Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 14

Rfc
An Rfc on whether the Wikipedia controversy on Chelsea Manning should be included in the Gender transition should be included in the article. There are several versions to be considered. 1. Obiwankenobi and startswithj's version: 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. 2. BobK31416's version: 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, 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. 3. BobK31416's other proposal: It seems pretty clear how to apply this guideline: simply delete the last three sentences of the paragraph, and we're done. 4. Original sentence: Several media outlets noted Wikipedia's early rename of the page title from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning, in advance of other media sources.Wikipedia was then critiqued when the page was reverted to Bradley Manning a week later, including a critical blog post by Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner. After further discussion, Manning's Wikipedia page was again renamed to Chelsea Manning on October 8, 2013. 5. Neutron's version: Almost immediately after the announcement, Wikipedia editors changed the article about Manning to use female pronouns in reference to the subject, except where quotations in the article used male pronouns. The title of the article was almost immediately changed to "Chelsea Manning" and was then switched back and forth between "Chelsea" and "Bradley" several times, until a consensus in favor of "Chelsea" was reached on October 8, 2013. 6. Revised form of Neutron's version: Almost immediately after the announcement, Wikipedia editors changed Manning's article to use female pronouns and renamed the title to "Chelsea Manning"; further discussion resulted in the title being reverted to "Bradley Manning" for a month, until a consensus in favor of "Chelsea Manning" was finally reached on October 8, 2013. 7. Frungi's version: While Reuters, The Guardian the Daily Mail, and Wikipedia changed name and pronouns immediately in accordance with Manning's request, 8. Konveyor Belt's version:

On Wikipedia, although the first few moves were overturned,after two move discussions her page was formally renamed to Chelsea in October 2013. (transcribed from User:Konveyor Belt/Manning)

Please give your opinions.  Konveyor   Belt  23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the material encyclopedic per se? Having a Wikipedia article devote a great deal of space to itself is open to infinite feedback loops . I suggest that while the salient facts may possibly be of interest to a reader, lots of material about Wikipedia in an article not designed to be about Wikipedia is errant. Collect (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One or two sentences is not "a great deal of space" nor is it "lots of material." As I say above, I have mixed feelings about whether there should be any mention of Wikipedia in this section, but one or two sentences, carefully limited to what Wikipedia did and not all of the internal maneuverings behind it (about which the average reader does not care), would be ok in the context of how this issue was handled by the media in general.  Neutron (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment on process: Number 6 is not my revised version, it is Obi's rewrite of my first version.  I have a revised version in the "Potential compromise" section which is not listed here; in fairness, I think this RfC may have been written and/or posted before I posted my revised version.  As it is, all these different versions (and you can replace my old one with my new one) are going to get people confused.  Since people are still in the process of refining and combining different versions, my suggestion to Konveyor would be to withdraw this and give people time (maybe a couple of days) to withdraw or change their proposals, which may result in a more manageable number of choices.  At the moment, there is nothing at all about Wikipedia in the section in question, so a couple more days of that would not harm anything.   Neutron (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect. Per WP:SELF, we should minimize the navel gazing (and the meta naval gazing). Most of this material isn't really encyclopedic. I would favor option #3: delete the material in question. Kaldari (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Konveyor, could we please withdraw this RFC for now? We are in the middle of redrafting possibilities; let's wait until we agree on a number of versions - this is premature. Please withdraw, temporarily.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I suspended it for now.  Konveyor   Belt  01:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

birth date - especially year
Is there a source for Wikidata I can integrate? Greetings, thank you, Conny (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC).

Categories
Is it really preferable to have the categories separated in such an odd way? Seems so arbitrary. I combined the categories and sorted them alphabetically, which I do very frequently without problem, but my action here was quickly reverted. I think the article would look much cleaner if the categories were combined and sorted alphabetically. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of work on categories for bios, and it is infinitely more useful to have them separated and grouped thematically, in order to make sure category coverage is complete. Alphabetical ordering of categories is nonsensical, grouping by theme is much better. The comments and blank spaces are invisible to the reader, and help people editing categories understand which categories may be missing. I'd also ask that you not continue alphabetizing category sections; it serves no purpose. See related discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See more extensive example here: Ernest_Hemingway. It would be quite difficult to ensure Hemingway is in all of the appropriate cats if they aren't grouped, due to the complexity of the category tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is largely a matter of preference, and arguments could be made for any number of sorting methods—alphabetically, by importance and relevance, by category… but (invisibly) separating them by category does make for easier maintenance, doesn’t it? —Frungi (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Image
Was reading the FAQ and read question 6 about the image. That's seems like a bad reason to keep the image pre-transition. Shouldn't we be more concerned with facts rather than what the subject of the article likes? I realize WP:BLP and all that, but it seems like a loosely-put WP:COI to honor the subjects wishes in this case. Just my two cents.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 08:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * An image needs to be representative, but also of good quality. She has stated not to mind the current image, that just means she says that feelings shouldn't influence the image that is used. There aren't really any high quality images of her as a woman, so for now it seems moot.Feyre (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Error in template:MOS-TW that is used at the top of this talk oage
There is an error in the template MOS-TW that is used at the top of this talk page. Please see Template talk:MOS-TW#Suggest "names" &rarr; "nouns". Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not an error and should not be changed. Nouns certainly may need to be added, but names are proper nouns and they are gendered and are techincally included in this proscription. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of current first picture
Why don't you use the picture of her as a woman if that's the most important issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the collapsed FAQ at the top of this page. —Frungi (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the contention that "Manning's lawyer has said that Manning is proud of the current main image, and would want Wikipedia to use it until a better one is provided." is sourced only to unseen correspondence directly to a single editor and to no outside source. I don't know why it says Manning would want Wikipedia to use this particular photo above all others. Why are we saying we know this with no evidence that we can look at? It's not just original research, but we've never actually seen the research beyond a comment by an editor that it's true and nothing else. __ E L A Q U E A T E  08:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This was the diff in question . Now, I've known SlimVirgin for a while, she is a deeply experienced editor, and even though we have strong disagreements at times, I think the chance that she is making this up is about 1 in a million. In other words, I trust her, and so should you. This image issue has been discussed ad nauseum, so until we have a note from the lawyer providing us with a new photo, I think we should end this discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing removing the image, and I assume good faith. But the FAQ wording is based on nothing anybody can verify or reference in any way. __ E L A Q U E A T E  17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * EQ has a point. SlimVirgin is not a reliable source, so we shouldn't give this "statement" any consideration.  But as a counterpoint, who cares what Manning thinks about which photo should be used?  Manning's opinion on the photo should be given no consideration whatsoever.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, we're talking about editorial decision making, and we don't have to source our reasons. Manning's preference for the photo is important, because many people have wandered in here and stated "omg remove that photo it's offensive to Manning" - so that stated preference is useful as a counterpoint. You'll notice the support network also uses similar photos of Manning: . TKOP, I also disagree with you; we regularly reach out to biography subjects and ask them to provide a publicity shot that represents them in a way they'd prefer vs going with a free image. We even encourage this on our official help page here: Contact_us_-_Subjects. Obviously, we still have to exercise editorial discretion, but if a notable person sent me an image of themselves that was better than the free one someone glommed off Flickr, I see no reason to not accede to their request. There's nothing *wrong* with listening to someone's preferences on this, especially if its the lead image in their biography.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is an editorial decision and you make good points Obiwankenobi. That said, I, personally, put very little weight behind how people want to be perceived on Wikipedia. More specifically, I don't care how Manning wants to appear either in text or images, so saying to me "Manning would want Wikipedia to use this particular photo above all others" just serves to piss me off because it makes me think she is trying to manipulate her public image. Just my 2 cents. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is there's no statement that she prefers her uniformed picture. Nobody's manipulating the article, but we shouldn't claim we know her opinion in the FAQ when we can't verify the lawyer said it. __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * EQ, instead of continuing to whine about it, why don't you fix the problem? Write to SV and ask her to forward you the email. Barring that, send an email to Manning's lawyer - I'm sure he has lots of time to help us sort out our editorial issues - maybe we could even ask him to get a statement signed by Manning about what photo they prefer and send it to OTRS?? Or, you could just assume good faith, and assume that SV was not bullshitting, and that the Private Manning support network is not bullshitting, and that if there was a major issue with the photo something perhaps would have been said by someone from Manning's camp. The rest is just wikilawyering (waaa we can't confirm this, how do we really know, blah blah blah) - if you're not satisfied with the evidence, go collect better evidence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I don't care about Mannings or her support network's opinion, why should we? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned why - because some have used the fact that Manning might oppose that photo, on BLP grounds, to propose to remove it. The fact that Manning prefers this photo (as of Aug 27) means we can disarm such claims.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * From that perspective, there’s nothing wrong with the current photo. —Frungi (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite Obi being disruptively snotty with me here, I'm not talking about removing the photo from the article. I do think repeating the unsourceable and unverified "stated opinion" in the FAQ as truth and without attribution is a step too far. Getting angry with people for challenging self-admitted leaps-of-faith is not constructive here. Verifiability is not some throwaway concept. __ E L A Q U E A T E  20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If this was a claim made in the article, you would have a very good point. But this a claim made in the header of the talk page. You may notice another claim up there, that we must always refer to Manning as "she" - according to her lawyer, the female pronoun was to be used only for post-disclosure, not pre. So, what is your "sourcing" for "Manning must always be called she"? Because we have a statement from Manning's lawyer that says the opposite... Let me repeat this as you seem to be missing this point - this is a TALK PAGE. Rules of sourcing DON'T MATTER here. I clarified the FAQ above with a link to SV's statement, if it still irritates you ask SV to forward the email to OTRS and they can add a statement confirming the veracity of the email. But please stop whining about it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. It's been changed from something like "Chelsea likes this picture" to something more like "According to a Wikipedia editor, Chelsea's lawyer said she'd like this picture." Much better, actually true, and not claiming something as true that you don't know. That's what it needed. Thanks for doing that, although I don't know why you're still arguing that it's fine to stretch the truth on the talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E  20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, let's talk about stretching the truth. You claim, above, that it used to say "Chelsea likes the picture" - well, no, that's not what it said!!! Look carefully at my diff: . All I added was that the lawyer's statement had been sent to SV - not that the lawyer didn't make the statement, just that it was sent to SV, and not posted on the front page of the NY times. Thus, the statement above before my edit was COMPLETELY TRUE - it simply was missing an additional detail, so it wasn't an error of fact but a (minor) omission. What kills me is that you've made such a massive mountain out of the tiniest of molehills, all predicated on the 1-in-a-million chance that SlimVirgin, noted defender of BLPs and respected wikipedia admin, was just making shit up. I never claimed it was fine to stretch the truth on the talk page, I just said we don't have to have meticulously documented sources behind every edit and template and header and editorial judgement call we make here. Anyway, let's consider this horse well and fully beaten.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I’ve edited the FAQ in an attempt to more completely answer the question by giving a compelling reason against the other photo, namely that it’s lower quality. —Frungi (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

FAQ put up for deletion
Yworo has proposed deletion of the FAQ: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/FAQ. Please comment there, not here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As a male
User:Epicgenius says that "As a male" is an acceptable phrase to use to describe the image despite being inconsistent with the fact that Wikipedia's manual of style says trans women are women. Any thoughts anyone has?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I’m a man identifying as male. If I were to dress in drag, it would not be inappropriate to say that I was dressed “as a woman” and use such a caption on a photo. I’m not sure what a better way to put it would be; the photo (of a male) would not clearly be of a male. Likewise, this photo of Chelsea is not clearly of a female. I think “as a male” implies very well that she’s not in fact a male. —Frungi (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The "as a" phrasing is ambiguous. An old picture of LeBron James could be captioned "James as a Cleveland Cavalier". A childhood picture of him could be captioned "James as a boy". In both cases, the "as a" is indicating what his identity was at the time, but no longer is. However, a picture of LeBron James in a Halloween costume could be captioned "LeBron James as a vampire" without claiming that he actually was a vampire at the time. Similarly, pictures of actors from films could be captioned as with things like "Denzel Washington as a pilot" or "Morgan Freeman as a prisoner" and not be saying anything about their actual identity. So the phrase is ambiguous, and thus best avoided. The better way to phrase it is to use say "presenting as a man". By adding the word "presenting" it makes it clear that the "as a" is describing appearance, not reality. 99.192.65.112 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Transgender issues are not fully understood by most yet, and they are something that has just begun to be worked out by the transgender community themselves. But I think that the consensus is that a transgender woman/man is to be considered a woman/man regardless of their biology, as gender is independent of biology. So "as a" doesn't really work for transpeople in my eyes, as they don't switch between man and woman; they have been one gender all their lives. To me, putting "Manning as a man" and/or "Manning as a woman" sort-of implies there is little difference between a transperson and a drag-performer.--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unarguably, Manning did not look like a female at the time. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 13:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not overly certain why the manual of style is written that way at all. A man is a man, regardless of his psychological self-identity. It's genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.142.207 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Genetics is irrelevant. Gender and sex are not the same. —  Richard  BB  11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely it's fine to keep "as a male" there, if she identified as a male at that point in time. As long as the sentence isn't from a period where she identified as Chelsea, and instead as Bradley, it seems okay to me. —  Richard  BB  11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Transgender-ism (I think that's what you call it) is likely genetics too. "Gender" is independent of a persons biological...ehm..."bits"; it's not a binary Male/Female thing either, but that's a different story.
 * Well, 'transgender-ism' is a really complicated topic, let's leave it at that. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * She identified as a male publicly, but she has said "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female." and that she has felt this way "since childhood" and so had identified as female privately for most, if not all, of her life. We'd need to ask her to be sure I suppose lol. My issue with using "as a male" is that it implies Chelsea is switching between "Man" and "Woman" simply by dressing in certain clothes; what I understand about the issue is that she is to be considered a woman from birth regardless of what she wears...although even that seems to change based on specific transpersons' preferences. To get round such issues, I'll usually just ask someone what they want to be referred as...but obviously we can't here lol --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that mean that her gender is female since childhood? Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While this is going on, there is an ongoing dispute about whether the caption accompanying the image on Manning's infobox should say 'as a soldier', or whether it should have more or fewer precise details. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, yes I think is means her gender has been female since childhood, and this doesn't match her biological sex, hence the term "transgendered".


 * As for the picture caption, I think "as a soldier" is as far as that needs to go. It's irrelevant that the uniform is "Class A male" or whatever. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To add my 2 cents to this, I think "as a male" is good in theory (she may have felt she was a woman at that point, but she's certainly presenting as male here). "as a male" sounds a bit too clinical for my liking, however. Perhaps "as a man", or "presenting as male" would be better? The latter seems best to me. - AJF (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

How about "before transition annoucement"?Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of these (“presenting as” and “before announcement”) sound good to me, for one. —Frungi (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Connelly90, "as a soldier" is as far as that needs to go. It's irrelevant that the uniform is "Class A male" or whatever. The rest is a way to draw attention to her gender non-conformity. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility for the figure caption
Here's another possibility for the figure caption, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning" and here's how it would look in the info box. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect—tells you what you need to know without implying anything. —Frungi (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I implemented it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus yet. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also see no consensus yet. Yworo (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it should just be left the way it is and without any detail, there are too many pointless arguments being made here about a few redundant words that some want to add. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Yworo reverted the change and requested more discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We currently have a picture of what appears to be a male soldier named Chelsea Manning. The current caption "Manning in April 2012", doesn't help clarify.

The proposed caption, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning", mitigates the discrepancy and includes the info that Manning was a Pfc. at the time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well if it means to clarify things then go ahead I really have no strong feelings either way. I do not believe it violates anything as it is referring to Manning in the past just as the article says "Born as a male". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (BTW, the article doesn't say "Born as a male", and neither does the proposed caption make such a reference.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about MOS:IDENTITY in your edit summary, that guideline doesn't apply here because no pronouns are used and neither are  nouns such as man, woman, etc. If you think otherwise, please explain. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)--
 * I honestly don’t understand this revert. As it stands, the photo doesn’t make sense in the context of an article about a woman. The proposed caption states objective facts which help that photo make sense in this context, and MOS:IDENTITY supports making sense (e.g., avoid phrasings like “he gave birth”). The most substantive objection I’ve seen here is that there’s “no consensus”—why not? What, if any, are the compelling reasons against this change? —Frungi (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the clearly worded box at near the top of the page about how to treat transgender people. It states: "the gendered names and pronouns". This is not just about pronouns, it's about names as well. I am not going to object to the three "born as" uses of the former male name in the lead, the info box, and the text about the subject's birth. But the subject's former male name should not be injected anywhere else in the article. It's not necessary and it's also presumed by policy to be offensive to the subject. Yworo (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re your comment "clearly worded box at near the top of [this] page about how to treat transgender people. It states: "the gendered names and pronouns"." — "names" is an error in the template for the worded box. It should be "nouns". Please see Template talk:MOS-TW#Suggest "names" &rarr; "nouns". --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the "Born" field with the birth name is directly below the caption. What is it you think people are not going to understand when viewing the infobox? Gender and sex are not the same. Regardless of your personal opinion, that picture depicts a female-gendered person who happens to have a male-sexed body. If you don't understand this, I recommend reading the book Transgender 101 (ISBN 978-0231157131). Anyone who has only a shallow understanding of these issues is really not qualified to discuss how naming should be treated in this article. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Stop telling people to read the books you want to them to read, say somthing like: "Transgender 101 (ISBN 978-0231157131), has a good explination of what many consider the difference between sex and gender...". 2. Different interpretation does not equal "shallow understanding". I am so tired of these "it is this way because  says so" arguments. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is irrelevant; the reader’s understanding is the point. No one is claiming with these edits that her name is Bradley or that she was male. It’s a matter of historical record that she was known as Bradley at the time of the photograph. I really don’t think it’s inappropriate to merely mention that in cases where a lack of such clarity may be baffling to the reader, such as this one—a photograph that is unambiguously male in appearance featured on an article about a woman. —Frungi (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're wrong. Please try to be more sensitive to the feelings of the subject. The reader can figure it out by reading the article, which is what it is here for. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the feelings of the subject were a primary concern, we would not allow any sourced criticism or anything potentially embarrassing in any BLP articles, no matter how relevant. This is not the case. We’re here to serve our readers, and presenting this photo in an initially confusing manner really doesn’t seem the best way to do that, even if readers can “figure it out” later. —Frungi (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you don't seem to understand transgender issues. Intentionally referring to the subject by the wrong pronouns or name is equivalent to using the N-word in an article about an African American. And that's certainly prohibited by BLP. Yworo (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And as I said, the "Born as" field is directly below the caption! Why repeat the former name twice in a row? That's ridiculous. The reader will take in that information at a glance without needing it repeated unnecessarily. It ain't broke, and doesn't need to be fixed. Yworo (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It’s not “referring” to her as Bradley. It’s stating that she was known by that name at the time of the photo. (Going with your inappropriate comparison, this would be like stating that an African-American was called the N-word in some instance, given that this fact was relevant to the context. But here it’s more like if this person had told people that the N-word was his or her own name, which is absurd.) And as I said, whether I understand transgender issues isn’t the point here; my concern is whether readers who don’t understand transgender issues would understand the photo with its current caption. But you do have a point in your latter comment; let’s see what the consensus is. —Frungi (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With the article scrolled to the top, the reader sees not only the birth name directly below the caption, they also see it in bold in the first line of the article! I see no possibility of the reader misunderstanding the caption unless they can't read English, in which case changing the caption will do no good. Yworo (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that being born Bradley Manning explains why a transgender woman named Chelsea is dressed as a male soldier. That was the reason for the proposed caption,  "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article also backs up this proposed sentence: "Throughout her early life Manning was known as Bradley" I do see a consensus here for it's inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like Yworo is alone here in her opposition to the proposed caption, although CombatWombat42 might be too. Perhaps User:CombatWombat42 would care to express support or opposition and explain why? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't give a ... I just wanted to point out that at that time there was no consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:CombatWombat42, What's your opinion now regarding consensus? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Manning in April 2012" is ideal for me; there is no need to add more. Sepsis II (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That caption does not help mitigate the discrepancy of having a picture of what appears to be a male soldier named Chelsea Manning. The proposed caption does, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning." --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Either "Manning in April 2012" or "when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning" are best in my books. "As a man" is fraught because as mentioned above, it brings in all kinds of connotations with drag, and implies she was a man, which is just a mess in TG language. As mentioned by others, "when known as" is not, in my humble O, misgendering. Although my top choice would simply be to add the year and omit the name and implied gender of the person in the photograph. I think people will get the picture pretty quickly when reading that this is an article about a trans* person, and why on earth should the omission of her name at the time be confusing? Readers will get over that hump pretty quickly. Happeningfish (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the idea of good writing is to reduce or get rid of the "humps", which the proposed caption does and the current caption doesn't. Also, without clarification of the picture titled "Chelsea Manning", it might look like Manning was known as Chelsea when the picture was taken in 2012, which is confusing because Manning appears to be a man in the picture. It's simply cleared up with the proposed caption, "In April 2012 when known as Pfc. Bradley Manning." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * support Frungi's change here - "as Pfc. Bradley Manning" helps explain to the user why they're seeing Chelsea as a man.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But they are not "seeing Chelsea as a man". Trans* people are differently gendered from birth, regardless of how they present. This is not a man, it is a woman presenting as a man, and the use of the subject's former name is certainly not a "explanation" for that. Yworo (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Gender is not only internal, it's also a social construction. See Womyn born womyn and cotton ceiling debates for examples of how this is not so clear cut. Chelsea may not have felt like a man when that picture was taken, but people around her considered her to be a man, treated her as such, and she received benefits and privileges as a result of being a man. This is a tension, and it cannot be resolved by simply saying "Chelsea was always a woman" or "Chelsea was a man" - it depends on your POV and there's no "right" answer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They’re seeing a picture that looks like a man. This is not to say that the picture is of a man; it has the appearance of one. At the time the picture was taken, Manning was known as (or, if you’d rather, was presenting as) a man and was known by a man’s name. Do you dispute any of these claims? This is all that’s being asserted by this change—not that she “was” a man. In fact, unless MOS:IDENTITY significantly changes, I cannot support any edit making such a claim. —Frungi (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. What some people feel is manly is not universal at all. Manning was presenting as herself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean here. No one said the featured photo was “manly”. One might say that joining the Army is pretty manly, but I don’t think that claim has been made here. —173.199.215.5 (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thing one should consider if they have a problem saying that Manning had the appearance of a man or looked "manly" in the photo is the fact that Manning was wearing the male Army Service Uniform at the time. While a civilian female is within their full rights to wear what one may call "manly" clothing as a servicemember a female is not allowed to wear a male uniform and vice versa; with the male and female uniforms clearly of different design. With that confusion is probably going to happen if a reader not clear on the full details of the situation sees what the webpage says is a female wearing a male uniform in their picture and clarification should be available. Amducker (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting reassessment
Besides minor issues like the title and the change of pronouns, are there any majors issues that interfere the article's GA status? The last time it might have done was the full-protection, and it was the result of unnecessary self-references, which were eventually removed. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, now that the dust has settled this article should undergo a much needed GA update to check it's status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent RFC
The result of the recent RFC resulted in a change here:. Per the email received by in August, Manning's lawyer has stated that the female pronouns should only be used for post-announcement material. Should we enact this change in the article? I think yes. Slim Virgin, would you be willing to forward the email to OTRS and have the volunteers there confirm the contents of the email? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The lawyer is not the final word on what the subject prefers, as we have seen from the Peace Prize kerfuffle. I think the fact that Chelsea Manning has written a very clear letter that we should not consider her lawyer's preferences as her own, we should wait till we get a direct confirmation from her. __ E L A Q U E A T E  15:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dont you think its problematic that the subject of an encyclopedia article is dictating how the article should be written? Shouldn't there be an encyclopedic standard based on facts and reality rather than the whims of the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.88 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the letter may be authenticated, then yes. And the lawyer is currently Manning's advocate, so we don't need "direct" confirmation. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree with you here. If there's no issue, a lawyer would seem to be someone you could assume spoke for their client. But we can't assume that when the subject explicitly and directly says to ignore what he says unless it's specifically trial related. You can't say you're paying attention to the preferences of the subject if you have to reject or ignore the preferences of the subject to do it. We don't currently know what she'd prefer. __ E L A Q U E A T E  22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Statements or positions filtered through my attorney or other representative should be considered unofficial, unless they deal with purely legal issues or positions, or they are accompanied by a signed "official" letter or release. The addition to the guidance requires a stated preference from the subject, not a stated preference from a source the subject has explicitly disavowed. And she sounds like she likes feminine pronouns...she also “thanks everyone who has avoided misgendering me and switched to using my new name and feminine pronouns”.____ E L A Q U E A T E   22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That was part of a misunderstanding; the lawyer responded with a blog post, and Manning has softened her stance after that statement. I wouldn't push this too far EQ. I'm tempted to write the lawyer to get clarification from Manning, but need to balance that with the desire to not annoy our beleaguered subject.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one in danger of pushing this too far. Please show where Manning has said she prefers masculine pronouns. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to re-open a divisive pronoun discussion based on something other than the subject's preference. The lawyer states that she may reconsider her position and may let us know later, not that she' changed it. This is still in effect: Statements or positions filtered through my attorney or other representative should be considered unofficial, unless they deal with purely legal issues or positions, or they are accompanied by a signed "official" letter or release. __ E L A Q U E A T E   09:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't communicating with a subject in any way shape or form count as a bias, POV problem? Doesn't it automatically establish inherent problems with a neutral narrative? Original research problems? The idea of the encyclopedia shaping/creating the narrative rather than documenting it? Any and all of these things simultaneously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably missed the long discussion at Talk:MOS around the wording, which basically says, if a transgender woman presents as a woman, you use "she"; but if that same person states a preference, then we should follow their preference. I don't think we need to rehash that long discussion here. As to whether we can communicate with subjects of bios, I've done it on several occasions; after all, the subject of a bio is one of the best sources for what is or isn't true; this doesn't mean the encyclopedia is shaping the narrative, this simply means we are using the subject as triangulation towards the truth. For example, I made an edit to a biography of a singer who had noted that some shows she had performed, she didn't actually perform. It turns out that the source said "XX will perform in A, B, and C", but when the tour happened, C was cancelled. This wasn't noted in the sources; many people covered the fact that the tour would happen, but few covered the fact that one venue was cancelled. I think we have a duty to listen to BLPs, and weigh their concerns with the needs of the reader and of course the requirement to have verifiable information. But there's nothing 'verifiable' about calling manning 'she' or 'he' - we could do either one. One way might be, just follow sources - but what if sources aren't unanimous? Another way is, if person X presents as gender Y, just call them by gender Y. Another way is, if person X presents as gender Y but says please use gender F for my pre-transition phase - that was a different me - then why not follow their suggestion. I don't think we should accede to the subject's requests in all domains, but there are a few minor areas where it's worth taking it into consideration. Another example is birthdays - if the subject asks, we are supposed to remove the birthday, even if it's reliably sourced. This is the balancing game we play.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I've run out of troll ammo. Enjoy the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless the consensus behind MOS:IDENTITY is or becomes otherwise, I suggest leaving female pronouns throughout unless we hear explicit confirmation from Manning or her lawyer. —Frungi (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:Identity was changed. But Manning has asked that her lawyer is not her spokesperson for things like this (until we hear otherwise of course) and we've heard nothing from her about masculine pronouns. I'm sure I would be fine with a future explicit confirmation from Manning. __ E L A Q U E A T E  21:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a good example why we don't set up rules encouraging the subjects of articles how to dictate editorial decisions. Input, sure, control? No. This smacks of the same issue being played out again. Twisting anything to present a trans woman as anything but a real woman. We hear you, but the wrong side of history is not a proud place to be. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the implication of paranoia helps anything… I really don’t think anyone here has (or, at least, is acting on) an anti-trans agenda. The only picture we have of her chosen identity is File:Chelsea Manning with wig.jpg, and it’s a crappy picture, so we use the more presentable one in the infobox. —Frungi (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand and fully support the reasoning behind and use of the images the way they are presented presently. We'll have to agree to disagree on the motives of other editors, but it's moot until they act on them to where it disrupts Wikipedia enough that the right people care enough to do something about it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Assume good faith. Please. —Frungi (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen these words of advise elsewhere, AGF is not a suicide pact. We shouldn't ignore the obvious, especially when it causes a constant pattern of disruption and drama. I hope I'm wrong but months of these discussions suggests otherwise. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is not just advice it is a guideline. If you feel that there is a grand thing behind the scenes going on then this is not the place to discuss it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, almost anyplace is appropriate to talk about concerns that affect articles. That atmosphere on this talk page has been rather hostile at times so I'm glad it has quieted down recently. Hopefully that is a sign of good things to come. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Below merged from a later section. L Faraone  20:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would think that the pronoun "he" is appropriate in reference to all dates or events prior to the announcement that Manning wished to be referred to as female. It's not contentious or disrespectful; Manning officially self-identified as male, went by the name Bradley, and was treated in our society and in the military as a male. He was identified, by himself and others, as a male. For descriptions of all dates and events from birth to the Aug 2013 announcement, the name Bradley, and masculine pronouns should be used, which would also cut down on confusion and wordy clarifications. For all dates and events after the August 2013 announcement, it would seem appropriate to use feminine pronouns. - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As per above I would just drop the issue on pronoun usage here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I read the above; it seemed of only tangential relevance to my suggestion. - Boneyard90 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:IDENTITY doesn't support that proposal, nor does it match http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender, or the usage by major news outlets. L Faraone  20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , Your suggestion re pronouns was essentially discussed at WT:Manual of Style#RfC on pronouns throughout life. A majority of the editors there supported it, but that wasn't considered enough support for a consensus to change the guideline MOS:IDENTITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unconvinced, but understand the results of the discussion. If another debate is brought up, I will join in then. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting pronoun edits
From time to time an editor will try to change the feminine pronouns to masculine. It would be helpful when reverting such an edit to give in the edit summary a link to a section of this talk page where consensus decided to use feminine pronouns for this article. I looked but I had trouble finding it. Could anyone suggest such a section that we can link to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt a link will make a difference. The main editing page already has a disclaimer about changing pronouns, so chances are if somebody chooses to edit them anyway they are doing it to make a statement and not out of ignorance of the current policy on the page. Amducker (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, its funny how reality always tends to get in the way of fantasy.-- JOJ Hutton  11:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which reality are we referring to here, that she is a man that thinks she's a woman or a woman that is still technically a man? Or is that the fantasy? I lose the thread sometimes >_>--150.209.85.148 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, what I do know is that per WP:BEANS I see no evidence that all the excess messaging here is doing any good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that she is simply a woman, and biology doesn’t factor into it. Current Wikipedia consensus is to respect transgenderism over biological sex. —Frungi (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That may well be fine for Wikipedia and the editors around here that know this but as raised above I do not think it is going to make a difference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the consensus is to refer to Manning with female pronouns, unless we get better documentation that she prefers male pronouns for the time before her public transition. I don't think wikipedia is making a statement on whether a trans-woman is "simply a woman", as there are many points of view on this subject and what exactly comprises "woman", so I think it's best if wikipedia avoids making such statements.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I ask all participants in this thread to read Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. This is your general warning to drop this subject. The IP editor has been blocked as a non-useful contributor. DS (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

unless the name has been legally changed, we should use Bradley.12.96.87.26 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed and consensus has been reached that we use Chelsea. Consensus can change, but for now the issue is settled and reverting the name is disruptive editing behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We should use the same standard used for other people who have changed their names or have gone by non-legally-recognized nicknames. As it stands, her name is 'Bradley "Chelsea" Manning,' and it's disappointing to see Wikipedia fall to tyranny of the majority instead of being consistent. It should be Bradley "Chelsea" Manning for the title of the article, with female pronouns. Within the article it would be fine to use Chelsea, as that would be consistent with other people with nicknames/alias.
 * Seriously - legal recognition of someone's name is not required. We covered this. Her name is Chelsea. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, his legal name is Bradley, but the article here is titled Chelsea. Because that's the way the move discussion turned out.  Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point it is moot don't you think? Anyways what is the point in discussing this more? Eight years from now when Manning is up for parole then maybe we can revisit things but for now given arbcom I feel this is only going to add more fuel to the fire. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Legal name doesn't matter. We don't list the legal names of people like "Steven Robert Irwin" or "Farrokh Bulsara" as the titles of their respective articles, Why do it with this article? Simply because Chelsea is transgender?--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is covered in FAQ at the top of this page. In short, when she declared what her new name was it became her new legal name. So we are using her legal name. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article name might be based on consensus, but do not deceive yourself, or try to deceive anyone here. "Chelsea" is not his legal name. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please desist. Misgendering Chelsea is not helping anything. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please desist. Just because this page is an echo chamber doesn't mean it has any bearing on good Encyclopedic practice. Bradley Manning is the name he/she is universally recognized by the world population, outside of activist groups like the Guardian. It's going to be reverted back, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but as long as this website is grounded in reality Chelsea Manning is unsustainable. And until you acknowledge this fact the main pages is going to literally never be unlocked. Is that what wikipedia is about, hoarding your article for fear that mean ole' reality might interfere with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.209.85.148 (talk • contribs)

Reaction
This section is one sides, you give a lot of space to glenn Greenwald an ally and a supporter of Manning. I suggest we put in reaction of John bolton, former U.S ambassador. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254071/bolton-wikileaks-treason-punishable-death-brian-bolduc — Preceding unsigned comment added by  MagicKirin11  (talk • contribs)  13:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Above comment is probably referring to Chelsea_Manning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that MagicKirin11 has passed away. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we close this thread, then? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AlexTiefling, Because the editor was a sock? Seems like info is info, and can be evaluated on its own merits. I'm still thinking about whether to add something from the linked article. If you have an opinion about the material, it might be helpful if you expressed it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Deed Poll
Has their name been changed by deed poll (or whatever the equivalent is, and has the transgenderism been confirmed medically? And if not why are they not requirements before changing the name etc?Theofficeprankster (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ, Question 4. L Faraone  21:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Re "has their name been changed [...] and if not why are they not requirements before changing the name?": see the FAQ at the top of this page and, for more detailed discussion, peruse this page's many archives, where the questioned has been discussed in detail numerous times. Re "has the transgenderism been confirmed medically?": yes, Manning has been diagnosed with gender identity disorder, as stated in the first paragraph of the article. Cheers, -sche (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013
The article should say her name is Bradley Edward "Chelsea" Manning. Since she hasn't change her name legally yet. You can use Chelsea in the title though.

76.105.96.92 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but this issue is settled for the foreseeable future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Current consensus is that we should use Manning's preferred gender and name. Manning's current legal name is mentioned in the article, bringing additional attention to it is not necessary. Novusuna talk 03:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013
I suggest you put all female-specific pronouns in quotation marks.

71.59.58.63 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I ask those who keep reverting the removal of this section in what way this proposal does not relate to scare quotes, or how this request can reasonably be seen as in good faith? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have it backwards. If you want to pursue this, you'll need to show that the editor was acting in bad faith. Please see WP:AGF in general and also note the following excerpt from the section Accusing others of bad faith,
 * "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack."
 * FWIW, it looks like the editor's intent may have been to put quotes around things that don't seem official, like using a name that is not a legal name, as mentioned in the previous section, or using feminine pronouns when the person may be legally a male. I'm just assuming good faith here and speculating what may have been in the editor's mind, and not expressing my opinion of whether the suggested edit is right or wrong. You may have different speculations about what was in the editor's mind. In  any case, if there isn't clear evidence of bad faith, then we should assume good faith.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013
Her new middle name is Elizabeth? Where did you get that from? She just signed it Chelsea E. Manning.

76.105.96.92 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source for the middle name Elizabeth comes from this release from Manning's lawyer, found in reference four. Novusuna talk 19:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have to call Bradley HER. It's confusing.
Wikipedia should at least say "him/her" instead of "her", this guy looks obviously male.

I know some don't want his/her feelings hurt, but sorry, it goes both ways. Bradley is still a man by looking at his picture and it is offensive to me as a male with a feminine build to read "her". It's a disgrace to our country. Give him some honor by calling him what he really is, "a man". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.12.249 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between a feminine looking man and a trans woman. Chelsea Manning identifies as female, not as a feminine man, and our manual of style says we should respect that. The photo still appears masculine because, as she is currently detained following her conviction, she has not had any opportunity to have a photo taken with her new gender presentation. Novusuna talk 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree as well that we should be using both pronouns, I know feelings were crazy at the time because it was causing a widespread media frenzy but feelings set aside it is really confusing to readers here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Close?
I don't understand why this discussion was closed. And it was closed after less than one hour of discussion at that! I thought the comment of the closer was a good response that should be part of the discussion without closing. Could someone explain the reason for closing? --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't closed after an hour of discussion, it is closed after months of discussion, it just seems you haven't seen the discussion yet. The link to the FAQ LFaraone posted above should lead you to the discussions and RfC's if you want to take a further look. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there was never a consensus reached for the disputed MOS:IDENTITY bit, a number of readers so far have raised confusion issues here so clearly there is a problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then take the matter to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as already mentioned. If you disagree with the guideline, the solution is to propose changing the guideline, not to propose disregarding it in this one particular case. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt there is much confusion. Take a look at the section above for example. While the section title claims confusion, the sections content claims offense without a trace of confusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only "confusion" would come from the mis-match between the perceived male gender of the person in the photo for this article (Chelsea/Bradley before her announcement) and the female pronouns used in the article itself. This article and it's talk page is not the place to be spelling out all the concepts of gender-identity and trans-issues to everyone who takes issue with the pronouns used. I'd suggest that, if it's causing this much confusion, that referring to a suitable article from this one would help make this concept clearer.


 * Other "confusion" comes from a loud-minority of people who fully understand the concept, but are unwilling to accept a trans-person and their lifestyle...


 * MOS:IDENTITY says to "favour self-designation" on issues of gender identity, so if Chelsea wants to be called Chelsea and considered as a woman, then that's exactly what we should do.--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the OP indicated what the OP thought was a source of confusion for readers, i.e. having a picture of what appears to be a male and referring to that person as a female.  Since this article is about a trans woman, there's bound to be some confusion for  people who aren't familiar with the concept. I think the OP may just be trying to consider how to serve those people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I can definitely see how people could get confused at the perceived mis-match between the person in the picture and the pronouns used; but I don't think this article is the place to explain these complex issues and do them enough justice without getting out-of-hand. A easily-visible link to transgender or something might be useful in this. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion wasn't really against transgender lifestyle. It's simply that before the announcement, and certainly at the time of induction into the US Army, Manning identified as male. Not sure how it violates MOS:Identity to refer to Manning as a man when Manning identified as male (during childhood, much of Manning's early military career), and reserve the female pronouns for the Lead, and the portion of the text post-announcement. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review MOS:IDENTITY, bullet 2, sentence 4. L Faraone  18:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding how it violates MOS:IDENTITY, see the part of the second paragraph that says, "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life...".
 * There was a large RfC regarding deleting or changing it, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_148. As I recall, there was a slight majority to delete it, but that wasn't considered enough of a consensus so it was kept. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers given by the closer of the RfC were: 25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change or 29 Keep 38 Delete. See the discussion of the close for more info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bob K31416, if you knew that why would you seek to reopen this discussion here and dispute advice to take it to a more appropriate page? I'm asking because I know you have things to offer but we should also be aware that this page is under specific discretionary sanctions, including that Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. I don't think overturning administrators to re-debate the text of the Manual of Style here on this page is going to lead anywhere constructive (especially when it's started with non-original arguments), and that's why the earlier discussions you either initiated or participated in were closed as non-constructive. But if I'm incorrect about why you would want to have a forum about MOS pronouns here, let me know. __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting my comments. Basically, I was giving links and info about previous discussions at WT:MOS so that editors who wish to pursue changing MOS:IDENTITY would understand what the issue's status is over there.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But this thread, this one here, was initiated by you to re-open the above discussion solely about pronouns. I don't want to misinterpret you, but I was surprised that you were reverting closes on a page with discretionary sanctions in play. That point seemed like it would have been a better place to suggest the more appropriate place to discuss, rather than opening up another discussion here. It's okay, but I don't think anyone has come up with anything original here. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting my comments. I asked, "Could someone explain the reason for closing?" When an editor responded, I didn't dispute the reason given.  -Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The photo (at the top of this article)
Why does she look like a man? Is she a trans? --Ceroi (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Look under the FAQ at the top of this page for your answer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ceroi. Did you read the first paragraph of the lede? "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public. Manning was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years confinement with the possibility of parole in eight years, and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.[2] From early life through much of Army life, Manning was known as Bradley, and was diagnosed with gender identity disorder while in the Army.[5] Manning is a trans woman and in a statement the day after sentencing said she had felt female since childhood, wanted to be known as Chelsea, and desired to begin hormone replacement therapy.[4]" If you think this is confusing, could you indicate how you would change that to make it more clear? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now nobody has a photo of Chelsea (woman), because she hasn't yet finished her transitioning. But — if she would have — we probably could change the main photo. --Søren 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Søren (talk • contribs)
 * She was also asked about the photograph on Wikipedia specifically and stated that, despite beginning her transition, she is proud of the photograph we have up there currently, and is happy for it to stay there until a better one becomes available. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This last comment is slightly overstating what we know. We don't know if Chelsea has any opinion specific to Wikipedia and we only know specifically what her lawyer thought was appropriate back then, as per the FAQ. We shouldn't really assume past that. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This also has been already discussed per the archives in detail, and more than one reason was given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Manning's opinion should have absolutely no bearing on this article. Even considering Manning's opinion is a clear violation of Conflict of Interest policy. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the policy you cite more closely you might see how it's not a violation. Additionally, the subject is at times considered per Neutrality, Due Weight, BLP etc. even if they're not necessarily accommodated. You might want to review some of the earlier archived discussions to see if your concerns haven't been previously considered. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  21:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If I read the policy "more closely", meaning "if you read the policy and interpret it as I do". I read the policy closely enough. Seems to me this policy has been ignored when it was convenient to do so. - Boneyard90 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, no, I actually mean that COI isn't generally considered applicable in this case, by editors other than me. COI is about direct editing by personally-involved editors, and I don't think any Wikipedia editor involved has been considered or suspected to be family, friends, or employees of the subject, and neither the subject or the lawyer are editors here. I'm not going to ask you to read the policy again if you said you already have but I don't see where the COI violation is supposed to be. I don't understand your assertion. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  02:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not argue for arguments' sake. Is there a concrete change to the article that anyone wishes to put forward? If so, I can't find it, but let's get back to it. If not, lets abandon this thread. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There have been editors who have been in communication with Manning's attorney, and it has been on the subject of this article, the use of pronouns, and the use of the photo. Even if Manning and his attorneys are not actively editing the article, adhering to Manning's wishes means that Manning is influencing the way in which the article is edited. Manning's opinion concerning the article has been used to support editorial directions. Therein lies the conflict of interest. There is no difference on whether Manning personally edits the article, or communicates to others how it should be edited. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not being asked about the facts presented in the article, or to even rubber-stamp the overall content of it, but rather they were asked clarification on the use of pronouns and the picture that was used to head the article. If they requested the actual content of the article be altered in a way that omits something factual about Manning that she maybe didn't want to be on here, then we'd have a different story. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * recent changes to the MOS explicitly allow for following the wishes of the subject wrt pronoun usage I believe. Also, we also regularly reach out to subjects for photos, as they are often the best source of high quality photos that can be freely licensed to us. Check the help screens, it explicitly gives subjects help on uploading better photos of themselves. It doesn't mean we slavishly follow their advice, but I see nothing wrong with putting up a photo that is agreeable to the subject esp since we don't have many other photos, esp very few of manning as a woman.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What the Hell?
Why are you buying into this?--76.105.96.92 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but WP:CONSENSUS disagrees with you. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This editor (76.105.96.92) has pretty blatantly vandalized based on this issue in the very recent past. In fact, many of the recent long threads seem to be provoked by single purpose IPs like 66.30.86.154 and sockpuppets like Ceroi to address topics referenced repeatedly in the FAQs and banners without bringing new information. We end up re-arguing with long discussions and good faith explanations in response to single drive-by comments from an IP with demonstrated disruptive edits. It's starting to feel like if an IP left a comment asking why we have smelly feet, we'd put it to a RfC to prove there was consensus that our feet were fine, instead of dealing with it as someone who has given the banners, FAQs, previous discussions, etc. no consideration. I don't know what a better approach would look like, but it's arguably too easy to provoke conversations most people think are tired and played out.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the collapsing of threads, it leaves the information there if a user wishes to respond, but can be ignored by most editors. That said I really think the best response is to ignore these "drive by edits", and I apologies for legitimizing this particular one by responding. I do think reverting them is much worse than ignoring them and somewhat worse than treating them like a real question, as reverting them gives them what they crave most, conflict and attention. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right about the usual best practice, and I can't say I can improve on it myself. I thought I'd point the last half-dozen threads out so that people see the similarities before the next time someone drops a "Men just can't be women, I say."-type comment. And I think it would be equally unproductive in the end to respond to every stray "Republicans are all evil" comment on the Republican Party page as it would be to respond to every "Save all babies" comment on the Abortion page.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  22:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. Revert -> no attention, no conflict. Works well on other articles that attract trolling. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO to err on the save side, a quick note like CombatWombat did, linking to the actual discussion too, and not going in to it any further is the best approach. Anyone is free to learn how we got to this situtation, but we don't want to go over it again and again. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please alter the FAQ slightly
Please alter question #4 so that it will be clear that no one will take it as meaning that the article should be at Bradley Manning. Georgia guy (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that wording is fine. Why don't you propose new wording. CombatWombat42 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think theres nothing wrong with the wording either (there's also another note below the FAQ dealing with self-identification etc) if you want to change it, propose new wording and I'll happily join a discussion. -- Connelly90 13:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal Name
Manning stated her legal name is "Bradley E. Manning" so I suggest we change the intro of the article to:
 * Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (legally Bradley E. Manning; born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)

--71.59.58.63 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that she has changed her legal name yet again? If so, please provide a citation for this which post-dates her legally effective announcement that her name is now Chelsea. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * She says "I can recive checks and and money orders payable to my current legal name without any titles, "Bradley E. Manning"."--71.59.58.63 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I think this would be a useful reference should the article ever be expanded to discuss the legal or administrative issues surrounding the use of her names.  However, I don't believe this information needs to go in the first sentence of the article—I can't think of any other biographical articles for subjects who are or have been known by multiple names where we make a point of pronouncing one of them as "legal".  —Psychonaut (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Farrokh Bulsara, Phillip Jack Brooks, David Robert Jones...etc etc are not listed by their "legal name". Should we change them too? Chelsea Manning is now her name, and it should be used in all instances; except the outstanding court cases that were brought up post-announcement, for the sake of consistency, as the complaints were raised against "Bradley Manning". A "legally known as..." part is a bit disrespectful in my opinion; like saying "sure, you identify as a woman, but we don't agree with that". As if her new female name is some kind of nickname. -- Connelly90 12:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * not needed in lede Most ledes don't necessarily mention the subject's current "legal" name, and we already mention that she was born Bradley in the lede. If there is a section later on in the article that goes into detail based on RS around the use of Manning's legal name for correspondence/legal issues, it could be noted there that Bradley remains the legal name, but I don't think this is needed in the lede.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary for lede. If added, would look like we are labouring some point. Sufficient as is. --Tóraí (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This addition would be an NPOV clarification that the name "Chalsea" has not been made legal, otherwise readers may be confused between what they read in the article and the name that is used in news sources, especially those that date to before the name-preference announcement. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this wording most certainly is POV, as it implies that "Chelsea" is not her legal name. The citation states that "Bradley Manning" is her legal name; it does not state that "Chelsea Manning" is not. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be "implying", it would be very explicit that "Chelsea" is not a legal name, because it isn't. To avoid the issue is misleading. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what about the current article you feel is misleading, and where you feel you're being misled to. The article currently states that Chelsea Manning is the subject's name.  This is indisputably true insofar as it's an identifier she and others customarily use to refer to herself.  The article does not make any claim one way or another as to whether this name, or any other name by which she is or was known, does or does not have any particular legal status.  Thus the reader is not currently being misled on any point of law.  However, in this discussion we are contemplating the introduction of a claim about the legal status of one the subject's names which is not reliably sourced to any authority on matters of law.  You furthermore freely admit that the claim is worded in such a way that it leads readers to draw conclusions about the legal status of an entirely different name.  How is this proposed insertion then not misleading? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By not stating the legal name, the reader is left conclude that, by de fault, the name of the article must be the legal name. You freely admit that "Chelsea" is the subject's name "insofar as it's an identifier", but an "identifier" is not a legal name. A nickname, nom de plume, alias, or any other pseudonym are all identifiers. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think readers will make such an assumption—after all, it's standard practice in Wikipedia and most other reference works to title biographical articles by the subject's common name, irrespective (and usually being completely silent on the matter) of whether that name has any particular legal recognition. But if readers happen to make such an unwarranted assumption here, they will almost certainly arrive at the correct conclusion anyway, so no harm is done. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except the harm done to accuracy and neutrality, which are two things that are supposed to be at the core of Wikipedia. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is both accurate and neutral to use "Chelsea Manning." As the previous discussion revealed, the common name used by the majority of reputable published sources after her announced transition is Chelsea. The majority of reputable published sources today are sensitive to gender transitions. Moreover, as was also revealed in the previous discussion, there is an incredible lack of consistency as to the very meaning of "legal name" - the states in which Manning has been resident are known to permit common-law name changes, by which a person may change their name merely through use and adoption. Her "legal name" is therefore of no particular interest to us. There is nothing defining about the word "legal" and there is nothing defining about the fact that the military refuses to recognize her gender transition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "By not stating the legal name, the reader is left conclude that, by de fault, the name of the article must be the legal name." Not true. As I've stated above, we have many other articles for people which are titled something other than their "Legal Name" (Farrokh Bulsara, Phillip Jack Brooks, David Robert Jones etc) and an explanation of (Born...) is sufficient for these. What makes this case any different? A "legal name" is obviously based in a nation's law...and Wikipedia is bigger than the US -- Connelly90 09:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're undermining your own point. "David Bowie" may well be the legal name, or one of several equally permissible legal names, of the man who was named "David Robert Jones" at birth.  Without a reliable legal authority to cite, we can't know for sure.  In any case, such information is rarely encyclopedic, but rather a trivial matter of interest only to those involved in legal proceedings.  In the rare event that someone actually needs to know someone's legal name (for example, they intend to sue this person and are required to use some legally prescribed identifier for him in court documents), then they shouldn't relying on a tertiary source like Wikipedia for it. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bowie's "legal name" is "David Robert Jones". David Bowie is his stage name, adopted to avoid confusion with Davy Jones of The Monkees. I think Freddie Mercury might have actually legally changed his name from his birth name I'm not sure, but Phillip Jack Brooks' "legal name" is definitely not "CM Punk". But with legal names, even if we had a reliable legal authority to cite, who's definition of "legal name" do we take?. I think most states in the US don't actually require any kind of formal request for a name change (at state level anyway), and that it can be done by simply using an adopted name, whereas banks etc usually require documentation and other proof to change names on an account. The laws where I live only require 2 others to agree to your new name, sign a document (any document, napkin, toilet paper etc) which says "My old name was X, now I wish to be called Y" and that's that. -- Connelly90 11:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As you say yourself, common-law jursictions tend not to impose statutory requirements on name changes. In such jurisdictions there is usually no reason why any customarily used name, including a stage name, cannot also be a "legal name".  It is entirely possible—probable, even—that such a jursdiction would recognize "David Bowie" as the musician's current legal name, instead of or in addition to his birth name. That is, if you decided to marry him, or sue him, or employ him, then no court there is going to charge you or him with fraud, or rule the contract/lawsuit invalid, soley because his name appears as "David Bowie" and not "David Robert Jones" on the filed documents. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point; nobody is going to be worried about fraud if Bowie appears in court as "David Bowie"! Just further helps this case, that "legal names" are not as set-in-stone as they're made out to be. -- Connelly90 10:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We're not lawyers, we're not here to make legal declarations. This is an attempt to revive the dead horse. Please stop already. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The additional information, if true, would be germane, encyclopedic, and more informative. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But (and I am rather tired of repeating this) there is no uniquely defined entity 'legal name' in the context of Anglo-American common law. People are, at law, called by the names they customarily use. The issue is not whether Chelsea Manning has used another name - of course she has - but whether it is being given undue prominence if we label it her 'legal name'. There is no foundation for this claim, and it's tending in the direction of WP:UNDUE to boot. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As per AlexTiefling, "legal name" is a construct of law which varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even within the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - Disrespectful to add "legally known as...", as it implies her being transgendered is in someway "not real". Also, laws change throughout the world, and Wikipedia isn't confined to the US. -- Connelly90 08:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose of course This doesn't change anything. We already knew this. This could be referenced up the wazoo and it still doesn't change things because we didn't change this article title due to any legal name to begin with because article titles may not be that of a legal name. Moving on.....dead horse is now a greasy spot. Nothing left to beat.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The construct "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)" is standard for Wikipedia articles. Why change it for this one? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  14:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Miscellany does not belong in the lede. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unnecessary and the suggestion reads as an attempt to assert control over Manning's identity. Happeningfish (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and give it a rest. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doing this would give too much undue weight to the lead, I would be okay with it being placed in the article body however. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Undue and misleading. What constitutes a 'legal name' depends on circumstances and jurisdictions - we can't assert as fact something which clearly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary. Verbose. startswithj (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014
Please change 'David Finke' in the third point from the 93rd reference to 'David Finkel', as this is the correct spelling of the name of the author who wrote 'The Good Soldiers'. Source: http://us.macmillan.com/author/davidfinkel

145.107.24.238 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for pointing that out! -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2014
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. WP:SNOW close. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning → Manning (U.S. Army) – Simply using the surname avoids issues about past rank/demoted rank & given/taken first name. 71.59.58.63 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. "Manning" by itself is also a verb (see manning, which is the present participle of "man", with meanings including "To supply with staff or crew" and "To take up position in order to operate something". Therefore, "Manning (U.S. Army)" appears to refer to the U.S. Army's practices with respect to supplying personnel to positions, or having people take up positions to operate equipment. bd2412  T 12:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How many Mannings have there been involved in the US Army? From this one to others. This proposal ambiguates rather than disambiguates, for no benefit. I also don't see anyone saying they're confused about rank at the moment, so this is a solution to a problem that doesn't seem to exist.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  13:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Given that the United States has over 1.4 Million active military personnel, there are no doubt 100s of people who could fit the title "Manning (U.S. Army)". "Chelsea Manning" is perfectly fine, and is the most appropriate title for this article. The current title doesn't deal with any kind of rank within the army, and changing the title to this is predominantly to deny her newly adopted identity. -- Connelly90 13:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I opposed the move to Chelsea last year, but this proposal is dumb. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Proposal is ill-thought. Many Mannings have served in the US Army. Hopelessly ambiguous. Xoloz (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Hasn't this issue already been thoroughly discussed and decided? The subject's name is Chelsea; per MOS:IDENTITY, Chelsea Manning should be the title of the article. Period. I don't see what rank has to do with this. Funcrunch (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:IDENTITY, and because this is an utterly ridiculous 'solution' to a non-existent problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; nominator failed to provide a clear rationale for the proposed move. In any case the target is highly ambiguous as others have noted. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above and close per WP:SNOW. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Shouldn't Article Title Change to "Bradley Manning" Based on Logic of FAQ #4? *See Above*
K, I'm throwing up a Good Faith / Not-Trolling flag right from the get go cause I am generally confused by this.

"Articles are titled based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Article titles, and are usually the name the subject is most commonly known by, which is not necessarily their legal name."

A google english search of "bradley manning" yields 1.5 million hits. The same search of "chelsea manning" yields 1 million hits.

Based on the logic above, shouldn't the article be changed to Bradley as it is the common name by which they are most commonly, broadly known? You could call them Chelsea within the article, but it violates the common enclycopedic principle of FAQ 4# to have the article called Chelsea, as the majority of people interested in this article would not know of this (it took me a few minutes to realize Chelsea was not a misdirect vandalism or something). The first sentenance can be something like Bradley Manning (changed to Chelsea) etc and the rest of the article be Chelsea and she. But it's jarring as hell to search bradley manning, see a man's picture, see Chelsea, see she's everywhere, trying to figure out the vandalism, realize it's not one, lol  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.211.11 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a good example of what I'm advocating. The NYT, referring to them as bradley in the header title but the first article stating Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning within the article. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/bradley_e_manning/index.html?8qa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.211.11 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We're not the New York Times, and Google hit numbers of those magnitudes are basically meaningless. We went over all this twice. Please stop flogging the dead horse. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the discussion of the title of this article consumed multiple archives and megabytes and even an arbcom case and many news articles about wikipedia's various titling dramas. So while you are entitled to your opinion, there isn t much point in discussing this further. In perhaps 6 months or a year another formal move request could be put forward and again launched into a huge debate but absent that I see no point. Please read the old move discussions and notice that your argument, and many others like it, was put forward by dozens of editors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I understand and agree with the original post. I think it's important to note objections by editors who were not present for any of those past discussions. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What?...So we can circle round this again and again every time someone has an objection to a transperson and their lifestyle? Google search results aren't a great measure by which to judge this; As it obviously includes a lot of pre-announcement material. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The debate isn't going to go away, because closing it as it is doesn't close the issue. Bradley Manning remains male, he hasn't changed his body, and he isn't commonly known as a woman, or as a transwoman. Every person who comes to wikipedia looking for information about Manning is going to instead wonder "who is Chelsea Manning?" Any picture of him clearly depicts a man. The confusion is never going to go away so long as the article is titled Chelsea Manning, and editors will continue to try to fix the article so that it makes more sense, probably for a very long time.Walterego (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A trans woman is a woman. And that's what Chelsea is, and her surgical status is none of your business. This matter's been settled here, and it was a long and painful process. So let it lie, already. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A transwoman is obviously not a woman. Manning's "surgical status" is common knowledge, he doesn't have a surgical status because he hasn't doesn't anything about it. He's a man with a mental disorder. The matter hasn't been settled as the continuing debate amply proves. Walterego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the conservative point of view but her mental instability has not been proven to be true per the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This little exchange above is why we put in place this guidance during the move request: "Do not share your opinion on whether or not Manning is really a woman, or needs to have surgery, hormone treatment, or a legal name change to become one. This is a debate about an article title, not a forum to discuss Manning's "true" gender or sex." at discussion guidelines. It's a pointless argument to have on wikipedia, Alex will never convince Walter, and Walter will never convince Alex, and the question is fundamentally flawed because we don't have an agreed upon societal definition of the term "woman" - this dynamic, fluid, and is being negotiated as we speak. As such, I suggest that all assertions that "Manning is truly a WOMAN" or "Manning isn't really a WOMAN" be banned from this page, there's no point and no-one can win that argument.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ben, let's assume good faith here - asking a question about the subject is something different than putting it up for discussion again. IP, if you're interested in the underlying discussion, you could take a look at the move request that moved the article here. As others have said, it's megabytes long, and not as streamlined as one would like (though as streamlined - or even more - than could be expected), but it could give you more insight in how the sausage was made. The amount of effort to finding this compromise is something few are willing to go through again if nothing has significantly changed. But you're always free to ask how things became as they are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The talk page on this article is just going to go round and round in circles till Chelsea is able to take a proper photograph of herself as a woman. Till then, people who are unfamiliar with transpeople are going to be confused.

P.S."How the sausage was made"?...haven't heard that phrase before, but apparently it's a thing! You learn something new every day I suppose --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably is, unless we can make the caption of the picture and the lede even clearer, but I for one wouldn't know how. That's unfortunate, but the only thing we can do is keep explaining it. About the P.S. it's a quote from Bismark, famously(?) applied to Wikipedia by Jimbo Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not Bismark. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the OP's comment about using the most common name for the title, an argument for the title Chelsea Manning was that it was the most common name for Manning that was used in news articles after a week or two following Manning's announcement about being Chelsea. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * MOS:IDENTITY says "An exception to this (the "most commonly used in sources" rule) is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise."; so, considering that her name-change was gender-related, it is my understanding that in this case it doesn't matter what sources say, does it not? --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At the time of the discussion on this article MOS:IDENTITY didn't say that yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if that exception in the guideline MOS:IDENTITY applies to article titles, since it would contradict the policy WP:Article titles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So that being the case what would hold more weight? Policies do at times contradict others but not all policies are weighed equal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an invitation to abstractly consider policies. Isn't there a current consensus that this talk page is not a general forum about policies? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It Is true by the way, for example WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy and one of the five pillars so being neutral would take importance. As for not a forum this section is talking about MOS:IDENTITY which has been debated here and something that impacts the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As the current consensus about the article title considers it in multiple agreement with the policies spoken of here, (ArticleTitles, NPOV, MOS, etc.) then continuing a debate on which policy should be more considered seems pretty abstract at this point, and on this talk page. Of course the title should be generally in line with policies; you haven't offered any new evidence, or argument not considered, that there's a fresh policy conflict here. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "Of course the title should be generally in line with policies; you haven't offered any new evidence, or argument not considered, that there's a fresh policy conflict here." — It might help if you gave diffs of the messages from the old discussions that you are referring to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your request doesn't seem to make any sense, Bob. You want me to give diffs regarding my assertion that KnowledgeKid87 hasn't shown there's a fresh policy conflict here? Or that article titles should generally be in line with policies? Or that the last move request closed with a consensus for the present title, after a long discussion referencing the policies discussed here and more? Is there a brand new policy conflict or development not already heavily discussed and considered that would indicate a need for change? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Bob is asking for Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request. Or are you looking for something else? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful link Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request. (I note that it is in Q2 of the FAQ at the top of this page.) As the closers' statement of 23:25, 8 October 2013 indicates, the last change in article title from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning was based on WP:COMMONNAME, not MOS:IDENTITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I remember now, MOS:IDENTITY was not a factor in the final move outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There are broad issues at stake here with Manning. Like our own article says: “Reaction to Manning's request by the news media was split, with some using the new name and pronouns, and others continuing to use the old.” Until someone has a sex-change operation, U.S. police have a common-sense approach when arresting street prostitutes in drag who announce that they are females and insist that they should be taken to the female wing of the local jail. The police merely ask “Do you have a penis?” The arrestees tend to pause, deflate a little, look down at the road, and admit “Yes.” And so it goes at federal lockups like Leavenworth: Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth. He has all his ‘junk.’ Deciding which pronoun to use should be be based more upon common sense to avoid "!" brain-interrupts when reading the article. The reality (truly) is Manning wrote that he would like all correspondence sent to him in prison to refer to him as “him”; the only “female” thing about him is that's the way he thinks of himself. Wikipedia shouldn’t be exploited as a vehicle to help promote the transgendered community’s agenda to better be respected and accepted to the point that Wikipedia’s articles read awkwardly and defy logic. Our own guidelines suggest rewording constructs such as He gave birth to his first child for obvious reasons: prose that calls attention to itself is poor prose. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's incredibly offensive to think that a person's simple desire to be accepted by their fellow humans, for whatever reason, is a concept that is sometimes talked about in such scathing tone. Even biological sex isn't as binary as you put it here! Chelsea Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth as this was her identity when the charges were brought against her, it wasn't an issue like it might have been with an "out" transgender woman being brought in. All the legal proceedings are against a "Bradley Manning" for the sake of consistency, nothing else. -- Connelly90 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Connelly90, I think you are far too quick to pull out the ol’ “I’m soooo very offended” gambit. Nothing I wrote above had squat to do with “accepting (or not) a fellow human being.” As our own article says on Manning, the rest of the print world is split as to which pronoun to use when referring to him (her). Why is the decision not an easy one? Because as we all trip on our shoelaces trying to be as “inclusive” and inoffensive as possible, editors end up with awkward constructs on Wikipedia like He gave birth to his first child in favor—according to Wikipedia's guidelines—of the rather ambiguous He became a parent for the first time, which holds open the possibility that maybe "he" adopted a child. Note also that since facts still matter, even when someone professes to “taking great offense at something,” it’s worthwhile pointing out that you are just flat wrong when you write Chelsea Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth as this was her identity when the charges were brought against her. The gender an individual believes himself to be at any time during legal proceedings has absolutely nothing to do with decisions regarding incarceration. Even if Manning had self identified as a female and dressed the part at the start of legal proceedings, Manning would have been incarcerated in the men's wing. Why? Because “she” has a penis. (There we go with another “!” brain-interrupt due to awkward prose that calls attention to itself.) That's the practice with all U.S. penal institutions—federal and state. Can you imagine the security problems in prisons if wardens threw women equipped with penises into a population of women who were born women? Please don't try to make this an issue about “taking offense” and “holding the banner for inclusivity.” As I wrote the first time, it’s all about communicating encyclopedically. My point the first time around was simply that prose that calls attention to itself is poor prose. That's still my point. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The nature of Ms Manning's genitals is none of our damn business. Can we please stop re-fighting this? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Anon IP user, what set of private parts Ms. Manning currently has is of absolutely no relevance to the issue and continual references to them will not convince anyone that your position is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your solemn pronouncements, where you pretend to speak on behalf of every other wikipedian on this planet do not make your desire become true. I didn't weigh in here pretending I would convince people like you, or even to effect change in this particular article. I weighed in here because it’s about influencing others: the very many silent wikipedians who have common sense, aren’t nearly so animated on issues, and will eventually weigh in at other, future RfCs. The prison officials have Manning locked up with all the other men because they exercise common sense. Our tripping over our shoelaces to be as inoffensive as possible has resulted in encyclopedic prose that draws attention to itself and looks absurd. But that’s Wikipedia, where really dumb things occur—sometimes for years—before it eventually corrects itself. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Canadian officials today sent a British woman, travelling on a passport which stated her gender as female, to a men's prison without trial because they applied what they thought was common sense. I suggest to you that the 'common sense' of an authority which is acting against someone for reasons unrelated to their gender might not be a reliable source at all. Indeed, it represents a highly biased perspective. I'm astonished that anyone thinks the US military or prisons services can possibly be regarded as reliable or neutral in this matter. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not for one second confused by the wording of this article, but you (IP) are clearly very bothered by this concept. If we are to endeavour to write the article by WP's own guidelines, then we should consider only what Chelsea wants with regards to pronouns etc (MOS:IDENTITY) not what the police force or justice system of a single nation decides, and Chelsea made it very clear what she wants in her announcement. If you wish to discuss your issues with trans people, then this isn't the place to do so. -- Connelly90 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming good faith! For the record, as a social worker I do believe transgenderism is a severe and self destructive mental illness, mostly because in my long career I often see it strongly associated with horrible abuses (physical, emotional, sexual) and rarely do I see well adjusted, stable people from safe backgrounds develop this condition, much as stable safe backgrounds rarely produce self-mutilators, eating disorders, suicidal or homicidal ideation, drug addictions or psychoses. Moreover, I do feel, as a scientist, that a persons gender is real, not a construct, and has real world consequences, as the jailers assigning Manning to the male cell block will tell you, and to place a persons feelings above reality does a disservice to the encloypedic mission. Think about it, what would happen to Wikipedia's credibility if Manning declared themselves a man again tomorrow, or androgyneous, what if they invented their own gender? Wouldn't it be better to ground your encloypedia in concrete, absolute and immutable fact, one imprevious to the opinions of the subject or its editors? Sounds like good encloypedic work to me!


 * But hey, none of that was present in my OP, i raised a valid point without bias and you, the guardian of human rights, responded with ad hominim based on preconceived and, btw, not widely shared opinions :D and you wonder why wikipedia has trouble getting new editors. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.233.250 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2014‎
 * There are many reason for our new editor retention problem. Refusing to go against our own manual of style is not, I suspect, one of them. Novusuna talk 02:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, yes, you did address the ad hominim in your response. Oh wait, you didn't, you completely ignored it but congradulations on your enclyopedic stewardship (with a rapier wit to boot!) :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.233.250 (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2014‎
 * If you (IP) do indeed work in the field you claim you do, then I doubt you would have issue with understanding a transpersons position regarding gender, and that it's definitely not a "fixed" Male/Female thing, but more of a spectrum. -- Connelly90 07:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal claims of expertise aren't a valid source. In this case, I also don't find them to be a credible source. This IP poster has basically made a bunch of sweeping generalisations about trans people on the basis of this claimed expertise, generalisations that are at odds with my experience and are in any case entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. I think at this point (to continue overusing an overused metaphor) the horse is not merely dead, but has been tanned, flayed, and ground to dust. Does anyone have anything constructive to say about Chelsea Manning that does not involve mistrusting her report of her own gender? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This ip 184.36.233.250, by their admission, is the same editor as 66.30.86.154 and is not suggesting anything specific about the article itself and is treating the page as a general forum. I would suggest that I don't think the article is improved by engaging their general arguments. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bradley" is a surname and "Chelsea" is the name of a place in London (and another in New York city). Why would either of them be regarded as gendered names?89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Convention, mainly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Culture. To me "Chelsea" means Chelsea F.C. rather than a name, but all of this is POV. -- Connelly90 09:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a girl named Dagger? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've always associated "Chelsea" as a female name. It is well-established a feminine name in the Southern U.S., since before Chelsea Clinton became prominently known. I was aware of the girl's name long before the place in London, maybe before I was a ware of the place in Manhattan. See Chelsea (name) for a list of people with the same name; they're all women. Not sure why the gender association of the name was brought up. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahem... Chelsea Quealey. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage formatting issues
It could just be the computer I'm on now, but for some reason the TOC is showing up in the collapsible box which has links to press coverage this article has received. That's clearly not supposed to be happening, any idea how to fix it? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the random untitled level 2 header from that box and it seems have fixed it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks right to me too; thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014
This page clearly says that Chelsea identifies himself as a man, but then continues to use feminine pronouns. This is disrespectful to Chelsea's wishes.

169.233.216.79 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The third sentence clearly states she wants to be referred to as Chelsea and therefore feminine pronouns. -- Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP is correct, further per WP:V and WP:BLP  it has to be done. Bradley Manning's a guy (drivers license and every other piece of ID is male, Army lists him as male.  Reliable press reports him as Bradley Manning. So yeah, the IP's right.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No. The IP falsely claims that Chelsea herself identifies as a man. That's untrue, and no basis for changing the page. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Headpalm Your'e right.... sorry, I'll strike my original comments. Sorry!  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm really not trying to pretend this isn't a hot-button topic; but people with strong views on both sides got badly burned last time, so trying to damp things down seems appropriate and prudent. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
I am seeing a lot of posts on this page that fail to WP:AGF and are frankly just arogant. Things like the following: "If you'd like to open up a RM then you can, but it wouldn't have a chance in hell and it would probably be considered disruptive." "Consensus has not changed. Drop it." "Wrong. (See eg.,[1]) Drop the stick." " Arguing that the name "Chelsea Manning" is not mentioned in any reliable sources simply because it's not mentioned in a legal document demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS or is trolling. Either way, please drop it." and "How about no? We went through a long, tedious and painful process to reach the current situation. Could you please stop poking the hornet's nest? And given that you're referring to her with the wrong pronouns, your own view on this seems, well, somewhat partisan." are not helpful and do not help people understand.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are being disruptive, or partisan. It means they interpret facts and policy differently than you. Next time instead of telling them things like those quoted above, particularly the threats, ("be considered disruptive"), either don't engage (if you are tired of engaging) or thoughtfully and assuming good faith, explain why you think they are interpreting things incorrectly. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point. However - as one of the people you've quoted - I must emphasise that the original process was extremely tedious and draining. I have provided repeated explanations of my position, which can be found above and in the archives. So have lots of other people with more time and/or closer links to the topic. I don't believe that assuming good faith means that we have to regard all proposals as equally worthwhile or reasonable. One of the features of Wikipedia's community culture is that we're expected to maintain this terribly smooth debating-society manner while sitting in (virtually impotent) judgment on the lives and experiences of vulnerable strangers. This isn't always the most constructive or sensible approach, and it's one that favours those with leisure time and emotional detachment over those who are busy, tired, or upset. This means that it's a workable strategy to aggravate the other party with microaggressions until they quit. Now I don't think that's what's being tried here, but KoshVorlon's attempts, both here and at Talk:MoS, to get this revisited certainly do poke the newly-healed scars of many who participated in the original process. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus check
I've seen two posts so far recommending Chelsea Manning's name be changed back to Bradley Manning. What's the consensus on this ?

Per BLP we have to use high quality resources any time anything is conensted, as this is, per change per BLP as well as proposer  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 *  Support  per WP:V (His ID is lists him as male, the military refers to him as male,  reliable sources list him as male.

KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to open up a RM then you can, but it wouldn't have a chance in hell and it would probably be considered disruptive.  Konveyor   Belt  18:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Naw, this isn't an RM at all, just a simple check to see where the consensus lies. And no, this isn't being disruptive, this is establishing what the consensus is as of now (remember consensus can change) and do strike your comment out about disruptive.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   18:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How about no? We went through a long, tedious and painful process to reach the current situation. Could you please stop poking the hornet's nest? And given that you're referring to her with the wrong pronouns, your own view on this seems, well, somewhat partisan. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, if RS or an event happens that alters things then the title and wording can be moved back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A user recently posted a comment to this page reporting that Fox News had started referring to Chelsea as 'she'. For some reason, that comment was removed. But if anything, popular consensus is moving even closer to our established position here. I get that consensus can change. But I'd advise against using talk-page threads to try and overturn a consensus which has been established at such great length. There are wider issues at stake here, and unilateral changes here - in any direction - are liable to fall foul of MOS issues. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So what exactly has occurred that suggests that consensus will have changed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just pointing it out is all some people on Wikipedia think that a consensus is rock solid forever, looking at recent sources though, other than Fox news all of the rest are referring to Manning as "Chelsea". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * comment This has little to do with consensus, and a lot more to do with sources. After meticulous documentation of sources, I (and I think many others) became convinced that reliable source usage had more or less shifted. This takes time (in the case of Manning, it took about a month or two after the announcement to stabilize at the new name). I'd suggest waiting at least a year, which would give sufficient time for things to settle, and then go through the same process we went through last September, e.g. documenting all media usage - how do they call Manning - in the title, in the first paragraph. For obvious reasons, you should only look at sources after September 2013, and even better sources after Jan 2014. Then, if you are able to discern a trend after 6-9 months that suggests sources are reverting back to calling her "Bradley Manning", then you may have a case for a move, but it should be carefully and robustly presented for discussion. If you aren't willing to do this homework, then you shouldn't bring it here for discussion, as the page was moved based on COMMONNAME and it's only an overwhelming COMMONNAME argument that could move it back IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Heads up, "Chelsea Manning"  doesn't exist.  There's no legal ID out there that says Brad Manning is Chelsea. In fact, if you send an email to him as Chelsea Manning, he won't get it, because that's not his legal name. His legal name is Bradley Manning.  Legal name = reliable source.  Further, there's no reliable information, nor any piece of paperwork anywhere, except for Manning's say-so, which is not a reliable source that says "Chelsea Manning" actually exists.

Before you start throwing "transphobia" bullshit at me, be aware that I volunteered at my local Gay, Lesbian Bisexual community center and routinely encountered transgenders. I called them their preferred name, however all of their legal ID (paperwork on our side included ) had their legal (reliable) name on it. Once their legal name was changed, I'd gladly change everything on their paperwork, no problem (that included changing name, gender, and personal pronouns on any incidents that had occured ). So don't start that crap with me because I'm anything but transphobic. Reliable sources say he's Bradley Manning, and that's what he should be called here. (edit)  Yes, there was a consensus based on MOS:ID which is a pile of shit excuse for introducing unreliable bullshit into wikipedia,  it violated WP:BLP and therefore is invalid. It's in the process of being removed now. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read Gender identity. Please study all the questions and their answers. Any problem you still have even after reading?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Gende Identity is an essay, under the auspices of WP:MOSID which is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V, yes I've read it already.   WIkipedia relies on verifiable information, that's policy.  Wikipedia states that we must get BLP's right, and therefore rely on reliable information only, not some unreferenced information.  Think about it,  If some celebrity said they were an asparagus, would you change their article to reflect that, when reliable sources state otherwise ?  I'd hope not.  WP:V and WP:BLP state that for now, this person's name is Bradley Manning, nothing else but.  That said, Bradley Manning may very well want to change his gender, and he's free to do that, or call himself anything he'd like, but until it's reliable sourced, per Wikipedia, we call him Bradley Manning, that's policy,not transphobia.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   19:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think that transgender people are people who make up fake identities arbitrarily?? Per what you're saying, the answer is yes. Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. (See eg.,) Drop the stick. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alan, what post was your "Wrong" a response to?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to KoshVolorn - 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC), Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * comment KoshVorlon, you may recall we had a massive move discussion one of the largest I've ever seen, that was closed by a panel of 3 admins who judged the move due to COMMONNAME. Legal name is irrelevant. I really doubt Deadmau5 exists as any sort of legal name but that's where his article is. In any case further railing on this point is disruptive and does nothing to improve the article, the pathway I mentioned above of formal collection of sources and submission of a formal RM in say 6 months time (eg 1 year after announcement) is the only way you have a chance of getting this article moved, and if the evidence shows usage in RS has swung significantly back to Bradley, then I bet the community would support it. But you have to demonstrate that, carefully and as neutrally as possible and with a robust and well documented list of sources . I suggest we shut this section down in any case as there's no action to take here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * actually, i'd say your own example illuminates something of a problem with the article's lede. far be it from me to question titling policy -- chelsea manning as article title, by all means, seems increasingly appropriate given the proliferation of major media references to her choice of name -- but one suspects that the lede in this case is misaligned to general de facto wikipaedia style.  i should be quick to note here that i'm thoroughly unconcerned with the strictures of the rather convoluted policies that have come to define the wikipaedian in-group, so i may very well stand in opposition to whatever de jure policies prevail, but it appears to me as a matter of fact that the established style is to introduce individuals' legal names in the ledes of articles about persons.  in the example you cite, for example, while the article is indeed titled deadmau5, the article begins with a citation of his current legal name.  several other articles i have recently perused follow the same style: the article entitled ultimate warrior begins with the rather bizarre, but legitimate, legal name "warrior", while the article entitled hulk hogan begins with that individual's legal name "terry gene bollea".  apparently, then, while the article titling policy certainly calls for articles about human individuals to be designated by that individual's most widely recognised name, the prevalent style appears to be to lede the article with the individual's current legal name.  following this style, it seems much more appropriate to begin the article with something like "Bradley Edward Manning, who identifies presently as Chelsea Elisabeth Manning...", or whatever perhaps more agreeable version of which might be conceded by the rather...vigilant...editors who are manning (swid...no, just kidding) this page.  in my preemptive defence against what appear to be inevitable accusations of "transphobia", i should offer that, as a male myself, i fully support the right of ms manning to adopt her chosen gender identity and, upon obtaining legal assent, changing her name to whatever she deems more preferable.  also, i have a boy friend.  as a male myself.  with a boy friend.  i hope with that disclosure to largely avoid the blatant violations of WP:AGF that have characterised the militant responses to what appear in some (tho admittedly not all) cases to be nothing more than honest enquiries as to the most appropriate policy, but having offered my self-defence, i should end only by offering that i make this observation in the interest of consistency and cogent policy.  as ms manning has been disallowed from yet changing her name by the US military, she remains legally identified as "bradley edward manning".  a valiant inclination toward accommodation of self-determination beside, one suspects it would be useful for an information source to identify individuals by their current legal entity, as appears to be done elsewhere; it would seem rathermuch incoherent, after all, if we should allow only those whose countersexual gender identity has driven them to seek a more appropriately gendered self-identification the honour of superseding their legal name in their wikipaedia ledes; indeed, even artists whose noms de plume comprise their entire public identity are introduced by their -- possibly unrecognisable -- legal names.  furthermore, as this very discussion itself has illuminated, the injudicious establishment of ever more guidelines in service of ends other than adherence to, and representation of, the facts has resulted in that most ruinous of situations, self-contradiction; one dearly hopes that a more elegant approach to balancing sensitivity on the one hand and good sensibility on the other might be found.  cheers.  72.179.38.56 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What makes you think the US military has any power to give or withhold any name from Ms Manning at all, except for its own internal purposes? Could they permit or prevent you from changing your name? Or me? (I am not a US citizen.) Again, 'legal names' are not well-defined. People can legally be called whatever they want. The fact that some people - such as the Ultimate Warrior, or Meat Loaf - take out legal documents specifically declaring their new names does not invalidate the names of those who just start using a different name. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comment Allan Scott Walker   I have 14 reliable sources that show his name as "Bradley Manning" including the military, however, you don't see me saying, it's resolved for that reason.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Others have told you to drop it and you should. Chelsea Manning exists in the reliable sources and your saying that Chelsea Manning does not, is false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Georgia guy that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying, per wikipedia's guidelines, there's no reliable resource that shows "Chelsea Manning" exists in place of "Bradley Manning".  I have about 14 reliable sources (including the military) that state as such.   That's all.   KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   21:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is, bluntly, nonsense. It's not a question of one person existing in place of another. The person clearly exists; the question is how she is referred to. Many reliable media outlets refer to her as Chelsea and use female pronouns. The idea of a 'legal name' is, in British and American law, something of a chimera. Some bodies, like the DVLA, are notoriously slow to accept name changes. But for everyday purposes at law, a person can be called whatever they call themselves. There's no magic procedure, and no special status. If someone mis-spells your name in a writ, you can still be served. And so on. And the US Army is the body that initiated legal action against Pvt Manning. For this reason, it can hardly be regarded as neutral in this matter. I'd much rather trust a newspaper - which is expected to cover all sides of a case like this - than the party which has the other in its power. But in any case, all that's said below is true; this is a matter of consensus within Wikipedia as well as outside it, and that consensus hasn't changed. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed. Drop it. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Arguing that the name "Chelsea Manning" is not mentioned in any reliable sources simply because it's not mentioned in a legal document demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS or is trolling. Either way, please drop it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I still haven't removed this page from my watchlist; the only way I see consensus changing is if 400 people stop watching the article. Sepsis II (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least 3 users have told me to drop it. Per my agreement with Floquenbeam, I will now drop it. ( Prototime, I resent the "trolling" comment. Check my history, I don't troll,   I merely enforce policy. Please strike your "trolling" comment )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  22:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, per WP:AGF and your willingness to withdraw on this point. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - to AlexTiefling: Actually, yes, the US military can give or withhold permission regarding the name of a Soldier. The US Military does not have jurisdiction over civilians or foreigners, but Soldiers have different rights, responsibilities, and privileges. So yes, the military dictates what a soldiers name is or can be. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In its own opinion, perhaps. I merely point out that this is antithetical to the normal state of affairs regarding names, which belong to people and not to their employers. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not completely true. It may be antithetical to modern/Western conventions, but one - the military is not an ordinary employer, it is a lifestyle with ethical and legal obligations, and (again, contrary to theoretically egalitarian ideals), it is a separate social class in our society, and in others around the world. Also in many countries, now and in the past, your name is controlled by the state. See this article. In Japan, for example, the government currently exercises the right to deny certain names or spellings. Happens in the US, occasionally, when someone wants to name their kid "God" or "Satan". And furthermore, many American state and local governments only allow names to be spelled in English or with English letters (some places don't even allow the tilde of a Spanish name, or the marks over French names). So, it may be counter to your ideals, but your name is not solely your property. It is also "owned" by those who use it. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * While the government can't stop Manning's supporters from using the name Chelsea or female pronouns, another thing people who claim the Army doesn't have the authority to prevent one of its Soldiers from changing their name should consider is the contract Soldiers signed requiring them to follow regulations. There is a process you have to go through in order to change your name that goes farther than simply stating that you now want to be known as Y instead of X. It could be as simple as a female getting married and taking their husband's name or some other legal court order to get them to recognize the change. People like to mention celebrities like Snoop Dogg and state that their Wikipedia pages or what they go by in their day to day life doesn't involve their legal name. The difference between those celebrities and Manning is those celebrities are civilians and they don't have to answer to the military like Manning does. Manning is going the right way in terms of trying to be legally recognized as Chelsea with the name change petition filed in Kansas. However, all that petition will do if approved is change the first name but the Army still won't recognize Manning as a woman or approve a transfer to a woman's prison. Technically, since Manning claimed to have felt female since childhood and that confession was covered by many reliable sources the Army could bring up fraudulent enlistment charges against Manning for concealing a disqualifying medical condition (DADT doesn't cover being transgendered) during the enlistment process. While the maximum penalty for fraudulent enlistment is only two years, a second conviction would be grounds to deny the early parole Manning is hoping for. Amducker (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Rename - This debate has been recycled and recycled, and each time we figure out that WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy, and each time we figure out that most of the RS's out there now use Chelsea. NickCT (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Rank
I know that Manning's rank was reduced to E-1 (Private) as a consequence of the court martial, but I haven't seen what it was reduced from. I think it is relevant as whatever her rank was, it was at that level and not E-1 that she had access to the documents. Should this detail be added to the article (unless I missed it) and does anyone have a suitable source? EdChem (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When the first set of documents were sent to WikiLeaks Manning was a specialist (E-4) but was demoted to private first class (E-3) for assaulting another Soldier during an argument prior to being arrested. Manning's rank during the leaks is covered in the article. Security clearances aren't based on rank anyway, they are based on your need to know. In order to perform the duties of an intel analyst and have access to a SCIF, Manning fresh out of AIT needed a higher security clearance than some senior NCOs and many junior officers who were in non-intel jobs. An infantry first sergeant doesn't have any reason to hold a TS like Manning did unless he is in a Ranger battalion or some other special assignment where a Secret isn't enough. A Soldier's security clearance is usually removed for cause upon the accusation of serious UCMJ action and Manning was no exception. Amducker (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation and clarification, Amducker, and I'm not sure how I missed the coverage already in the article. EdChem (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2014
Chelsea Manning → Bradley "Chelsea" Manning – We should include both names to avoid confusing people. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Strong oppose for so many reasons. Let's just focus on WP:NICKNAME, which recommends against "adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name." I forecast WP:SNOW. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Because Chelsea is her name, not her nickname. Because we already had an extensive process to determine that the current title is correct according to WP:COMMONNAME. Because consensus has not changed. And because this constant barrage of attempts to get the subject's own name off the top of the article is pretty tedious. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we should be using hybrids names like this unless there is considerable evidence that the person is regularly referred to as such.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolute 100% oppose. We treat transgender people's names as their names, not as fake names. Christine Jorgensen isn't titled George "Christine" Jorgensen, so we shouldn't title any transgender person's article as such. Georgia guy (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close There is a discussion on the talk page here for Manning that I just closed 4 days ago regarding this page's move back, while I like to Assume good faith I am sensing something off about this whole thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close The last attempt to move the article was closed only four days ago with consensus for keeping the article at its current name. Consensus does not seem to have radically shifted in the past 96 hours. Novusuna talk 01:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is the current WP:COMMONNAME, and there is virtually no coverage using the proposed amalgamation. However, don't speedy close this - let it run the full seven days and stand as a clear community-wide rejection of the proposal. bd2412  T 02:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And risk another mess with editors throwing out things like last time? No, this should just be speedy closed as a disruptive move request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see little risk of that, compared to the potential risk for a future reviewer to discount this discussion because a bunch of oppose votes jumped in early and got it shut down prematurely. bd2412  T 12:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not premature when we've just had another such discussion with a similar outcome. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a bit late in the year for snow, at least in the U.S., but let's have at it. Chelsea Manning is her common name, it is not a nickname, and even if it were a nickname, nicknames between first and last names are discouraged on Wikipedia. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close - No consensus last week, this might be getting disruptive. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment - Interested editors may wish to see the following edits by the same IP editor:   - along with extensive interest in the Phelps family and nationalist politics of various stripes. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The user has also been using 71.59.58.63 to make identically worded proposals. The user making edits from these two IPs is responsible for direct vandalism at the Bruce Jenner page as well. User:Alison blocked them at one point, but they have since opened nuisance move requests asking for moves at Yogurt, Cat Stevens, Hillary Rodham Clinton to "Secretary Clinton" and many other painfully unlikely suggestions at high-profile drama magnet articles.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While those are close date move requests they do not appear to have anything in common. As for the vandalism though I do suspect that this could be a sock account IP - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Between the two IPs, it's been almost daily SNOW close move requests at Yogurt, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Manning, Cat Stevens, George Zimmerman, Vladimir Lenin, Chad Johnson (American football), etc. all pages that clearly had controversial move discussions in the past, using move rationales that contradict each other, etc. And as I said, they were already blocked for being the same user.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  01:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just report this to WP:ANI, we all know how this move request is going to end so there is no use going through the entire process risking mud slinging at each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've blocked this IP editor again. They're clearly not here to constructively edit, and have previously created accounts like and  just to mess around. It's most likely another  sock, who seems to have some sort of LGBT hate on -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Kansas judge grants request for name change
From the Washington Post - During a hearing that lasted about a minute, Leavenworth County District Judge David King said he’d allow the name change from Bradley Edward Manning to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. Probably should be added, don't you think? -- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the Order granting the petition. The subject's legal name is now Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. bd2412  T 20:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to add it as a source for her stated name, rather than listing today's ruling as a separate event. The various jurisdictions (state, federal and military) pulling in different directions and the trickiness of common law might otherwise end up with us having a whole series of such minutiae which would not enhance the article. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The various jurisdictions do not pull in different directions. If one jurisdiction pulls in one direction, all other jurisdictions must follow, per the Full Faith and Credit Clause and . Army Regulation 600-8-104 section 5-4 clearly recognizes such orders as conclusive with respect to Army affairs. Wikipedia has no policy to give court orders special status, but it is noteworthy nonetheless. Int21h (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting - I agree that we shouldn't give court orders special status, but that is, as you say, noteworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it shouldn't be added, but we might save ourselves a headache and wait a week to see what comes of this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be added as a significant event. It's a small step but a significant one, and also opens a discussion of the circumstances surrounding her being incarcerated in a men's prison. Totorotroll (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The court order only legally changed Manning's name from Bradley to Chelsea and had nothing to do with gender. As far as the Army is concerned, Manning is now a man with a female name. Technically, Manning shouldn't have been able to enlist in the first place as transgendered but a fraudulent enlistment-based discharge isn't really a possibility when you are currently serving a 35-year sentence on an unrelated charge. Amducker (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the existing state of the article, I have no objection to this being included. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of her versus him
I know the subject of whether Manning is Bradley or Chelsea has been discussed to death but I find the current article confusing the way it is written currently. For example - (Manning was living as an openly gay man. Her relationship with her father). How does someone who is referred to as her live as an openly gay MAN? I don't know the solution to this but I would like to put forward the suggestion to refer to sentences like this where he was still identifying or identified as a man to use the masculine, at least to avoid confusing sentences like the above. Alternatively we could remove the gender specific to refer to only "Manning". Comments? --Daffydavid (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in the box at the top of this talk page which lists general prescriptions for articles on trans people is that we should avoid apparently illogical constructions like 'She fathered her first child'. So my interpretation is that we should still avoid he/him/his, but should rephrase to avoid confusion. (I don't find any of this particularly confusing, but I very much see the point of the guideline.) So perhaps your last suggestion would be the one to follow up. Do any other regular editors of this page have any comments before this change is made? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't find it confusing but a-lot of editors have, maybe footnotes would help then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection in principle to clarifying footnotes, provided that their content does not violate the overall spirit of existing consensus relating to this article. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just not seeing the problem with that example. Why couldn't a woman could be living as an openly gay man? (The point of the sentence is how she was presenting herself, after all.) — Shmuel (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isnt about disrespect it is about informing our readers of the transition without making a total 360 in the first sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why, even though I'm just as little confused by this as Shmuel, I think Daffydavid's proposal has merit. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is in an article that spends half of the first paragraph on Chelsea's gender transition, and dwells on it more later. Even if this bit were "a total [180]" out of context, readers should already be informed. Surely it's not necessary to elbow people in the ribs every few sentences. — Shmuel (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
I propose that this article use the wording "he" up to Manning's gender change or use the wording he to she in a more smooth transition to inform readers of the change. Here is why, while we here on Wikipedia want to be respectful editors and readers alike have voiced confusion (see section above) on the wording of the article, this problem has been raised multiple times here. So the question boils down to do we want the article to make more sense to our readers? Also, will the article still be respectful if we use the she pronoun after the name change? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - This goes well beyond the issue raised by Daffydavid, and contradicts both the outcome of the extensive debate which has already taken place on this topic, and this site's established policy on pronouns for trans people. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not make any sense though and has been raised by multiple editors, how can we make an article if readers are going to be confused about it? Either take out the parts about manning being born a male and any reference to the wording of he or make this change, we cant have both. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That just doesn't follow. Please comply with WP:MOSIDENTITY and stop derailing the reasonable query that Daffydavid has raised. It's not our problem if you, personally, find transgender issues confusing. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said I find them confusing and you are also implying that anyone who is confused about how this article is written feels that way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the MOS, WP:IAR this is common sense, we cant say things like Manning was born a male, she... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not interested in proposals about theoretical people who might find this confusing. I assumed you were speaking on your own behalf. And I think it's reasonable to suggest that people who find things confusing are confused by them - or did your second clause mean something different? Invoking IAR on a page which has been the subject of an Arbcom decision, and to which discretionary sanctions apply, might well be seen as disruptive. My purpose in responding to Daffydavid above was to try and have a mature discussion about the specific issue raised, so that I myself did not make a mistake here. This is a needless diversion. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support - Using the masculine pronouns will fit in with Manning's identity earlier in life, and will avoid the confusing sentences as Daffydavid pointed out. - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal breaches WP:MOSIDENTITY, and is an attempt to subvert the outcome of the Arbcom case. If you disagree with MOSIDENTITY, take it up on the appropriate talk page. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem with the current layout is that the MOS is way too abrupt, the transition between he to she needs to be smoothed out in the article so the reader who doesnt understand transgender people can have a better understanding of what is going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I disagree, that's an entirely fair comment. I'm against it because I don't want every article on a trans subject to become bloated with repetitive information of a 'trans 101' character, and because it leaves the door open to misgendering of the subjects by well-intentioned editors. But I think it's a reasonable observation - and the place to pursue it is through MOSIDENTITY, not this page. I know I appear to slam the door quite hard on some proposals here, and I'm not the only one to do so. This is in part due to a keenness on my own part that this article should not be treated as a test-bed for every conceivable policy change relating to trans people. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy oppose This has been hashed and rehashed several times. MOSIDENTITY covers this. PaleAqua (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolute oppose per Gender identity. Chelsea Manning is a woman; only with the wrong body before it was changed with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not pretend the validity of Manning's gender identity depends on when and whether she has/had surgery. MOSIDENTITY does not require that. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing so. I'm explaining that I support we use Manning's female gender identity throughout her life; the statement I posted just above is consistent with this statement. The "only with the wrong body" phrase represents the fact that she has always been a woman, only in the wrong body before having surgery; this contrasts with the statement that she actually was a man before she had surgery that this proposal is saying to change the rule to. Georgia guy (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's none of our business whether she's had surgery or not; but I don't think you'll find a source to say she has. And so I'd advise you to stop claiming that she's a man up to the point of surgery, whatever pronouns you apply to her. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I never claimed she was; I was only describing the statement that what WP:MOS says to use (which is that she was a woman all along only in the wrong body) contrasts with. Georgia guy (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right - I apologise for having mis-read your previous comment. I think that means that we agree that recognition of trans identity doesn't depend on surgery. If so, I'll be happy to stick 'small' tags around this entire confused digression. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy oppose per WP:MOSIDENTITY. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose, based on MOS:IDENTITY and the consensus we've built in the many past discussions of this issue. Novusuna talk 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We are off topic
My suggestion at the the beginning of all this was to avoid illogical sentences and I didn't actually see this - " Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g. use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child.)" - which was one of my suggestions and this one was supported by AlexTiefling and the guideline. We need to remember that people who may not have a strong command of the English language may read this and it currently reads like a bad translation from another language. I propose we change offending sentences to follow the guideline. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I don't think you've offered an example of any such "illogical sentences" here.
 * In the case of "She became a parent for the first time" vs. "She fathered her first child," the intention of the sentence is to convey the fact that she had her first child. The mechanics of that childbearing are irrelevant; it doesn't matter whether she provided the sperm, or provided the egg, or adopted a child without any genetic input. That being the case, "became a parent" works, and "fathered" is unnecessary.
 * In the only example you offered, "Manning was living as an openly gay man," the entire point of the sentence is how she presented herself to others at that time. The wording cannot be changed to something less gendered without losing its reason for being there. As for the pronoun that follows, it is certainly the case that a woman—however she was designated at birth, and whatever her chromosomes—can live as an openly gay man. There is a difference between presentation and identity, and that is rather important in this instance.
 * If you can find sentences that are gratuitously confusing—that is, where the source of confusion is irrelevant to the facts being stated, and is not due to a difficulty in wrapping one's mind around the facts of transgender existence—please feel free to cite them. Otherwise, I don't think there's a real problem here. — Shmuel (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is the consensus then I guess that's how it will be. I think the problem comes in for me with referring to Manning as a "her" when still living as a "him" but apparently I'm one of the few that feel this way so I'm done. Thanks for the input.

Gender Consistency
Since Bradley/Chelsea is being housed in a male prison and has male genitalia, perhaps changing the header to Bradley and the use of male pronouns would be less confusing to people searching for Bradley Manning, until such time as his gender is changed and he is transferred to the female prison? Although I'm not sure if the Army classifies gender by chromosome or genetalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.234.52 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! Please review the FAQ at the top of the page and see if it addresses your concerns.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  13:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014
sorry, removed a wrong comment, didn't knnow how to delete it.

Paramadeep (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK - thanks for apologizing - Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Date format
Why does the article use mdy dates (January 1, 2000)? The convention is to use dmy dates (1 January 2000) for military subjects, which this article clearly is. --John (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You have converted "articles on the modern US military" to "military subjects". The article is about the person, not his(her) career. The first article I looked up to check for consistency was Oliver North, the second I looked up was Colin Powell. Both use MDY as per the convention. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014
Please add a statement and its attribution to the page.

This statement, "On August 21, 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, reduction in rank from Private First Class to Private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge." should preceed the final sentence of the third paragraph. The final sencence of the the third paragraph reads, "She is serving her sentence at the maximum-security U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth." You should not refer to her sentence without stating what that sentence is.

Here is the attribution: Dishneau, David. "Manning Gets 35 years for wikileaks disclosures". MSN.com. Associated Press. Retrieved August 21, 2013. The link for "Manning Gets 35 years for wikilieaks disclosures" in the attribution is: http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/manning-gets-35-years-for-wikileaks-disclosures.

Pshoman (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)pshoman
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The lead is just a summary of the page so the exact criminal sentence is not needed in it. This information is already in the article Chelsea_Manning. Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)