley, so its an argument that goes nowhere♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The question being asked isn't about what the sources use, but about what is the most recognizable term for the entity known as Manning amongst 7 billion people. The vast majority of coverage has been about "Bradley" and only a recent blip has any mention of "Chelsea", and it's absurd to claim otherwise.  Even sources that made the switch to Chelsea preface it with "Bradley", why?  It's because they know people won't have a clue as to who Chelsea is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bradley: 29000000 results on Google. Chelsea: 11000000. In Italy many people who have followed the case were totally unawared by the name and "sex" change. This politic violates Wikipedia referring power and Wikipedia guidelines on title which impose the most-known name to be used for. Lenore (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's true that the opinions of the majority of people living in Italy were not consulted in any of arguments before making this change, which I would previously have considered exhaustive. __ E L A Q U E A T E  11:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lenore These articles about the issue and Wikipedia discussions might help you catch up on what's happened" [Usa: Manning, non sono una pacifista][Wikipedia e Chelsea-Bradley Manning] I think you are correct that it is very strange that Italian Wikipedia makes absolutely no mention of something that was covered robustly in the Italian press. But I don't think that failure to inform is that relevant here. __ E L A Q U E A T E  12:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect your Google queries are a bit suspect, but at this point it doesn't matter as the mob has spoken on this issue. In fact I apologize if you think I was directing you to perform such research.  Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Google queries are easily verificable: https://www.google.it/search?q=bradley+manning&oq=bradley+manning and https://www.google.it/search?q=chelsea+manning&oq=chelsea+manning. On the ventilated broad consensus about "retroactive" pronouns changing, I make notice that in this discussion deletes (52) overtake the keep (46), so actually the community consensus is to delete the illogic LGBT conventions about name and gender arbitrary changing. Lies have short legs (cit.) -- Lenore (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Google says there are 338 "Bradley Manning" results versus 434 "Chelsea Manning" results on your specific search on the Italian page of Google. You need to go to the last page of the results, or it gives you an inaccurate guess of how many results there are. You said there were 29,000,000, which is an exciting number, but is not true. And consensus to change the MOS isn't based on thin majority voting. __ E L A Q U E A T E  14:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Impossible, 338 and 434 are too few even if the search is limited to Italian results. Please post links as I can verify it, thanks. -- Lenore (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not impossible. You have to go to the last page of the search to see how many results Google is actually showing you. I don't want to explain everything that is found in this essay or this one but you should give them a read. Pointing at Google is not a replacement for reading and thinking and evaluating sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (answer) I can't reach the last page of Google results. I arrived at page 60 before quit this tedious task, counting ten results per page we arrive at 600. Beside that, Google results search is a quantitative and objective criterion to quantify popularity; if this criterion in considered too simplistic, you should propose an alternative. At this point, every criterion different than your Wikipedia "consensus" belie you. It appears that this convention should apply only because "we of the LGBT users decided it against majority, search engine results, logic etc." -- Lenore (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just checked, you're wrong. Elaqueate's numbers are correct. Perhaps you clicked the equivalent of show duplicate results?Cam94509 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking too. I'd also add that raw Google hits wouldn't be useful, even if they favored Chelsea (as they seem to do in this weird, Italian-specific search), because you can tell on first glance that the results are a mix of useless junk, non-English sources, repeats of the same source, false positives on either side, and some useful hits. Google searches are useful to find a selection of reputable sources to be judged on their own merits. The only time a Google search hit count would be useful by itself would be if it was something like "zero" and you could tell the term didn't have any measurable currency. As an analogy just for fun, we wouldn't rely on a robot to do a population census, if we knew it included trees, rocks, and spiders as "people" in completely unknown quantities, and started by giving an incredibly inflated estimate of how many people it predicted it might find, based on a word frequency table (as Google does here). For more fun, another example has "Canada" with 2 billion fantasy estimate results and "Italy" with about 1 billion fantasy estimate results. Is Canada therefore twice as famous as Italy? That's nonsense from nonsense numbers. __ E L A Q U E A T E  00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * consensus to change the MOS isn't based on thin majority voting so, what are the right criteria? Why a minority is legitimate to impose its personal POV on majority? -- Lenore (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this guideline and this policy could be helpful if you weren't aware of them before. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (answer) That's not helpful, it doesn't explain how it could be possible that a minority imposes its POV on the other users: this clearly violate the principle "all wikipedia users are equal". In fact, the rationale of that guideline is that efforts are to be done in order to reach consensus, but when it's impossible because of two consistent opinion groups as in this case, obviously democracy applies. Your replies are always very generic and elusive, I starts to doubt your good faith. -- Lenore (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY, it operates by consensus. Consensus doesn't mean simple majorities, it means super majorities. And yes, that means the current MOS:IDENTITY came in to being with supermajority support. Cam94509 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well not completely. A consensus decision is supposed to try and take all points of view into account, with the super-majority getting the lions share of the spoils. In this case of either/or we had to go one way or the other with the title, but could tweak the lead to cover both usages. But super-majority does rule here. If a super-majority says the sun is blue then it doesn't really matter if it isn't blue... at wikipedia it will be listed as blue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1person does not a super majority makeTwo kinds of pork (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you attempting to assert that the current MOS:IDENTITY was crafted by one person? (Because that would be blatantly false.)Cam94509 (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

just flew under the radar doesn't change the fact that your "super-majority" statement is nonsense. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly just "flew under the radar.", given that it was a change to the manual of style. Just because nobody thought it was even controversial at the time didn't mean that it didn't go through the process; arguably it makes the policy change LESS controversial, not more controversial Cam94509 (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY was not made by one person no but it is highly disputed as of right now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant. MOS:IDENT still remains despite a slight majority wanting to make a change to it. Which is good, IMO, because the guideline change would have been an absolute disaster that would have spawned a lot of little arguments all over Wikipedia, as it would have left us with no policy guidance... Well, and I'm of the opinion that the proposal was actually objectionable, but w/e. From a pragmatic perspective, the change would have been a bad idea.Cam94509 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be disputed by those with no understanding of trans* identity or with no sympathy for trans* individuals. Those who dispute it should be aware that not using the subject's current name and preferred pronouns is pretty much equivalent to using the N-word in terms of offensiveness. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify your position, when giving a narrative of a transgender person's past, is it your opinion that it is offensive to refer to that person as they were referred to back then, while referring to them after their transition as they want to be referred to at that later time? If that is your opinion, is there any way we can determine whether that is the predominant opinion in the community of transgender people and their supporters?


 * There are indications that such an opinion is not predominant in that community, for example the opinion of a major LGBT journalist association that advises the use of pre-transition pronouns when describing the transgender person's life before the transition. BTW, when I use the word "transition", I use it in the same sense that it is used in the Wikipedia article    Transitioning (transgender), "Transitioning is the process of changing one's gender presentation permanently to accord with one's internal sense of one's gender - the idea of what it means to be a man or a woman, or in-between."--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't think I fit into the category you mentioned of "those with no understanding of trans* identity or with no sympathy for trans* individuals." Although I'm still learning about it, I think I understand one of the most important aspects of the issue, that being a transgender person isn't a choice. I thought this is described well in an article by Danielle Kaufman, M.D., a transgender woman,
 * "People outside the trans experience have a truly hard time understanding the magnitude of the task of changing gender expression. No one would ever do this unless they were forced to by their own psychology. I did choose to follow a number of specific steps to change my gender expression; it's just that I was so compelled by inner need that I would say it's not really a choice."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is there's confusion if you use the non-preferred pronouns in a present day assessment. It can sound like you're gendering them now. We usually are speaking of the person from our most current and knowledgeable vantage point; we say "Napoleon was teased by other students..." even though he wasn't "Napoleon" then. We should say "She came from Oklahoma" because we're talking about someone we have an understanding of now. We wouldn't use slangy childhood names to refer to someone in their childhood, even if they were used predominantly, because it could be inferred we are calling the subject that now. The key is in your own question regarding whether it is "offensive to refer to that person as they were referred to back then...." You use "refer" in the present tense, because we are doing the referring now, with what we know now. __ E L A Q U E A T E  08:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your example of Napoleon doesn't seem to work since, "He was christened Napoleone di Buonaparte, probably named for an uncle (an older brother, who did not survive infancy, was the first of the sons to be called Napoleone)."
 * There's a good example of  how to treat a name change in a person's life in the article Mohammad Ali, beginning with the section Early life and amateur career.   We see that he is referred to as Cassius Clay until his name change to Mohammad Ali, when the writing smoothly changes to referring to him by the latter name. We might consider whether this can be a model for how to treat the name and pronoun changes in the Chelsea Manning article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As others have said, if people want to have this discussion, can they please move the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Talk about MOS:IDENTITY in the more general sense belongs there, not here. Thanks. Simple Sarah (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Simple Sarah, OK, I'll end it here. I've responded with about all I have to say on the subject in this discussion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotection padlock missing
This article is semiprotected but there is no padlock. I can't find how long is this protected from the logs. Can somebody help me ···V ani s che nu (mc/talk) 03:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The protection logs for Chelsea Manning are a bit confusing - I believe, based on that and Bradley Manning logs that the page is indefinitely semiprotected. (Because protection settings from Bradley Manning were moved to Chelsea Manning, and Bradley Manning had indef. semiprotection applied.) OSborn arfcontribs. 03:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ···V ani s che nu (mc/talk) 04:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Diagnosed with gender identity disorder?
The lede says "While in the Army, Manning was ... diagnosed with gender identity disorder." Per WP:BLP, shouldn't that statement be either deleted or sourced? -- 101.119.14.176 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is currently sourced multiple times in the references and multiple sources including her lawyers, the court evidence, and the chat logs. It is not a libelous assertion here. __ E L A Q U E A T E  08:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if it's not a libelous assertion, it shouldn't be in there without being sourced. Elsewhere in the article there are sources supporting the fact that Private Manning claimed to have a gender identity disorder (e.g. one source says "Manning said he suffered from gender identity disorder and included a photo of himself dressed as a woman"), but I can't see any sources cited in the article saying that she was diagnosed as having a gender identity disorder. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a standalone source just to make it clearer for the initial reader. There were two assessments from two doctors, and it was already supported here in sources like Politico and others, but that citation should make it smooth. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As you say, this is well sourced and I see no reason that a reference needs to be included in the lead.-Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the source. If I'm understanding it correctly, the diagnosis was made after Manning's arrest. -- 101.119.15.32 (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * no, if you read the trial transcripts, you will see Manning was diagnosed in 2009/2010 or possibly earlier.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh that's an interesting question. According to this and other sources, there were two times someone diagnosed GID; One happened just before the trial, but I don't know how much earlier the other one was. There was a psychological assessment after the April 2010 email confession, which was before the arrest and that ended up recommending a discharge; maybe it was then or a different time. I haven't seen any court transcript, which would explain when each diagnosis happened without speculation. The initial gender counseling happened before the leaks. It's interesting, that source says that Manning's gender was "difficult to discern" at that point, which is still while near active duty. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E   00:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, one of the times was May 8, 2010. This should be reflected in the appropriate section, it seems like it was written before this article was published; Michael Worsley isn't mentioned, but Adkins is. It looks like it was a busy week. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E   01:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

revised wikipedia cite
I've tried rewording/shortening the wikipedia-relevant sections of the "reactions to Manning gender change" section - please let me know if you like this new version, or propose an even shorter one. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Several media outlets noted Wikipedia's quick rename of the page title from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning the day after the announcement; Wikipedia was then critiqued when the page was reverted to Bradley Manning a week later.   After further discussion, Manning's Wikipedia page was again renamed to Chelsea Manning in October 2013 by consensus of the community.


 * Much better, thank you. Grammatically, I would simply change "…after the announcement, and then Wikipedia was critiqued…" to read "…after the announcement; Wikipedia was then critiqued…" Startswithj (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok done.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I haven't really been following the conversations on this talk page recently, I'm not going to complain too loudly, but does anyone else feel this passage represents navel gazing? None of the references used for this passage are what I'd call "highest quality" mainstream sources. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even Time magazine covered Wikipedia's initial switch (http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/28/media-makes-the-manning-switch/). Its a bit of navel gazing, but considering the amount of coverage this name shift issue has received in the press, I think we are doing our readers a service by briefly describing what went on here, esp since there was so much info/mis-info in the press about it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One, it's in the wrong section, along with all of the media stuff. (Right now, it reads like Chelsea was ultimately able to transition because Wikipedia finally settled on something.) Two, Wikipedia is not that significant an event in the story of the subject's life, regardless of how involved people are here. It's kind of mawkish to have it as the last thing in the article. I don't think this is the place to massage people's opinions of Wikipedia itself. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've argued above that the whole gender transition section should be moved into a broader section on Manning's personal life; there's no reason for that section itself to be the last thing in the article. The reason there is a section on media reaction is, as you know, there was previously a separate article which was henceforth merged.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying the heading, as it is now, is misleading. It should be "Public Announcement of Gender Identity" or somesuch so it can be fleshed out beyond any narrower focus on WikiControversy. I agree that other transition events should be included in the broader sections to give biographic depth and context. We already have some of the private declarations of gender identity. But we shouldn't treat the reactions as being more significant to the biography than things like the announcement and significant biographical events stemming from it. We don't want to look like any more like the parody of us than we have to.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that - but the current section is titled "Gender transition"; 7 lines (on my screen) are devoted to the reaction, of which roughly 2 are about wikipedia; the rest is about other media. I'd prefer anyway a larger reorg, to put all of the personal stuff, such as the contact with gender counselor and relationships, under Background (which could be renamed personal life or something), and add the gender transition to the end of that section - then have the rest of the article be about the leaks, reaction, trial, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a biography. I don't think we'll be able to isolate the events of her gender identity story from the flow of events, nor do I think that would benefit our understanding of what was actually happening with her at the time. It shouldn't look like we're speaking about two different people, or someone who had experiences somehow seperated from the events people are interested in learning about. Her attempts to deal with her identity crop up as motivators or stresses at every important part of the leaks, including her military enrollment, the days around the leaks, the chat logs, the trial, and now her imprisonment. I don't think it caused her actions, but it had effects that might get lost if we start segregating events too heavily. I'm sure we'll find a balance. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the rewrite, as it's succinct. However, I just wish I could undo that merge and keep all of it in a separate article. This media reaction has very little to do with Chelsea herself, and is much more relevant for trans* issues, media, and to some extent, the ongoing evolution of Wikipedia. In a way, keeping it here also limits the sources that can be listed, since some of the articles (such as the one in the Guardian) bring up some points that are highly relevant to those discourses, but not suitable for, ahem, a factual record of what occurred. Happeningfish (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternate approach
Please consider the following approach, which includes mention of pronouns and takes up far less space. It involves adding Wikipedia to the list in the second sentence of the second paragraph in the section Gender transition, adding a footnote regarding Wikipedia's subsequent changes, and removing the three sentences at the end of the paragraph. The second sentence of the paragraph would then become,
 * While Reuters, The Guardian, the Daily Mail, and Wikipedia[1] changed name and pronouns immediately in accordance with Manning's request...

The footnote for Wikipedia would be,
 * 1. About a week later Wikipedia changed its article's title back to Bradley Manning, and roughly a month after that it was changed back to Chelsea Manning, which is its current title.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we mention this article's title teacup tempest at all, then I prefer your idea of moving into a footnote, to not give ourselves undue significance. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with footnoting this; if someone doesn't read the footnote they may miss the main part of the story, which is, it was moved against consensus, moved back by consensus, then moved again by consensus once sources had switched.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're not going to document the interior discussion of other news orgs (as Chelsea Manning Gender Identity Media Coverage as a stand alone article could have) then why bother singling out Wikipedia here? Consensus of that article was to edit down & merge. If a footnote will do it, why not? Wikipedia shouldn't get special treatment. AnonNep (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because reliable sources documented the back and forth - especially, they documented the fact that wikipedia switched quickly, and documented the fact that wikipedia switched back. They didn't go into such detail on other sources, as most other sources didn't flip flop the way we did.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Primary sources hit the name change issue because this is an encyclopedia &, aside from immediate BLP issues, consensus was that secondary source notability was an issue as well. Equally there was consensus to edit down & merge 'Chelsea Manning Gender Identity Media Coverage' into this. The full Wikipedia 'flip flop' story may not make it into the wording of this article but no-one else's internal debates will either. There can always be more RS added if to refs if they exist. If they don't, then, for the purposes of this article, that's how it goes. Unless you're suggesting we split out 'Chelsea Manning Gender Identity Media Coverage' again so Wikipedia gets to share a stand alone article with other media? If not, then internal Wikipedia, primary source, 'flip flop' refs are unlikely to survive long without secondary source back up as per other decisions here. AnonNep (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have 2nd party sources that cover all aspects of what happened at wikipedia; unfortunately for now they've all gotten it wrong w.r.t to the last move (they all state it was done by ARBCOM), so are thus not RS. But the other flip-flopping was covered. Again, I've proposed a trim to two sentences, and if we could trim to one I would be fine with that as well. Just because the section was merged, doesn't mean it has to be brutally trimmed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Play objective observer for a moment: 'Sure there are reputable secondary sources but unfortunately for now they've all gotten it wrong'. What would you say to that with any other article? AnonNep (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I was there. And it's rather common for secondary sources to get stuff wrong. History is replete with such errors. When we know the truth, we shouldn't parrot a falsehood.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as you admit that objective observer isn't on the table here. I don't think you writing it is appropriate if you're involved as much as you seem. It's not neutral and it's starting to smack of writing your own Wikipedia article. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  18:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We should never parrot a falsehood, And we should leave it out entirely if we don't have the RS. Add extra caution for a BLP. AnonNep (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Luckily, in this case, we have a RS... EQ, I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the hyperbole. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part is hyperbole? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that I'm too involved or "not neutral" or "writing my own wikipedia article". Basically, your whole sentence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does look bad when you take out the qualifying language. I just think we shouldn't base inclusion of Wikipedia's involvement too heavily on "Because I was there."-sourcing. And the overall goal shouldn't be to guide the reader to some conclusion because critics of Wikipedia have "gotten it all wrong". That doesn't make the article better. If that's the case, it should be removed as too one-sided, or balanced more. And it shouldn't be controversial to point out that you might not be purely neutral on this subject, even if your intentions are good. I'm sure you've made one or two comments about your views of outside media's ability to report on Wikipedia before. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're speaking in terms of theory and hand-waving - tell me this: Did the Guardian accurately represent how the move discussion progressed, yes or no? The answer is, NO. Did ARBCOM decide on the title of the article, yes or no? The answer is, NO. Stop painting this as if it's just my opinion - look above, the consensus of editors AGREES with me. The overall goal isn't to guide the reader to some conclusion, the overall goal is to report what happened as truthfully as possible based on sources (which includes PRIMARY SOURCES). Please stop the tendentious editing on this topic, it's annoying.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I thought you were advising against Bob's version here; I'm not talking specifically about the Guardian. I'm talking about not giving undue weight to Wikipedia to prove the points you say you want to prove earlier in this thread. The section would be better without the focus on Wikipedia, that with any additions given in order to debunk Wikipedia criticism. And here, the other editor's seem to prefer Bob's version as well, so you can take your own advice not to paint it as just my opinion. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More to the point, this statement is erroneous, "they may miss the main part of the story, which is, it was moved against consensus, moved back by consensus, then moved again by consensus once sources had switched". I think it's safer and more neutral to say less, as Bob K31416 has provided, with the possible addition of the footnoted secondary and primary sources under Bob's footnote to contextualize that statement. I am not alone in preferring Bob's text here. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The various versions viewed in terms of WP:SUBJECT

 * I could live with either Obi's or Bob's version (though in Bob's, I would tweak "it was changed back" to "changed it back"). A downside to Bob's version is that its terse statement that Wikipedia "changed [its article's] name and pronouns immediately" is inaccurate, not the whole truth. Another downside is that by listing Wikipedia among several news media, it implies Wikipedia is a news medium. A downside to Obi's version is that it is closer than Bob's to the threshold of violating WP:SUBJECT. -sche (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's what I was trying to say when saying we were on the verge of writing an article about ourselves. The wikipedia controversy was always more about Wikipedia than the subject of the article. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  23:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And the phrase "which is its current title" can be omitted, as that will be clear to anyone looking at the article. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * According to WP:SUBJECT,
 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)."
 * It seems pretty clear how to apply this guideline: simply delete the last three sentences of the paragraph, and we're done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * well, first, that's only a guideline, and in this case, it is directly relevant to the topic of the article, or at least it was asserted to be so by dozens of editors crying BLP!! - the guideline specifically states "unless it is relevant to the topic itself" - Manning has asked media (really, everyone) to respect their nAme change, and responded to questions about the name change, and then issued statements thanking the media for respecting the name change - so the topic of the name change was/is directly relevant to the subject because the subject himself said it was relevant. I don't think the inner details of the Wikipedia controversy is relevant to the subject, but I do think we are doing the reader a disservice if we don't briefly note that Wikipedia did rename the article but only after a wee bit of drama.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's the three sentences.


 * Delete per WP:SUBJECT. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I've proposed a shorter version above, so deleting the existing lines is moot 2) more importantly, you need to read WP:subject, which explicitly states you can ref Wikipedia article if it's related to the subject - and we've already established that it is related to the subject, because the subject made it so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems contradictory to argue that Wikipedia was significantly and directly relevant to the subject to include sentences that argue it wasn't relevant to the subject as "a wee bit of drama". If you want to keep it in the main body of the article based on it having an impact on the subject, then it has to show the impact on the subject. That would have to be added to the section if it stands if you want to be fair to those BLP concerns. If it's not significant to the subject herself and we go with Bob's suggestions, a new reader will still be informed of the fact that we eventually changed the title, by looking at the title. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  08:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "I've proposed a shorter version above, so deleting the existing lines is moot". This isn't an argument against Bob K31416's proposal. It just says because you're proposing something we shouldn't discuss another option. Some people could consider this high-handed, regardless of your intent. It could equally be said that Bob's proposal makes yours moot, if adopted. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  08:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (And for reference, WP:SUBJECT suggests that the Muhammad picture Wikipedia protests are not enough to be included as a mention on the article page itself and that the subject mentioning Wikipedia shouldn't be enough either, and we have nothing exceeding those situations here. The criticism wasn't as strong and the subject hasn't mentioned Wikipedia specifically. I argued that the article could hurt her as it was, if she became aware of it, I don't think that should be used as evidence that it historically did without question. And it's not a matter of not documenting the criticism, it really should be done elsewhere, as with other Wikipedia controversies.) <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  08:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I don't think any of the versions (the current version in the article, Obi's version, or mine) are acceptable per WP:SUBJECT. As I mentioned, we should simply delete the last three sentences of the section Gender transition, and we're done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bob, you need to defend why we would have a media reactions section but *not* cover Wikipedia - I think you're taking far too strict an interpretation of WP:subject which is, again, only a guideline, and if that guideline prevents us from mentioning Wikipedia within the media reactions section then we should simply ignore it. Almost every source I saw that discussed the Media reaction to Manning transition also mentioned Wikipedia explicitly by name - the sources I listed above are a small subset - so we need to give due weight to Wikipedia accordingly. I'm not saying this because I want to trumpet Wikipedia, I'm saying this because, in the context of a section on 'media reactions to Manning's name change' (which as a subtopic is directly relevant to the subject and important enough that the subject commented on it!) - that it would be silly to not mention Wikipedia out of some false sense of modesty. If we do mention Wikipedia, we need to hence explain a bit about what happened, because saying 'that page was finally moved on October 8' is not sufficient and will confuse readers who heard it was moved immediately, and only saying the page was moved immediately (hiding the rest in a footnote) will confuse readers who heard how Wikipedia has misgendered Manning and blah blah blah. Several editors have agreed with the version I placed above, others like yours, so I think we just need to find a middle ground between the two - I'm happy for it to be short and to the point, but we should document the flip flop as RS have documented the flip flop here in more detail than any other media source out there. Since they cared, we should too. Finally, there was a consensus to merge this media reactions section here - by a broad group of editors - that to me means, they felt that a small section on same within mannings article was warranted, so that's a mitigating factor and another reason for an exception to wp:subject if necessary. In other biographies we have long sections devoted to critical reviews of their work, people they've influenced, etc, so a few lines about how the media reacted after manning asked them to react is completely justified.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to give more attention to Wikipedia here, on this page, than any other media source. Explain it somewhere else and leave a link to it in the footnote for "confused" readers. That's the way to satisfy WP:subject and still document Wikipedia to whatever extent you are pushing for. Everything past "If we do mention Wikipedia, we need to hence explain a bit about what happened" can be handled somewhere other than the Chelsea Manning page, as WP:subject suggests, for good reason. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  14:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And the fact that people wanted a mention of the entire media controversy doesn't mean they were pushing for a big chunk of Wikipedia on this page. As -sche has pointed out Wikipedia shouldn't be classed as news media if it can be helped. A mention and direction are what's necessary, not a distracting breakdown. The New York Times had a more significant process regarding their use, as far as the subject went, and they aren't even mentioned. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  14:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Obiwankenobi, I think you're hanging on to an untenable position too tightly. It's time to let go. Note that when I read WP:SUBJECT, I realized that my version like yours and the three sentences shouldn't be in the article either. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether we like it or not, wikipedia is considered part of the media. If the claim is that media reaction to Manning's announcement isn't relevant here, that goes against the previous consensus to merge the information here. But fine, if the two of you want to overturn that consensus, then the next step should be deleting all media reaction - you've given no reasoning to keep other mentions of media but not mention wikipedia, besides an overly tight reading of WP:SUBJECT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is saying to not mention the media controversy or to not mention Wikipedia. Don't blow it out of proportion, please. I never said Wikipedia shouldn't be mentioned at all. Mention Wikipedia and direct to a different page, where we could have a balanced exposition of the controversy. That is what wp:subject suggests, and it's sensible. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that this article had the effect in the real world that the Muhammad Pictures controversy had. This doesn't overturn the consensus to have a section on the greater media controversy. It's asking that Wikipedia not be given a distracting weight. Guidelines have exceptions but I don't think this should be one of them. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Bob is saying - per WP:SUBJECT, don't mention wikipedia at all. I think that's a poor reading, and worse for the encyclopedia, so we should IAR and mention it, and mention (briefly) what happened here. Can we stop debating and get back to wordsmithing?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right regarding what my position is, however I would be willing to compromise with a footnote that links to where the info is elsewhere in Wikipedia. Regarding Obiwankenobi's earlier  comment about  "previous consensus to merge the information here", the Wikipedia info wasn't part of the merge. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We need not hide valuable information away in some footnote somewhere. WP:SUBJECT says

The Wikipedia controversy did get media attention, even a statement from one of the top WMF reps on her website.  Konveyor   Belt  16:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, can we get back to wordsmithing and end the wikilawyering? Bob and EQ are both ok with one sentence + footnote; I (and others) are proposing two sentences. Can we really not find a common ground between these two positions?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I said that I would compromise with a footnote, not with a sentence and a footnote. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Konveyor Belt, Please note that when we look at the context of the sentence that you quoted, we see that it is referring to a case where the subject of the Wikipedia article mentions Wikipedia. That isn't the case here because Manning didn't mention Wikipedia regarding the issue of her name. For reference, here's the whole paragraph from WP:SUBJECT.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hiding information in a footnote is not a way to build an encylopedia.  Konveyor   Belt  17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As for my opinion, I feel that we could do with only one sentence and perhaps leave it at that. The best way to compromise is to remove details and just add in a simple, non POV sentence, which I will draft soon.  Konveyor   Belt  17:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Re "Hiding information in a footnote is not a way to build an encylopedia." — Actually, the info shouldn't be in there at all, according to the guideline. I was just compromising by mentioning the possibility of a footnote, which shouldn't give much more than a link to where the info is elsewhere in Wikipedia. Please note that it's a matter of putting in appropriate info, not inappropriate info. Guidelines such as WP:SUBJECT are helpful in this regard and reflect a consensus of Wikipedia editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Potential Compromise
My sentence:

Short and simple, enough to provide context but not puff up Wikipedia or provide undue weight. What do you guys think?  Konveyor   Belt  17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * resp. to Bob: As has been noted, that guideline has a specific exception about information being relevant to the topic (i.e. "If publicity regarding an article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia, that information would not be included in the article, unless it is relevant to the topic of the article itself.") My math is as follows: Manning asked everyone to call them by a new name, Manning's lawyer and Manning responded to questions about the new name, Manning responded to thank people for using the new name - therefore, media usage of the new name was relevant to the subject and to the topic of the article, specifically, the sub-topic of Manning's gender transition, where how the media reacted was a specific ask on the part of the subject. If we leave that part out, we're missing an important part of the story - especially since this part of the story was extensively covered in RS. Wikipedia was part of that media usage, and there was extensive media coverage of wikipedia's shift, moreso than any other source as far as I can tell. Therefore, we need to give wikipedia due weight.
 * Here is an alternate sentence (without refs for now)

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi, If you're going to respond to me, please do so where I made my comment, where I think I have already addressed your remark about an exception, which I showed was not for the case at hand. Please see my message of 17:00, 31 October 2013. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose both per WP:SUBJECT, which says,
 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves (even if an article itself becomes famous, it should not report this about itself)."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we quit the goddamned wikilawyering?  Konveyor   Belt  20:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Konveyer Belt's is closer to good. I just want to note that the previous not-clear/possible?-consensus on this from the now-merged [Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage] showed that people opposed it on WP:subject grounds, and some of the people who allowed it, allowed it because it wasn't going to be on this page. The link above in the tag doesn't seem to work because of this edit. I think this should be fixed in the bannertag, otherwise the debate here is buried for anyone clicking that link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaqueate (talk • contribs) 21:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * while I welcome konveyor's efforts to find a compromise, their version is incorrect - there were two discussions, both of them proper though we should skip that word; one determined no consensus for the original move, the second determined consensus for a move.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that your definition of discussion is anything ending with a decision and closure by arbitrators. Otherwise some people might say there were three or more discussions. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  23:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * if you count threads opened in various places during the forestfire, there would be dozens, but the imoortant ones for our purposes were the formal structured discussions focused on the title, as it was the result of those discussions that ended up moving the page. You'll notice my version avoids these problems. I'm not sure what purpose your comment has other than to be snarky and score a point? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that page moves were overturned and that after a recent discussion the page was moved again, is not incorrect. There's no reason to get into a wonkish consideration of which parts of the overall discussion were the formal "discussions" that mattered enough to be added to this BLP article, because the reader doesn't care and is not hurt by not having this subjective summary offered to them. That's the point of not expanding the text beyond the results of those decisions into explanations of our process. The story of how the page moves happened should be told on a more appropriate page. And please stop negatively characterizing my comments to dismiss them. My last comment had no snark that I can see, and in any case you should consider your own tone in these discussions before you start to correct mine. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  09:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comment — As I mentioned in the discussion in previous sections, the last three sentences of the section Gender transition shouldn't be in the article either, per WP:SUBJECT. Note that those three sentences are the ones that the above two proposals are meant to replace. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to say we should tell the whole story, I'm just saying we should have one sentence about it. I have seriously no idea why you two are fighting so hard against one sentence - it doesn't make any sense, esp since I believe you supported the whole spin-off article. And yes, suggesting that there were page moves that were undone and then there was a proper discussion is patently misleading - it suggests that before October, there weren't any proper discussions at all. Again, my version doesn't have any of these issues. Finally, your comment was coupled with a snarky edit summary (something like 'secondary sources are looking better and better') suggesting that I was somehow relying too much on primary sources to determine that we had 2 instead of 1 formal discussions - for some reason you felt it necessary to nitpick. The only reason, again, that I think we should cover the early move + the move back is because RELIABLE sources covered same, in detail, so telling that story quickly to the user is completely within reason especially within a paragraph that discusses media reaction.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not fighting against something like Konveyor Belt's sentence which puts the involvement closer to the same level as other sources (without the words "a proper", fixes it, I think). <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  14:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you saying I'd supported the merged spinoff article? Where did that come from? I don't know what you're saying here.) It's true that some other article would be a better place to hash out the move, rather than here, as is suggested in the guideline. Again, because the article was discussed in sources is not a reason to lay out what happened behind the actions on that article's page. It's better to avoid that. Your approach seems to concerned with characterizing the discussions behind the moves, when I don't think you can or should do that here. It goes from primary source to POV too quickly, regardless of how neutral you feel you're being. These things can't be summarized as pure consensus when some of your sources note they are arbitrator-imposed. Any instinct that you have to describe the reasons behind any of the moves will end in POV territory, despite your intentions. That's why the guideline makes a good argument in not making claims about Wikipedia on Wikipedia articles concerning other subjects. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  14:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the moves were arbitrator imposed; they were all done by consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, closed by administrators, and none of the closes were formally challenged or overturned. There's no such thing as "pure" consensus. And no, I disagree - describing what the community decided as consensus is not POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let us open up a non-biased Rfc rather than squabbling.  Konveyor   Belt  16:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC) How about this, and yes I realize it is TWO sentences, but it covers an aspect of the issue that was not mentioned in the "three sentences", namely the pronoun issue, which is mentioned in relation to the other "media." I have not included citations, I just want to see if I can help with this compromise wording. I am not completely satisfied with the second sentence, but I do not know how to do better in one sentence. Neutron (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi-Wan Kenobi's suggestion best reflect the actual events on Wikipedia. Konveyor Belt's version is misleading since it implies that the first move request (after the announcement) wasn't proper. --Space simian (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Not bad - however, you give a lot of weight to the pronouns; whereas wikipedia actually switched pronouns pretty quickly and even though there was debate behind the scenes it never switched back. How about this:


 * I still think I prefer my version, but I tried to shorten yours and make one sentence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding a semi-colon isn't really making something "one sentence". On a small note, you can change "Almost immediately after" to read "One day after", and it will be both shorter and more precise and objective. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the number of sentences (which really should not be the focus of this, the focus really should be on keeping the amount of information provided in balance with the rest of the section), I agree with Elaqueate. Obi, what you have there are two complete, independent sentences, with a semicolon between them.  On the subject of the pronouns, I think it is important, and it is mentioned in relation to the "other" media.  My focus is not on the internal Wikipedia debate, but on what the reader sees, and what the reader saw is that while other sites/outlets took some time to reach a decision on the pronouns, Wikipedia changed "almost immediately."  (I'll get back to that in a second.) This is worthy of mention.  I do not necessarily object to merging the first sentence into the second as you (Obi) have done, then I would suggest replacing the semicolon with a period, then go back to my version with the second sentence changed so it begins "The title was then switched back and forth..."  I think that your description of how the title was changed to "Bradley" is the subject of some dispute.  Again, I am trying to ignore the internal WP stuff almost completely.  I also think the "back and forth" belongs in there because, by my count, the title was changed a total of six times to get to where it is now, and I think a hint of that is appropriate.  Finally, Elaqueate, I don't see how "one day after" is accurate.  From what I can figure out from the sources, the public announcement was first made on the morning of August 22.  A source in the intro, from Today.com,  is time-stamped 7:53 a.m. (Eastern time) on that day, and says the announcement had been made that morning.  The edit history of the article shows that the article was first moved at 8:18 a.m. (Eastern time) on August 22, and (based on looking at the edit history, I didn't look at each individual edit) it appears that the changing of the pronouns was completed by 8:43.  I do not know exactly what time the announcement was actually read on television, but I believe the Today Show starts at 7 a.m. Eastern (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't watch it) so we would be correct in saying either "Almost immediately" or "Within two hours."  Neutron (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch. That's what I get for relying on Obi's version of the events. "the day after the announcement" was from his suggestion above. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, as long as we get it right. I have just tried my hand at merging my version and Obi's as I suggest above.  While doing so I noticed the word "finally" in Obi's version, I really think that needs to be out because it has implications we should not be making.  The reader can see that the "issue" began on August 22 and that the move to the current title was made on October 8, and each can decide for him/herself whether that was too long a period, too short or just right.   Anyway, here it is (and if anyone else can figure out how to indent the  box (and my signature) to match my comment, please do so; I just tried, and the box and words went flying in different directions):

Neutron (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "switched back and forth" - as these initial moves happened within minutes of eachother and aren't relevant. It *is* relevant, and was covered in the media, that wikipedia siwtched back to Bradley, and stayed there. Your version of the events makes it seem like it alternated between Bradley and Chelsea for weeks, but that's nothing like the truth, which was that by 10:34 on Aug 22, the article was stable at Chelsea, and then on Aug 30, it went back to Bradley, to stay there until October 8. I think the back and forth that admins were doing on the morning of Aug 22 is not worth covering as such. here is a revised version:

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need three self-referencing sentences?
In the section “Gender transition”, there are currently no fewer than three sentences in the article about the article. Even if this incident bears mentioning (which I’m not convinced it does), three sentences devoted to it just seems self-indulgent, at least to me, and a blatant violation of WP:SELF for something that’s really not that important overall. If there’s no consensus on what to replace it with, can one or two of those sentences just be removed? —Frungi (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Plz see the section above; two new/shorter proposals are under discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And in the meantime, we have three full sentences talking about us. Not the WP article’s impact on the subject (if there was any), just editorial decisions that aren’t claimed to have affected anything. —Frungi (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your points are right on. Note that the proposals Obiwankenobi referred to have the same problem you are referring to. The three sentences should simply be removed.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we please not continue this discussion here? There is a whole section above where editors have weighed in - please read the discussion above and continue there rather than starting a new section here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Similar to Frungi's point, in the meantime why not simply delete the three sentences for now, and continue the discussion in the other section regarding the two proposals there for adding material? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What the heck, I just made this section a subsection of the above one. Maybe that will satisfy everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While the replacement is being decided, would anyone object if I removed (for now) the two sentences about the title being reverted and then re-renamed? I think the important piece of information there is that Wikipedia switched early. I don’t know why that’s more notable than any other unnamed organization that might have done the same, but that seems to be the most relevant fact here. —Frungi (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Rfc?
Should one be established? It seems we cannot make a proper consensus here and I want some outside opinion.

By the way, I have revised my version so it can possibly be used for the Rfc at Konveyor Belt/Manning  Konveyor   Belt  17:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please include complete removal as a choice per WP:SUBJECT. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll be asking people directly involved in the discussion and opposed to each other, "What really happened?". This is why the advice not to have this kind of thing on an article page about something else is good advice. __<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  18:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is an RFC, here is my present position on the matter: Unless Wikipedia’s editorial decisions have had some impact on the subject of the article (in this case, Manning), or on public perception of the subject, they are irrelevant to the article. This was certainly notable for Wikipedia, to the point that the executive director of the foundation weighed in on it, so I would have no objection to its inclusion in an article about Wikipedia. But the majority of articles in any encyclopedia are not about that encyclopedia, and what goes on behind the scenes really doesn’t matter. My understanding is that the title of this article had no impact whatsoever on Manning’s public or private life, and that the media reaction to the title of this article had no impact whatsoever on Manning’s public or private life; so there’s no reason to mention it at all in this article. —Frungi (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted earlier - (1) Manning ASKED the media to call her Chelsea (2) Manning's lawyer answered questions from the media about how Manning wants to be called (3) Manning then THANKED the media and others for calling her by her name. In any case, for your position to be consistent, it would require removing every mention of the media reaction, which to me, doesn't make sense - because then we have a story about how Manning changed her name, and then we don't tell what happens next out of some false sense of modesty? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is (meant to be) an encyclopedia. Now personally, I don’t consider encyclopedias to be part of the media. Media reaction to the subject of an article is of course relevant to the article, but media reaction to the article itself generally is not. This seems to be one of those cases where it’s not. —Frungi (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As the 6th most-trafficked website on the internet, Wikipedia is indeed part of the media, whether you consider it to be so or not - even if it's not part of the traditional corporate-controlled broadcast media. The broadcast media covered Manning's transition, and the media then covered how different media outlets treated the transition - e.g. did they call him Bradley or Chelsea? Her or him? Wikipedia was included in these lists, and wikipedia was covered in more detail than any of the others. Again, it would be rather silly if we covered media reaction to Manning's transition, but didn't mention wikipedia's reaction, so if you're arguing that what Media calls Manning or what caption they put under her photos is irrelevant to Manning, go ahead and make that argument, but that would mean removing all mention of media reaction. The way Wikipedia *reacted* to Manning's transition was by changing the title of the page, that was OUR reaction to the announcement, and that reaction was COVERED in RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi's argument seems to be that because our subject has an expressed opinion on all media, that we should include the story of how our specific page changes happened. Does not follow. We can tell that story on a Wikipedia-specific page, as we did for Amanda Filipacchi, where a controversy actually affected the subject of the article. Please notice that we manage to talk about what was reported, without using a single primary Wikipedia source, and without going into detail about anything Wikipedia did internally, and without inserting an internal POV into the article itself. If it's possible there, it's not impossible to avoid here. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, Obi believes that if you're covering media reaction to Manning's rename, it is ridiculous to avoid talking about wikipedia because of some guideline which doesn't even apply if you actually read it carefully; and avoiding mention of wikipedia is a violation of WP:DUE (which is a policy). Stop harping about the primary source EQ, that horse has left the barn and consensus was to keep AND to delete the guardian ref, so give it up plz.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... I must be the one that's harping here. I'm only talking about your repeated requests to tell more of the Wikipedia story about this article, on the article itself, and not whether to mention Wikipedia at all. I'm okay with a primary source to describe that a discussion happened, but not to interpret the discussion from your own experience. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Plz stop beating the horse EQ. No-one else has glommed onto your POV that I have somehow misrepresented what happened here. Can we stop talking theory and focus on which sentence to add back to the article, please?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, mention that Wikipedia switched to the new name, alongside the other big names that did. I don’t think there’s currently any need for any more than that in this article. —Frungi (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Frungi, I'm sorry but I really wish you would read CAREFULLY the discussion that already happened above. We have two proposals on the table to quickly mention what happened at wikipedia - so I'm glad you've finally come around to accepting that we *can* mention what happened here. If you'd like to propose a 3rd one-liner, please do so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I propose simply altering the text that’s already there:
 * —Frungi (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. Do you see why this might not be a good idea? Because wikipedia changed back, and stayed changed back for a month, and the media COVERED the fact that we changed back for a month, and there was an uproar on twitter and blogosphere about the same thing. So by only mentioning the initial switch, we are misleading the reader in a big way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt this was really as big of a deal outside Wikipedia as you seem to be saying, or I would have expected some mention of it somewhere in major news outlets (newspapers, TV news, prominent sites…), and the only one I saw among numerous cited sources was The Guardian (which I gather got a lot of things wrong). Since it was apparently mostly limited to blogs and Twitter, and since there is no evidence that Wikipedia’s controversy affected Manning or anyone or anything around Manning in any way, I really can’t see how this bit of trivia bears more than a simple mention that the title was changed, if even that. Otherwise, Wikipedia is reporting trivia about itself in an article that’s not about Wikipedia, and why? Just because people noticed? But that would be a valid reason for inclusion in an article about Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the media sources linked at the top of this article, which covered Wikipedia's page move - including wall st journal, slate, salon, daily dot, guardian, new statesman, christian science monitor, la times, us news & world report, and others. Not all media sources covered all parts of the story, of course. in any case, your impression of the coverage is incorrect. The way I see it, there are only two options: (1) Don't cover any media reaction to Manning's name change - eliminate mention of wikipedia and all other media. or (2) Cover the media reaction, taking account of WP:DUE coverage and not avoid mentioning wikipedia out of a false sense of modesty, and explain, as swiftly as possible, what wikipedia's reaction was. Misleading the reader by stating that we immediately moved the page (and avoiding mention that we moved it back) seems like a really lame tradeoff - e.g. a few less words for much LESS understanding.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, that part of my point is invalid; thanks for pointing out those other sources. But I still don’t believe there’s a need to explain anything, at least not here. It’s not about “modesty”; it just doesn’t seem professional, and it’s not incredibly relevant unless you consider this encyclopedia project to be a news-reporting media organization (a classification which I disagree with). Even if you do, it should suffice just to list it among the media that ultimately made the change, if it must list itself at all, rather than single it out in its own sentence(s) when we don’t do that with anyone else. I like Bob K$\pi$’s footnote idea as an elegant compromise. I think I’ve said just about everything I can about the matter, so I’ll probably be bowing out. After one more proposal. —Frungi (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, that part of my point is invalid; thanks for pointing out those other sources. But I still don’t believe there’s a need to explain anything, at least not here. It’s not about “modesty”; it just doesn’t seem professional, and it’s not incredibly relevant unless you consider this encyclopedia project to be a news-reporting media organization (a classification which I disagree with). Even if you do, it should suffice just to list it among the media that ultimately made the change, if it must list itself at all, rather than single it out in its own sentence(s) when we don’t do that with anyone else. I like Bob K$\pi$’s footnote idea as an elegant compromise. I think I’ve said just about everything I can about the matter, so I’ll probably be bowing out. After one more proposal. —Frungi (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(This got edit-conflicted so many times I am not sure what I am responding to anymore, so I decided not to indent it at all.) I have mixed feelings about whether Wikipedia should be mentioned at all in the "Gender transition" section. I actually removed a fourth sentence about Wikipedia in that section about two weeks ago, and at that time I considered removing the rest of it as well, but I did not want to set off too much of a controversy. (It seems that other people managed to do that just fine without me.) However, whether we like it or not, Wikipedia is part of the media, and is widely read and commented upon, and this was kind of a big deal for Wikipedia, so covering what the newspapers and wire services did without mentioning Wikipedia at all, does not seem quite right either. However, three sentences is way too much. We cover the reaction of 12 different media sources (including some of the biggest names in the "traditional" media) in one sentence. It would be good if the reaction of Wikipedia could also be limited to one sentence. But we do have an article (actually, I am sure, more than one) about Wikipedia and its controversies, and the details probably do belong there. Neutron (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please weigh in on the two sentences currently proposed, or propose your own (they are above). Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention that, I just wrote a "compromise" sentence (which ironically is two sentences, but you'll see why when I post it) offline and am about to "paste" it now. Neutron (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

New, revised version: On Wikipedia, although the first few moves were overturned ,after two move discussions her page was formally renamed to Chelsea in October 2013.

The only reason why the self cite should be there is beause there are no reliable sources explicitly regarding the rename, only the initial controversy and subsequent Arbcom decisions.

I will open up an Rfc shortly.  Konveyor   Belt  22:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Konveyor, is that your proposed single sentence about Wikipedia? If so, my comment is that you would need to say "changes in title" rather than "moves", because otherwise any random reader (as opposed to editor) of this cite will have no idea what you mean, nor will they know (or care) what a "move discussion" is.  I also am not sure why the word "formally" is in there.  Either a page is moved or it isn't.  There is no formality or informality involved.  If what you are trying to imply is that there is some sense of "permanency" to the current title (for which you probably will not be able to find a reliable source, and which is not backed up by any Wikipedia policy, but which is nevertheless true in practical terms), I think my version (a couple of sections up) accomplishes that.  I am about to post a new-improved version there.  Neutron (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal that treats Wikipedia as media
Since some feel that Wikipedia should be treated as just another media organization in this paragraph while covering the multiple changes, here’s a proposed change that does just that:

—Frungi (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting compromise, but you are still using roughly the same number of words to describe what happened with wikipedia, but as a reader I am slightly more confused due to the structure, as you've left some things unsaid. Again, given that the media covered wikipedia specifically, as a separate topic, I really don't think it is WP:UNDUE to have one or two sentences describing what happened at wikipedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The New York Times and AP, Fox News etc. were all covered to a greater and broader degree than Wikipedia. There's a strange confirmation bias going on that Wikipedia was somehow more prominent. The New York Times isn't even mentioned now. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree completely, except that the NYT was never listed in this section, at least not that I can see. —Frungi (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Correction: The NYT hasn’t been listed in this section since Bob Kπ’s . —Frungi (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a criticism of your proposal, which looks great. I was looking at the article as it stands now. It's just an example of the loss of perspective and sense of proper weight in the discussion. Wikipedia story isn't bigger than other stories here, and it could be explained on a different page, as we've done for other Wiki-drama. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone remember the hundreds of news stories that came out after August 22 about Chelsea Manning? How many were about Wikipedia? Look at the article. How much coverage have we given to anything that's happened post-August 22? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird, I could have sworn I’d replied to this… I think all the critical information is there: Wikipedia switched to the new name immediately, then switched back to the old one a week later, then switched back again to the new one a month after that. The details and the whys don’t matter here, unless we’re going to go into detail about the internal reactions of other organizations. What do you believe readers would find confusing? —Frungi (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, I feel like EQ has completely forgotten the coverage of this event. Let me refresh your memory - see this list, which was carefully cultivated during the whole mess: Talk:Chelsea_Manning/October_2013_move_request. You'll notice that in bulk, there are more articles that discussed the title of the wikipedia article than those which did not! Of course, this list may not be complete, and there were many more articles about Manning's transition that didn't focus on media reaction, but rather on the incarceration, legal issues, etc... but of the sources that DID cover the media reaction to Manning's announcement, a lot of them - perhaps a majority, or at least a strong minority, covered wikipedia- and a fair number of articles were written exclusively ABOUT wikipedia - not about other newspapers in general, or media in general, but specifically focused on what specifically WIKIPEDIA did! EQ, if you think the article needs improvement, then please go to it. I improved the article, by adding three simple sentences, and since then, this page has been a complete mess of accusations of violating various wiki-policies (e.g. ZOMG we can't cite wikipedia or ZOMG we can't talk about wikipedia b/c of WP:SUBJECT) - all over 3 little lines. If y'all wanted to improve the article to cover more of Manning's story since Aug 22, please do so, and let those of us interested in capturing this one little bit of the story get on with it.
 * Frungi, the way yours is worded is confusing. Yes, the info is mostly there, but I think my two sentences above describes it in as many words, but does so much more clearly. I'd be happy to find a way to trim my version further, but the way you've weaved wiki story in with all the others gets confusing, b/c the wiki story is more complex than the others. Perhaps we could find a way to blend the two? I followed the sourcing on this very carefully, and what happened with most media outlets is, they either switched very soon, or switched after a week or so. If you'd like more balance, we could cover how NY times changed its mind, as well as AP and NPR, but again, the volume of coverage about those flip flops was, oddly enough, much less than the volume of coverage about wikipedia's flip flop. Go figure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Three lines devoted to a single organization at the end of a paragraph of sentences that each covered multiple organizations. Hence the WP:UNDUE claims, on top of the rest. ZOMG multiple issues. —Frungi (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And the argument is that if you ignore the hundreds of articles not about media, and then you ignore all the articles that didn't mention Wikipedia, and then you ignore that Wikipedia wasn't the main focus of most articles that did mention Wikipedia, then you have about five or six articles that prove your point that Wikipedia is very important here. As long as you also set aside what those sources say about us, and focus on the real story, which is Wikipedia bureaucratic drama, that you were a part of, and think is vital. Pointing to a list that includes blogs and the Wikipedia Signpost is not convincing, somehow. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:70%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  09:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, why should we cover media reaction to a reaction in a paragraph about the news media reacting to the identity change? It doesn’t matter if the media (whether small-time blogs or CNN and the NYT) went into great detail about our process—unless we discuss the inner workings of other organizations and how they reached the decision to use the new name or not, this is the wrong place to discuss how we did. If we include this encyclopedia among the news media, fine, simply mention that we’re using the new identity. There’s no need to justify it in the text by saying they noticed us, as your proposal did, Obi, since the citations should take care of that. The only thing that’s relevant here is that Wikipedia is using the new name, too. If the consensus is to also mention that we fluctuated, that’s fine, mention that. That’s it. …Okay, I think that’s just about the last of what I have to say on the subject. To sum up: If you want to treat Wikipedia like a news source, treat it like we treat the others listed in the section; if not, leave it out. And I feel the need to add that this is only my (fairly strong) opinion and understanding, though I think I sounded like I was decreeing it as law. —Frungi (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re my proposal, I’d love to hear some other opinions on this. Personally, I think it’s cleaner this way. Does anyone else agree that it’s confusing? If so, is it because Wikipedia’s mixed in there, or the wording needs work, or the paragraph’s otherwise about journalism and WP is NOTNEWS, or something else? —Frungi (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari's proposal
We should delete the entire paragraph. It's just unencyclopedic media navel gazing. Kaldari (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you mean, no coverage of any media reaction whatsover? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the three sentences devoted to Wikipedia’s reaction, it’s already been done. If you mean the rest of that paragraph about newspapers and the like, I couldn’t disagree more. —Frungi (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of listing the reactions of various individual news organizations, perhaps we should consider a summary without the listing. For example, we could make the change from
 * "Immediate reaction to Manning's request was split. While Reuters, The Guardian and the Daily Mail changed name and pronouns immediately in accordance with Manning's request, many news outlets initially continued to use the former name and male pronouns, including CNN, ABC News, The Boston Globe, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, Politico, The Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Los Angeles Times. "
 * to


 * Feel free to suggest a different wording for the summary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is some value in naming them off… I’m honestly not sure what that value is, so no objections here. But I would change the end to something like, “and others continuing to use the old.” —Frungi (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I could definitely live with Bob's suggested wording. It gives the gist without the tedious list. In fact, I think I'm going to adopt that as my new editing slogan: "gist, not list" :) Can I withdraw my proposal in favor of Bob's? It seems more likely to get support from other editors I imagine. Kaldari (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I implemented the change with Frungi's tweak. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I subsequently deleted the resulting paragraph's last sentence because it was summarized by the first sentence too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So that’s the immediate reaction; what about now? Do the ones that initially stuck with calling him Bradley still do so, or do some or all now call her Chelsea? —Frungi (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)