Talk:Chelsea Manning: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m {{MOS-TW}}
Line 488: Line 488:
*'''Oppose''' move per [[WP:BLP]] and [[MOS:IDENTITY]], and per GorillaWarfare and McGeddon. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' move per [[WP:BLP]] and [[MOS:IDENTITY]], and per GorillaWarfare and McGeddon. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Wikipedia policy about expressed identity is clear, we have multiple reputable sources, and Chelsea's preferences are extremely clear. --[[User:Mispy|Mispy]] ([[User talk:Mispy|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Wikipedia policy about expressed identity is clear, we have multiple reputable sources, and Chelsea's preferences are extremely clear. --[[User:Mispy|Mispy]] ([[User talk:Mispy|talk]]) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

* '''Support'''. Bradley Manning still dresses as a man (wears the male military dress uniform,) and is still legally known (in name and otherwise) to the U.S. Army as Bradley - a male. Changing the name to Chelsea should not occur before hormone therapy has even begun (it it ever even will occur) or before a legal name change. I also support reverting all of the pronouns to "he." He is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action.


== copyright status of black and white photo of Manning wearing wig and lipstick ==
== copyright status of black and white photo of Manning wearing wig and lipstick ==

Revision as of 16:23, 22 August 2013

Good article nominee
Listed

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Toolbox


Blanket?

What is a blanket that cannot be shredded and how is it different from a normal blanket? 117.199.7.24 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Dodo[reply]

Infobox

I've updated the infobox to reflect the convictions but some of the non-standard formatting used in the other infobox aren't carried through. We should preserve the info about his awards and stuff. Please help update the new (now more appropriate) infobox. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd, I've restored the previous custom-built box (instead of using infobox criminal), because it means we can add whatever parameters we want. I've retained the old parameters and included the new ones you added. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks! It looks good. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

I'd like at some point to go through the dates and change to day first, as in 30 July 2013. It saves extra commas, e.g. "He was convicted on 30 July 2013 of 17 of the 22 charges," instead of "He was convicted on July 30, 2013, of 17 of the 22 charges." We're supposed to check before doing this, so does anyone mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea. Normal US date format is DMY. The military date format should not apply to individual people. Should be changed back per
WP:DATERET — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I've restored the date formats. I checked on 31 July and waited until 16 August to change it, which is long enough for someone to have objected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why switch to this format? Because it will mean less comas? Shouldn't it be US date format since he is an American, or is there something different for military personel? Also, somebody did object above, I'll try to find out who. Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should. It should be reverted back to the DMY version per
WP:DATERETJOJ Hutton 23:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Some points:

  1. WP:MOSDATE
    says: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day ..."
  2. But it also says: "Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage."
  3. And: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used ..." Looking back at the earlier versions, both formats were used, e.g. here: "As of June 7, Manning had not yet been formally charged," but "Wired released apparent excerpts from the chat logs between Manning and Lamo on 10 June 2010."
  4. Furthermore, there is an international dimension via Bradley's mother and the significant international interest.

Therefore, because of the above, and because DMY is easier to write, I asked if there were objections, and waited over two weeks before changing it (which was quite a bit of work, by the way, for anyone thinking of changing it back). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, asked and answered. I like working on bios even though my copy editing sucks and usually American bios follow MDY dating. I don't really care though. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction section in the lead seems to take a POV

That section emphasizes the pro-manning view point pretty strongly. I think it should be rewritten in a much more neutral way. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is pro or anti, Todd. It says he was "viewed as both a 21st-century Tiananmen Square Tank Man and an embittered traitor," and that he was an apparently very unhappy Army private with access to classified material. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you point it out, both portrayals are highly POV, both positive and negative. Calling him a tank man is every bit as POV as calling him a traitor. He was convicted of theft, espionage and other criminal issues, not of being a traitor. I think it would be better to say that reaction has been highly polarized with those examples. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do start the paragraph by saying that reaction was mixed, and the examples from Nicks illustrate just how polarized it was. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I agree. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The POV is still off as per what Nicks write - the way it reads currently is that Nicks is comparing him to the Tiananmen Square man, where as in the book he just uses it to contrast the opposing views on what Manning has done. http://books.google.com/books?id=GE_yDipSkYQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.62.98 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction section graph starting "Manning and WikiLeaks were credited as catalysts for the Arab Spring" is duplicative of the introduction. One or the other should be removed. IMO, it should be the second, which is so POV it adopts a fawning tone. The references there are extensive, but there is no balance.Leslynjd (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the lead summarizes the reaction, so it's okay to say it twice. As for balance, it's a fact that they were credited as catalysts, so I'm not sure what it could be balanced with, or why would we would need to try to balance it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unless these views as a "catalyst" etc are widely held (something along the lines of
WP:RS/AC at a minimum we would need to say "credited by X as a catalyst" since the nature of the claim is somewhat dubious and POV. Peopel such as Manning are easy targets for people to use both positively and negatively for propaganda/rehtorical purposes - people using such rhetorical devices should be viewed with a critical eye unless the viewpoint is widely held. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The viewpoint is widely held. Some sources used for this in the article:

SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of Nicks source

I have no issue with the source per se, other than I wouldn't necessarily put it in the same category as a more traditional RS> However, we seem to rely on this one source a lot. This is a widely covered story, and regardless of the quality of the Nicks source, relying on one source for some much of the content/references seems less than ideal. Even if the Nicks source is absolutely fantastic, it's one perspective. Just as undue weight to perspectives in the article in general is a concern, undue weight to any one given source is concerning as well. I'm not suggesting we go on a Nicks pogram, but we should be looking to replace some of the content with other RS, even if it's supporting the same thing.

Some of the Nicks stuff, especially the unnecessarily hyperbolic bit about Tank man and traitor in the lede, is unencyclopedic. I would recommend removing that bit. You don't need to use his terms to reference him. It would be much more encyclopedic to summarize reaction in general in the lede...the majority of that section is given over just to Nicks in the lede, including far greater detail on that one assertion than is necessary. The fact that he is showing a balance of inflammatory rections doesn't mean we have the use his same inflammatory language. I would suggest simplifying it to something like, "reaction varied widely, etc." The language used may be great for an autobiography; I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. 204.65.34.238 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicks's book is the most informed journalistic source on Manning, so it would be odd to replace it with a less informed one. As for the lead, the Tank man/traitor juxtaposition sums up well the wide range of opinion, and how it has veered from one extreme to another. I couldn't think of a more succinct way to do that. The problem with expressing it in general terms without in-text attribution is that someone else will come along and ask whose opinion it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a former United States Army soldier"

Is he not still a private in the United States Army? --

✍) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I assume not because he was discharged, but the person to check with is User:Srich32977. He is our in-house expert on these matters. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several reports I'm reading talk about discharge in the future tense. When does the discharge take effect? Now or on release? --
✍) 00:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, SV, but I'm really more of the out-house expert. At the moment Manning is still in the Army. His sentencing gets reviewed by high level judge advocates (JAGs) and then approved by the convening authority -- the commanding general of the Washington area military district. Once approved, written orders are "cut" which say "you are hereby reduced in rank to Private E-1." I'm not sure when his dishonorable discharge paperwork gets cut, because the military will retain jurisdiction over him until his sentence is completed. Perhaps when he completes his full term. (I will research this.) But the proper way to address him will be "Manning", not "Private Manning". So for WP purposes we can say (shortly) he ain't in the Army no more. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Srich. Someone added "former" to "Manning ... is a United States Army soldier" in the first sentence. Do you think we should we retain "former" or remove it for now? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...or sidestep the question, for example by saying he "...was a Specialist in the United States Army..." thereby avoiding saying what he is now. --
✍) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
"Is a former US Army soldier who ...." His sentence might be reduced (unlikely), but the reduction in rank and dishonorable discharge are sure to be upheld by the GCMCA. – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal balls aside
, what is Mannings current status? Has Manning been discharged. That is the sentence. But has it happened?
If someone was sentenced to death, we would not say they were dead until the sentence had been executed. Manning has been sentenced to be dishonourably discharged. Has the sentence been carried out? Has Manning been discharged? --
✍) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
In any case, his rank has been diminished and he is no longer allowed to wear the uniform he is pictured in. Anyone have a neutral headshot sans uniform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.20.130 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move the article to Chelsea Manning

She's made a statement that her name is Chelsea Manning, so the pronouns should be changed to she and the article renamed Chelsea. The FAQ about Brenna no longer applies. 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


Agreed, [1] appears to be pretty unambiguous. What do we think? Morwen (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree based on the evidence. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, we need an immediate redirect. A search on Chelsea Manning doesn't yield this article, it yield an article about football club Chelsea FC. 68.81.192.33 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried a move. Disappointingly, User:Cls14 has reverted immediately back, using a highly gendered term in their edit summary! I'm assuming this is some kind of misunderstanding over not having read the reference, so will not put it back just yet. Morwen (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty confusing to see Manning described with female pronouns for the time in which they served as a male soldier. I recommend to use the male pronoun for the time prior to their recent declaration concerning their identity. As to the article title, that should follow the predominant usage in reliable sources, as everything else.  Sandstein  12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would go against long-established practice, and
MOS:IDENTITY
Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.
Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent Morwen a message about this stating I was unaware of any potential change and as such I thought it was a scam. In the article itself it didn't mention any gender change so I assumed it was spam, which it clearly isn't Cls14 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite the article in my edit summary! Morwen (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:Morwen has moved the page to Chelsea Manning for a second time. The move is hasty and without proper consultation with editors. I think this article should be moved back to Bradley Manning until it is confirmed the subject has legally changed his/her name and a majority of reliable sources start referring to this subject as "Chelsea Manning". --Tocino 12:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but AFAIK Bradley wants to be a woman but isn't yet. Also, I don't believe his name has been officially changed to Chelsea. I find this move extremely premature, not to say ridiculous. This is not a Wendy Carlos situation. Yet. Yintan  12:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just happy he didn't decide to self-identify as Jesus Christ could you imagine the redirects. SMH. This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname.
†TE†Talk 13:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. " from
MOS:IDENTITY. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Many sources are still reporting the name as Bradley Manning. For instance: The Telegraph: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman called Chelsea, Washington Post: Bradley Manning says he is now a woman named Chelsea, BBC: Bradley Manning: 'I want to be a woman', The Independent: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, Channel 14: Bradley Manning: I want to be a woman (called Chelsea), RT: #FreeChelsea: Bradley Manning states he's 'female', wants to live as ‘Chelsea’, ABC News: Bradley Manning Says He Wants to Live as a Woman and Today: Bradley Manning: I want to live as a woman. Sources even referrer to the person as "he". I think article move was hasted. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-identification". What other sources refer to her as is irrelevant. She has self identified as female, and by MOS:IDENTITY that means the article should use female pronouns. Casiotonetalk 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading
MOS:IDENTITY, I think we should use female gender nouns, pronouns and possessive adjectives, because that's her latest expressed gender self-identification. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
In other words, we have to follow whatever a person decides to call his/herself this week? No.
MOS:IDENTITY says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to (etc)". There is, as yet, no question about Manning's gender at all. Yintan  13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was no question about her gender. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, of course - there is no longer a question about Manning's gender. She is female without doubt. I'm glad you agree. Casiotonetalk 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun."--Brian Dell (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He can request all he likes, Bdel555, that doesn't make it true. Or factual. Yintan  13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He signed his...I mean (no kidding intended) ... she signed her name "Chelsea E. Manning" on the Today Show statement, but indicated that his name in official mail to the detention facility is still Bradley Manning. Here is the statement:

Subject: The Next Stage of My Life

I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years. Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong. I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.

Thank you,

Chelsea E. Manning

talk) 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Chelsea's statement is very clear and seems almost designed to invoke
WP:BLP area. Morwen (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
And the sources are equally clear that it's still "he".[2] Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advocate, it's supposed to report valid sources. You need to revert this article back to where it was, until such time as the sources starting calling him "her". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for renaming the article. But the pronouns used for her throughout the article are still inconsistent. What does the E in Chelsea E. Manning stand for? --88.73.34.231 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a source for "Chelsea E. Manning"? It could be that Manning has decided to drop the middle name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. "Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, be called Chelsea". Fox News (AP). 22 August 2013. Retrieved 22 August 2013. The statement was signed "Chelsea E. Manning.". LFaraone 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP noticeboard

Time for New Secton on Gender Identity Issues?

I created a subsection for the BACKGROUND part of the article for his gender reassignment. This may only be a temporary thing. Should there be a seperate section collecting information on his gender issues? (I seem to be having an issue with his gender as I just realized I used the masculine pronoun for Chelsea.)

talk) 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

This is why Wikipedia is such a sad, pathetic joke

Bradley Manning is the person's name, legally. I have no idea what is going on here, and assumed the article was vandalized, until I read all the nonsense above. I would have expected a speedy revert until a *reliable source* indiciated otherwise. Can an adult editor please step in? 198.161.2.241 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Admin of ten years standing here. today.com is a reliable source. Morwen (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to flash your badge, officer, but the manner in which this hasty move has been executed is a bit ridiculous. Surely you can see that?
†TE†Talk 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you find to be hasty? Unless we aren't taking the Today Show as a reliable source, Manning's expression is public, and we should adjust our titles to reflect the policy of deference to LGBT self-identity. If you have a problem with that general policy, then we can talk about that. But Morwen is 100% correct that everyone needs a rebuttal. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's ridiculous the number of people making transphobic arguments against a fairly straightforward page move. It's ridiculous that anyone would think they saying new here that hasn't been hashed out before, that we are supposed to rebut each one individually. Morwen (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Transphobic"? Am I missing something? Yintan  13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The theory being that Manning isn't allowed to decide how we should refer to her. That lack of deference to her wishes constitutes a lack of respect / transphobia. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The overriding "theory" is that we follow common names and valid sourcing. Maybe it will be there tomorrow, but it isn't there today. Editors who want to abuse Wikipedia for the sake of advocacy have been itching to make this move for many months now. They have moved too soon, and make Wikipedia live down to the level its critics accuse it of being. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is valid. MOS:IDENTITY is clear. Take your soapbox somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS does not override sourcing. Take your own soapbox somewhere else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple mainstream media sources reporting Manning's statement. If you wish to make even more of a fool of your self and argue that they aren't reliable, do so at
WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Reporting the statement, yes. He asked the media to start calling him "she". Once the media broadly starts doing that, then you'll have an argument. You don't, yet. The only fool that's being made of with this advocacy-driven change is Wikipedia itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is based on what MOS:IDENTITY says. As it was when I opposed attempts to rename Manning as Breanna, prior to Manning making the statement. If you wish to argue that MOS:IDENTITY is wrong, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is the opinion of Wikipedians. It does not override sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manning herself constitutes a higher-level of source than the mass media Rhialto (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved to Chelsea Manning without sufficient consensus

With all due consideration to MOS:IDENTITY and the page mover's talk page posts, this was not a noncontroversial page move, and as such requires consensus under Request to Move discussion and vote. --Mareklug talk 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Morwen (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear on the matter - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Your link does not say anything about where the article should be located, and other policies, I think, trump this move. --Mareklug talk 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:COMMONNAME? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This fails
WP:IAR, and the way to do that is to establish a consensus to use it to apply MOS:IDENTITY instead of WP:UCN, which has not been done. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:COMMONNAME is also pretty clear. This definitely needs to be discussed first. I can't believe that there are editors saying it shouldn't be discussed - that is not what Wikipedia is about. And so now we're having a discussion about whether there should be a discussion... StAnselm (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines says "The Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidelines on identity indicate to refer to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." One has to first go to the Talk pages of these policy pages and get the guideline changed to at least allow for exceptions, otherwise we're bound by the policy like it or not. Fact is, Wikipedia currently gives huge deference to the desires of biography subjects when it comes to their sexual identity.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a
WP:BLP, and Manning's statement (as Morwen notes above) pretty much perfectly matches the consideration in question. As such, I've put in a protection against moves for the same time period as the present autoconfirmed edit protection, which should allow enough time for all the discussion the change to the subject's documented chosen name will need - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
In the first place, you've misunderstood
WP:RM, which says that if a move is controversial (which this one obviously was), it may be reverted, and should be proposed via a requested move. StAnselm (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BLP mandates immediatism, not eventualism - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think there's any dispute about the verification of the statement, and
WP:BLP is very clear as David said. The only thing controversial about this are people's feelings about if we should accept the statement, which is a discussion that should happen around general policy. In this instance, the LGBT policy has been correctly applied, and FWIW, I would take strong exception against reverting this change. --\/\/slack (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As I see it, given Manning's statement, the move is now entirely in accord with policy. There appears to be no legitimate grounds to doubt the authenticity of the statement, and MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that we go by what Manning now says. Personally, I would have preferred a formal RfM, just to avoid the inevitable drama - but the result seems a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to think Wikipedia indulges the views of biography subjects too much and should follow external sources more. But I have to disagree with StAnselm simply because we cannot interpret policy that way. That quote is from the first bullet point, which then says, "For example, see the article Jew..." The first bullet point is general, the second bullet point specific. Generally accepted interpretation is to follow the guideline for the specific case when there is a specific guideline available. The specific guideline may be seen as an exception to the general guideline.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the changes are too rash and need to be thought through. Many parts of the articles no longer make sense and read terribly, and quite ridiculous in places. Atshal (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then go and edit the grammar and sentence structure so that the words do make sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns are already shifting in RSes e.g. [3] [4] - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once a source like CNN starts saying "she", you might have something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider the Independent to be much more likely to be news rather than stenography than CNN - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, in fact, supposed to be "stenography", not "news". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it an RS, but crikey, even the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get back to us when a non-tabloid starts saying "she". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Writegeist (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent, The Guardian - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is not a valid source for anything related to the US. I see that the New York Times gets around this deal by generally substituting "Manning" for pronouns.[6] Wikipedia should do likewise until there is broad consensus among reliable sources, as opposed to sources who are merely advocates. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bradley Manning
✍) 14:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes. Until there's a legal name change, renaming the article is simply confusing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political soap box. Once Bradley Manning legally changes his name, then the article name change will reflect reality. 184.152.74.159 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such line in the sand, such as requiring a "legal name change". Can you explain where in policy there's a requirement that we use a party's legal name as the title?
MOS:IDENTITY explicitly contradicts that. LFaraone 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Totally agree that the name change is premature and highlights the silly side of the encyclopedia that everybody can edit. If this were an obscure figure, I could see following his wishes instead of what, say two or three outdated reliable sources say. But this is an internationally-known figure who the media reports on every day. In this case we need to follow the sources and not create headlines ourselves. We need to wait longer to see if the sources start changing the name... if they do then we do, if not then we keep it how it is. As for now this needs to be changed back as it was a major and controversial change done without consensus, and long before most of the media. The danger is that our title may change how the media reports his name, and we need to try and not actively influence the news as much as possible. ThemFromSpace 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is so silly about this. Chelsea wants to refer to herself as a woman, and I think wikipedia should respect her right to do that. The Guardian has altered it's section on Chelsea manning to account for her new identity. [7], and many other news agencies have done likewise. --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation, I think it is highly relevant that it is likely a majority of the reliable sources will eventually move to the new name. We can get out ahead of the RS when there is no dispute that the sources will end up there.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Og forbid our third-hand reporting should influence secondary sources to use the correct name as established by the primary source. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to
Bradley Manning, then moved back to Chelsea Manning

Reverted move per WP:BLP. Note that BLP considerations override pretty much everything except the fundamental content policies and are absolutely what admin powers are for - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you for your actions. LFaraone 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) How on Earth is it a BLP violation to refer to someone by their legal name in an article title? -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest everyone that is not transgender restrain themselves from editing this article. This is as clear a statement as could possibly be made by Manning: People have offered sources from Today, the Daily Mail and the Guardian only to be told none of these sources are acceptable; in some sense I agree. I have written before (on the talk page for Bradley Manning) about the work of TransMediaUK, who document how the MSM are in general extremely poor sources when it comes to the gender of transgender people. The only acceptable source is Chelsea herself. 7daysahead (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus wept - that is a complete NO,NO, NO, NO - where would it end? "Can anyone not White not edit this article?", "Can Black editors please move to the back of the edit queue?" --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with being transgender, and it especially has nothing to do with any external political position regarding transgender self-reference. As per Wikipedia:Article titles, the name should remain 'Bradley Manning' until such a time as the majority of reputable sources and the public refer to Bradley Manning as primarily Chelsea Manning (which will likely occur when/if Bradley Manning legally changes her name, but possibly sooner). It's not wikipedia's job to *create* a source, and it's especially not Wikipedia's job to push *any* political issues, including transgender social issues.

  • Since move protection didn't seem to work, I've fully protected the article for the day. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The moves were all admins, and the text protection doesn't change that. Actual vandalism to the text hasn't been a problem so far, so I've wound it back to autoconfirmed (to keep stuff as open as possible) - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with moving to Chelsea Manning. That is her wish, and everyone will get used to it quickly enough.

As for the "transgender editors only, please", it is basically a slur against those who did not wish to see the article moved. They are basing their side of the story, so to speak, solely on WP:RULES, not "How can a he become a 'she'?" transphobia.

As for the press "getting around" the issue by using "Manning", it is standard to refer to someone by their surname. When the press call the American president Obama, are they getting around using "he" or calling him "Barack"?? Such people are simply seeing what they want to see.

Anyway, I support the move to Chelsea. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you comment

Can everyone please be a bit more careful and respectful with your comments around Chelsea Manning.

Some of the comments so far could be considered transphobic, and others are just completely ignorant.

So before you join in, and say whatever you are about to say, I politely ask that you spend the next 5-10 minutes reading up a bit on what it is to be trans* and the continued prejudice, discrimination, and disgusting levels of violence trans* people face.

Here's two good links to start you off (please add more if you know of any):

Thank you. --Chris 14:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, it would also be helpful to remind people that is extremely unhelpful to label people you don't know as prejudiced based on flimsy evidence. If you disagree with someone's assessment of the situation, fine, but some people have instinctively called anyone against the move to Chelsea Manning bigoted. -- tariqabjotu 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with transphobia. Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. Bradley Manning's legal name is still 'Bradley', news sources still refer to her as 'Bradley', and the public still knows her as 'Bradley'. Wikipedia's job isn't to define social issues, it's to serve as an encyclopedia. When and if sources, the public, or the legal name are changed, as per Wikipedia:Article_titles, it will be reasonable to change the name of the article.
Actually, it's OK when they throw terms like "transphobia" around, because it betrays their intention to abuse Wikipedia to make a point, rather than following the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. Using incorrect names and pronouns is highly offensive to people with gender identity issues. I'm surprised nobody has quoted the Bible yet :P -Jenn348
Using a non-legal name that primary sources are not yet using as the primary name is highly unhelpful to people trying to use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of a political soapbox. Wikipedia:Article_titles.
Let me be clear. I am making NO COMMENT above the move. In fact, I will completely stay out of that shitfest. All I ask is that you have a read before you comment. --Chris 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this goes without saying, but I think I'd better spell it out anyway. Trans* people do edit Wikipedia. Chances are you have interacted with a trans* editor. While a comment may seem fine to you, it might be really hurtful to them. So please, before you click edit, read your comment through the shoes of a trans* person and think about how you would feel. --Chris 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel if someone came onto wikipedia and said "Can everyone please be a bit more careful and respectful with your comments around the religous issues?... Can you please read <holy book x> and <my religous sects> addendums to it before commenting."? I understand that you want people to be sensitive and I respect that, but coming onto wikipedia and telling people to read the articles you have selected before you they can comment is among the most aarogant things I have seen.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring?

Correct me if this is wrong. Moving over redirect is an admin action.

  1. 15:18 Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect
  2. 15:22 Cls14 moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning over redirect
  3. 15:43 Morwen moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect
  4. 17:32 Tariqabjotu moved page Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning
  5. 17:43 David Gerard moved page Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning over redirect

Is this OK? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have reverted the move except for BLP considerations - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP concerns are generally an exception to our edit warring rules, true. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that some users' BLP interpretation is more strict than others'. I don't see many BLP issues here when since this has been his chosen name all his life until today. BLP issues warranting admin intervention are repeated insertion of untrue facts and outright libel, not this issue which is subjective and subject to editorial discretion. So yea, this was disruptive wheel warring on all parties and all parties should be admonished. And no, hiding behind the BLP policy doesn't justify the wheel war. ThemFromSpace 15:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not OK, not even one iota - it's abusing admin privileges for personal reasons. Since the move to "Chelsea" has no consensus, Morwen and Gerard need to be taken to
WP:ANI or somewhere like that, with a call for suspending their admin privileges. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Typically Arbcom is the only place that handles the suspension of admin privileges. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a call on ANI for uninvolved admins - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving over a historyless redirect wasn't an admin priv the last time I checked. Admittedly, it has been a while since I did last check. Has this changed? Morwen (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving when moves are protected is - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, certainly nothing I did then. User:Mohamed CJ and User:Baseball Bugs, can I have an apology please? Morwen (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for what? I'm hell sure I didn't accuse anyone with anything. I brought up the facts and asked to be corrected if I was wrong. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The move to "Chelsea" was wrong, every time. Move it back to "Bradley", and then you can apologize to the rest of us, for abusing Wikipedia and for abusing your admin privileges. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, when Morwen moved the page, it wasn't protected. So that's not an admin action, just an action you believe was wrong. -- tariqabjotu 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Which Morwen didn't do. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(
Bradley Manning is or is not a BLP violation) would ultimately reach consensus, I don't think either of them are unreasonable. (Also, note that Morwen (talk · contribs) didn't move over protection.) At this stage, someone should start a move request, consolidating discussion about the title into one thread. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Legal change

No prejudice against LBGT individuals here, but I think usual media practice would be to wait until Manning changes his/her name legally. Sca (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that have meaning in the US? In the UK, at least, there is no such concept of "legal name". 7daysahead (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you have an unwritten Constitution, too. Yes, we have legal names, enshrined in gov't. records. One has to go to court to change it. Sca (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the US there are legal names enshrined in government records. However, they didn't necessarily become legal by such enshrinement; they were legal all along, and their appearance on government-issued IDs and the like merely recognizes and documents this pre-existing fact. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(
talk • block) 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Current NYT lede: "WASHINGTON — One day after being sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking vast archives of secret government files to WikiLeaks, Pfc. Bradley Manning said Thursday that he is female and wants to be known as Chelsea." (My emphases.) Sca (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to a popular online encyclopedia, Manning has, by the loud public declaration, changed her name - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's to be decided by sourcing, not by us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a popular online encyclopedia is not the law, nor is it how the law is applied. As noted by Manning herself, official correspondance must continue to be sent to 'Bradley Manning'.
In the USA, if you're not attempting to commit fraud thereby, you have a common law right to change your legal name simply by adopting a new one, without a judicial proceeding. Technically, one only needs a court order to get one's new name on certain government records like birth certificates. Official government correspondence is just a matter of what name is in their records; the IRS will call you by whatever name you put on your tax returns. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"officially Bradley"

~The title says it all. He is Bradley, a "he", and he will be until (if?) he subjects to the treatments and legally changes his gender.

Can you provide a source for the relevant law? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence that "Bradley" is now being broadly referred to as "Chelsea"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least according to my understanding, gender is a social construct. Changing sex would be a different issue -- and one that would involve government recognition. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has not changed his name legally by deed poll or otherwise and he has is not legally a woman either. For all practical purposes, he is Bradley Manning and male, regardless of his claims. His gender and subsequent naming issues is notable in his personal life, but it is not official and not yet valid. As for "social constructs", people do not get to decide their genders. Manning has a disorder which essentially places him in the wrong body. "he" and "she" typically refer to sex. Azirus (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, when it comes to situations like his, it is not his body that is wrong, but his brain. This is a psychological issue, not physical.yonnie (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should not make controversial page moves without consensus

In the long run I agree with moving the page to Chelsea (per WP:IDENTITY), but in the short term we need to discuss before we make such a drastic change. We have policies for a reason. The only acceptable reason to move a page immediately is if there is little or no controversy over the proposed move. If there is controversy, it needs to be discussed first before the change takes place. This change was made without extensive consultation. WP:IDENTITY does not advocate immediate changes if there is controversy.

If there is considerable controversy over a page move it should not be made immediately. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the advocates have been itching for this for many months, so to them it wasn't "immediately". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm, I don't think there bad intentions on the part of people advocating for the move. I think people who want the page to be Chelsea in the long run do in fact have good intentions. I think there's a policy mix-up going on though. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least try for consensus through a vote? Moncrief (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every news source under the sun is still referring to him as Bradley Manning - the only ones that aren't tend to be gossipy chat shows (like today show) and should NOT be used as reliable sources. 94.31.32.30 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that The Guardian] was a gossipy chat show. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, as noted above - in fact, over the course of today, I've been seeing online media changing their pronoun usage - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She

I understand and appreciate transgender people. However, Manning is not a "she" automatically. This is a tough issue, but I think it's rash to change the whole article to feminine pronouns before he's had the first bit of hormone therapy. Anyone agree with me? What am I missing here? Moncrief (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on trans* issues, but I think Chelsea would prefer to be referred to as "she" in any and all circumstances. CaseyPenk (talk) 11:04 am, Today (UTC−4)
It is also poor to second-guess someone's gender with an arbitrary standard. LFaraone 15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is identity, not genitalia or enocrinology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Identity does not depend on hormone levels. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) "before he's had the first bit of hormone therapy"; who are we to say when the person's gender is "really" changed. LFaraone 15:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear what Wikipedia practice,
WP:BLP involves a measure of hormone levels. Please do clarify. (I don't mean to offend, but your statement reads very like you're working this out for yourself for the very first time; it's a somewhat nuanced issue, but Wikipedia rules and practice on transgender issues are actually pretty clear.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Gender identity ≠ real gender. Azirus (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for that on Wikipedia. That is entirely a political belief. yonnie (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're conflating gender with sex, but I agree with yonnie that there's no consensus for your statement. LFaraone 15:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it appropriate to refer to Chelsea as 'she' in her timeline from now onwards, but 'he' for historical facts. Saying 'She was a gay man', for example, and mixing up historical quotes referring to 'him' right next to referring to 'she' could be confusing or misleading - especially when her gender identity was, at the time referred to in the text, either male, uncertain or undeclared. --151.230.243.44 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll end up with some ambiguity and confusion no matter what approach you adopt. The best thing we can do is to decide on one approach and use it consistently. I think the MOS covers this; if you think the style adopted there could be improved, then the proper place to discuss that is there, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(
MOS:IDENTITY is quite clear here too: use female pronouns throughout, but reword to avoid "seemingly illogical" statements such as the above. —me_and 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Whether one is a man or a woman is not a choice. It is decided by the chromosomes: men have XY sex chromosomes, while women have XX sex chromosomes. Manning was born with XY sex chromosomes, and he can not change that. That is a fact, not an opinion. Thus he should not be called a woman or referred to as a 'she'. As to the first name, is there any actual record that he has officially changed his name? What name is in his passport or his military ID card? If Bradley is the name on those documents, then his name is still Bradley. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See
MOS:IDENTITY. Your opinions about sex and gender don't have any weight here in light of it. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not an "opinion" that men have XY sex chromosomes and women have XX sex chromosomes — it is a biological fact. Claiming otherwise would be against science. And if Wikipedia decides to ditch scientific facts on sex determination, what's next, embracing creationism? If Wikipedia wants to be a credible encyclopedia, it must be based on facts, not on left-wing fantasies. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Chelsea Manning → Bradley Manning – I am requesting that this page be moved back to its previous title of Bradley Manning so a thorough discussion can take place.

Wikipedia:Requested moves makes it clear that the "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" process should be used in the following circumstance:

"Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested."

Additionally, Wikipedia:Article titles states the following:

"Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made."

MOS:IDENTITY
also states that a person should be referred to using his or her preferred name only when there is no dispute:

"When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself [...]"

Note that my move request is not a comment on what the page should eventually be called (I personally believe Chelsea is the proper title), but rather a recognition of the short-term term need to follow policy.

My move request is also not a suggestion of which pronoun should be used.

MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that in this case we should use the "she" pronoun. Pronouns are a separate issue from the page title. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Where does
    WP:BLP address this issue? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:BLP doesn't say we're not allowed to discuss a proposed move. It may, however, inform the consensus that the proposal should be rejected. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support The move to the current title was premature. Bradley Manning is the common name used by sources at this point. If / when a majority of sources refer to him by his preferred name, we can have a discussion to move the article back here. This is not a BLP issue. wctaiwan (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to ask editors who say this is a BLP (as opposed to style) issue to justify that claim. Unless there really is a BLP issue, the old title before the undiscussed move should take precedence until consensus can be established. wctaiwan (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Should be moved back to Bradley Manning. When reputable sources refer to him as "Chelsea Manning" then it can be moved over. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. MOS: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." I put forward this goes for name too. --151.230.243.44 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their name is a proper noun, not a gendered noun, pronoun, or possessive adjective.--v/r - TP 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For reasons stated above jj (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "
    WP:BLP does not support 'use the name the person wants even where there is no sign that such a name has been used by that person' …"
    You are begging the question.

    "… else we could have 'George Gnarph' say he wants his Wikipedia page to have the name 'Jimbo Wales', even where he has never used that name in any legal sense."
    Again, I don't find this insistence on legality germane. The Wales --> Gnarph is also invalid: Manning did not ask for her article to be changed, but expressed a wish for people to call her Chelsea. We are debating whether the article is going to reflect her wish. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • Support Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a site designed to protect people's "feelings". 91.153.87.155 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert on trans* issues, but I think gender identity is about more than just "feelings." It's about a core part of your identity. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument seems to be that it's "rude" or "hurtful" or "mean" to use he to refer to Bradley. 91.153.87.155 (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It very well might be hurtful to do so. I would personally be offended if someone referred to me using a pronoun that was not my preferred one. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (obviously, but I might as well say it). Lots of the arguments here appear to completely ignore the word
    MOS:IDENTITY says we should give priority to such requests, regardless of her physical transition state. Lots of people here really misunderstand transition - social transition - which is what Chelsea is doing here at her first real opportunity to do so - is generally always necessary before SRS - indeed it was often a precondition for access to HRT. "he" on Manning violates long-established practice, policy and is frankly just *rude*, even on the talk page.) Morwen (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose moving back; support the new title and changing the pronoun to "she". Manning has issued a statement, via her lawyer on NBC's Today show, that she is a woman, has asked to be known as Chelsea, and will be seeking hormone therapy. Several reliable sources have respected this, calling her "she". The NBC presenter and Manning's lawyer called Manning "she" after the statement was made; other sources using "she" include The Guardian and Reuters.

    MOS:IDENTITY is clear on this point: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." SlimVirgin (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • Note this request move is with regards to the page title only. Pronouns are a separate issue, and the policies on pronouns are somewhat different than those for page titles. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason to make the pronoun a separate issue. Manning has said she is a woman and will be using a woman's name from now on, and her lawyer and the sources are following suit by using "she," so we may as well decide both issues in the same discussion. Otherwise we'll end up with odd writing, trying to avoid using pronouns or using "they," which has been tried before in this article and ended up looking very strange. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouns are a separate issue SV, so we should not mix these two up. I'd suggest opening a separate discussion about pronouns (I think there's one above). That has nothing to do with article title however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've always started such a discussion at the bottom of that page. jj (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please quote the relevant sentence(s) of
    MOS:IDENTITY that support your suggestion, so we're on the same page? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • MOS:IDENTITY is clear on the matter of gendered pronouns; in this case, there is no reasonable separation between the change in pronouns and the change in name, as the change request was made in the same statement (and almost the same sentence). It would be incongruous at best to preserve the use of feminine pronouns but return the page to a name that is no longer in use, particularly when numerous referenced sources are starting to correctly recognise the new one. Unless anyone seriously expects Manning to recant on her decision, there's nothing controversial involved in the move.Longsight (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To expand on this, from GLAAD Media Reference Guide: Transgender Glossary of Terms, "Always use a transgender person's chosen name. Often transgender people cannot afford a legal name change or are not yet old enough to change their name legally. They should be afforded the same respect for their chosen name as anyone else who lives by a name other than their birth name (e.g., celebrities)." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We should absolutely respect this person's wishes, this person is now a 'she', so we should respect her wishes. We should not be calling the subject of an article by anything other than the name they wish to be known, upto and including the title of the page itself. It's not even like we're stopping readers from finding the article or disrupting their reading, they still find it through the redirect, it still contains the same information on Chelsea as it did when she was known as Bradley, it is of no real consequence what the article title really is from an operational/usability standpoint, so there's no compelling reason not to call her by the name she has chosen anyway. If it created a 404, you might, just might have a point, but otherwise it really doesn't matter, so deference to the subject and respect for their wishes must come first. Nick (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and it would be good if CaseyPenk could leave the page alone for a while, in order that those of us who want to comment can do, getting repeated edit conflicts stemming from one line argumentative prose is bloody irritating. Nick (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let me emphasize that my move request covers the page title and the page title only. Pronoun considerations are not part of my move request. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bradley is the most commonly recognisable name per WP:COMMONNAME as well as the legal name per WP:OFFICIALNAMES. --PiMaster3 talk 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current articles refer to her as both Bradley and Chelsea, while an increasing number of articles refer to her solely as Chelsea as demanded by style guides. 'Net (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There may come a time when it is appropriate to move the article, but I agree it is premature to do so now, especially without a meaningful discussion. Uvaduck (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, per GorillaWarfare, and
    MOS:IDENTITY. I see no need to move the page back to Bradley Manning just to have the same arguments all over again. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You can't just quote policy without reading it. BLP and MOS:IDENTITY say nothing about immediately using a "new" name that someone has decided on for themselves. We use
WP:AT to name articles, not MOS:IDENTITY.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong support, but only because the controversial move should not have taken place without discussion. I don't understand why
    WP:BRD isn't being used here. The bold move should have been reverted, then discussion started. It should be moved back, then a proper requested move discussion to move it to Chelsea Manning should take place, even if it is pretty clear that Chelsea Manning will be the eventual name of the article. Trinitresque (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support as this was premature, per my comments up above and Carrite's usual eloquence. ThemFromSpace 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article was moved without consensus/RMs on three separate occasions in a very short time-span by two editors who seemly had no interest ([8]) in consulting with the wider WP community (perhaps so that they could get the name change through before this article was locked). Thus the previous move was arbitrary and should be reversed. --Tocino, 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Bradley Manning still dresses as a man (wears the male military dress uniform,) and is still legally known (in name and otherwise) to the U.S. Army as Bradley - a male. Changing the name to Chelsea should not occur before hormone therapy has even begun (it it ever even will occur) or before a legal name change. I also support reverting all of the pronouns to "he." He is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action.

copyright status of black and white photo of Manning wearing wig and lipstick

This photo is sometimes described as "released by US Army" which means prima facie public domain and uploadable to the Commons. But in fact it was "introduced into evidence at his court martial" by the Army and in this way released to the media. Should the photo be considered

a work of the US government or not? See the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lho-133A.jpg.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Photo was taken by manning, and they own the copyright. Being reelased by the govt does not make it a govt work. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being unclear by using the word "they" here. I thought you meant the government, instead of Manning. Just use a singular pronoun, please. Trinitresque (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Small for her age"

"Manning was small for her age – as an adult, she reached 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed 105 lb (47.6 kg)"

This is extremely small for a young man, borderline small for a young woman. Is it transphobic to seek clarity for gender-specific issues like this?

†TE†Talk 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I was unsure about this when I fixed up those pronouns. Honestly, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the article and could probably be deleted entirely. —me_and 16:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Feel free to clarify the text to make it clear that the disparity was relative to her male presentation at the time. If you don't think you can word the text in an appropriate way then ask for suggestions or for help. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not very helpful to mention a weight without tying it to a specific date, since weight fluctuates. Moncrief (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ThinkEnemies just killed it. —me_and 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chelsea_Manning&oldid=569743465"