Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Page moved to Chelsea Manning without sufficient consensus

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

---

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)

Nope. Morwen (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear on the matter - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

(edit conflict) MOS:IDENTITY is indeed clear. The question is, does it apply to article titles as well or do we follow WP:COMMONNAME? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This fails WP:POLICY (and therefore MOS:IDENTITY) by overriding WP:UCN policy with MOS:IDENTITY guideline, when at the very top of the page it is indicated that it is a guideline and not a policy, therefore subject to policies, whenever a conflict between policy and guideline is evident. The way to override a policy is by using the 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)

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)

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)

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)

In the first place, you've misunderstood MOS:IDENTITY, which says "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself" (emphasis mine). In the second place, you've totally gone against 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)

WP:BLP mandates immediatism, not eventualism - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pronouns are already shifting in RSes e.g. [1] [2] - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia is, in fact, supposed to be "stenography", not "news". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an RS, but crikey, even the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Get back to us when a non-tabloid starts saying "she". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[3] Writegeist (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Independent, The Guardian - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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.[4] 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)

Move to Bradley Manning Wikipedia:Article titles is the appropriate policy page. Bradley Manning is the clearly policy-consistent name for this article, whatever name the subject chooses for themselves. --RA (✍) 14:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. [5], and many other news agencies have done likewise. --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. Thank you for your actions. LFaraone 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(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)

• Morwen's move was correct. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we should use the name by which the subject identifies themselves. In this, that is Chelsea Manning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Chelsea Manning, on WP:IAR grounds. There is plenty of context to avoid confusing readers, there are plenty of sources for Manning wanting to be called Chelsea, so I see no good reason to not respect Manning's wishes. —me_and 14:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• The move to "Chelsea" was NOT correct. It's an abuse of Wikipedia for the purpose of making Wikipedia an advocate. That is strictly against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I personally cannot believe a statement such as this came out of an otherwise well-thought out dialogue. I agree with Cameron Scott. The notion is slippery, to say the least. 69.155.81.253 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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):

• To Be Transsexual
• Trans 101

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

I removed one comment per WP:BLP --Guerillero | My Talk 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, if you go around editing pages with edits that "this book says this" and "that book says that" - without ever reading the book, then certainly it would apply, correct? 97.90.153.202 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you read the context of this discussion you will understand that what you said does not apply. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly comparable. This is more comparable to "before commenting on <x>, please read a tiny bit about it", which is fairly reasonable. Don't comment on UK Politics if you know nothing about it. Don't comment on trans issues if you know nothing about it. - AJF (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Saying which specific articles to read, and pointing to articles that are obviously biased in ither direction is a big part of what I have a problem with. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wheel warring?

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

---

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)

Not really, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reverted the move except for BLP considerations - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP concerns are generally an exception to our edit warring rules, true. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Typically Arbcom is the only place that handles the suspension of admin privileges. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a call on ANI for uninvolved admins - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Moving when moves are protected is - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict) Which Morwen didn't do. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 100) That's a little drastic. BLP violations are generally exempt from policy, and although one of our interpretations (that having the article title at 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)

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

Legal 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)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict × 8) There is such a concept in the US. However, Sca is incorrect: Most US media sources follow the subject's preference, and Wikipedia does as well. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's to be decided by sourcing, not by us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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 send you mail under whatever name you put on your tax forms. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Legal name changes, for whatever reason, must be petitioned from a court of proper jurisdiction. Sca (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree, but I know for a fact that that's untrue. Your state's DMV is pretty inflexible about changing names on driver's licenses, but even there you can do it with only a marriage certificate. Different federal agencies have different requirements, but I know of none that absolutely require a court order. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Formal marriage, in the U.S., having a legal status. Sö, what's with the umlauts, Röb? Sca (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And being an obvious counterexample to your assertion. Don't mind the röck döts. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

yo 88.66.37.221 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, please use the singular when you're talking about both an individual or an organisation. She for Manning, they for the government. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious. That editor used "they" in respect for people's different sensitivities, so that neither the pro-she and pro-he people are "offended". They could have perfectly chosen to not do that, and alienate one side or another. You're essentially trying to force other people to adhere by your standards. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

ThinkEnemies just killed it. —me_and 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just tried to post and bam... another edit conflict. †TE†Talk 16:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Average height of a U.S. woman in 2008 was 164.1 cm (5' 4.6"), so that is not small. It is small for a U.S. male, whose average height is 178.2 cm (5' 10.2"). Source: http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml Statistically speaking, 93% of all adult American males are taller than a man 5'4" tall. I cannot remember that source -- my nephew in the UK was very short (his mother is very short) and my brother and sister-in-law were considering growth hormone therapy if the National Health would pay for it -- they would, but you know the NHS -- you have to wait forever. We were born in Canada, a Ted Cruz thing, eh? (English people are shorter, just an observation, and my sister-in-law is English. We're ethnically Anglo-Celtic) The best stats we could find when researching were on The States. (Note: For a U.S. man 6'3" tall, statistically speaking everyone he meets will be shorter; the equivalent was 5'4" tall on the short side, as at 93%, everyone that short U.S. man meets will be taller.) Two and one-half inches in a woman is not that much off the deviation as it would be in a man. (Btw, my nephew grew and is now taller than his dad! Thank you NHS for your delays.) Just because our culture privileges tall women (models), we should not make the error that 5'2", which is less than average in a woman yes but not radically so,is "short for her age."Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How about something like... "Manning is smaller than most men," or something? This is confusing...

Though there are not a lot of good statistics due to it being a small population, Manning is more than likely smaller than most trans women. Generally, though, I would challenge the usefulness of such a statement, especially if it is going to create such conflict in narrative. It does not seem factually important to compare Manning's height to other people, and I would question why it is deemed important. 71.90.172.117 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: add a category in which Mann...

108.49.92.147 posted this comment on 21 August 2013 (view all feedback).

add a category in which Manning is clearly identified as a whistleblower who has exposed war crimes by the US military. add Manning's own statements in full, one in which he pleaded guilty in the beginning of his trial, and the one at the sentencing.

Any thoughts?

Brad (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably more useful to discuss why or why not he might be considered a whistleblower. I'm sure there are plenty of quotes out there for both positions. Brad (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For the "in the press" or "in the media" template... (coverage of the Wikipedia article itself)

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/22/chelsea_manning_wikipedia_perfectly_reflects_new_gender_of_whistleblower.html

--Another Believer _(Talk) 17:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• •  Done. (See banner at top of talk page, below WikiProject banners.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The statement "Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations..." is precisely the reason this move was NOT appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

+1000 to the above. This is exactly the reason we should move it back. As for pronouns, I guess our policy means we should change them to "she",but the title should remain at Bradley until the news catches up. Odd but true.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What a mess

This sentence is an example of what's in the article now: " Her father told PBS that he created his first website when he was ten years old. He taught herself how to use PowerPoint, won the grand prize three years in a row at the local science fair, and in sixth grade took top prize at a state-wide quiz bowl.[18]" Moncrief (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But what could've possibly gone wrong with quickly trying to retroactively mash up the biography of a man into one of a woman by replacing all the pronouns? --Jeude54cartes (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was in the process of being fixed up. I'm sure a reasonably satisfactory version. It is quite hard to do this while there is a flood of editors reverting it back using spurious arguments and denying the validity of acknowledging trans people's identities on Wikipedia in general. I personally would much rather be using my energy on the article page, but I make it a policy not to edit war. Morwen (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish it were also your policy not to start riots, but, sigh, thank our lucky stars for partial virtues. :) --Mareklug ^talk 18:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is no longer a Good Article, please degrade the rankings

In what reality is a BLP subject to wheel-war moves and overnight redacting of personal pronouns, not at all congruent with reality (was Manning a she as a child? As an enlistee in the US Army? As a litigant in military court verdict?) a Good Article. This article is a laughingstock for English Wikipedia at the moment, and the world is having a chuckle. This is NOT one of our Good Articles any longer. --Mareklug ^talk 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work thanks to the somewhat sudden change. Ericloewe (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Give it time for the dust to settle, otherwise open a Good Article Reassessment. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's gong to take longer for the dust to settle than for a GAR to pass, that said, I'm to lazy to read the GAR page, but I agree that it should be done. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I closed the reassessment as too premature. Let's either re-open or start another one in about two weeks. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as being "too premature", which only speaks to your unclear thinking. Your closure was a mistake. This is not a Good Article, and it is not going to become one by sitting on its false assessment. Please re-open. --Mareklug ^talk 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of delisting this article, ut being a good article and that info being able to be read by readers just sends a bad message don't you think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you guys are bitter by... this matter. However, the hooplah among community is too intense, and I will not let this article be de-listed just because we editors could change the whole article based on the recent matter. Also, de-listing it is too soon per WP:GAR, especially when under dispute. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns

Alright, let's start a discussion to try to achieve some sort of consensus on which pronouns should be used, so we can fix the incongruities that have been mentioned. I propose we move to using female pronouns in the article per MOS:IDENTITY, which clearly states "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. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Firmly disagree per common sense. jj (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the amount of discussion about this issue on this page, I think it's evident that this is not a "common sense" decision. To me, referring to Manning as "she" is common sense; from your comment, your common sense dictates the opposite. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@JasonJack it is hard to reply to you when you don't appropriatly use the threading system, please use an appropriate number of ':' infront of replies. I would agree that common since and policy here could be at conflit, but policy supports what GorillaWarfare said (in my intirpritation) CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place to vote on which pronouns to use, since they should follow the gender we choose for the title, but you are right that they need to be consistent. Right now we have botched paragraphs such as "The offenses he was convicted of carried a maximum sentence of 90 years. The government asked for a 60-year sentence to act as a deterrent to other soldiers, while her lawyer asked for no more than 25 years. He was sentenced on August 21 to 35 years and given a dishonorable discharge. Her rank was reduced from Private First Class to Private, and he will forfeit all pay and benefits. He was given credit of 1,293 days served, including the 112 days for her treatment at Quantico, and will be eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence. He may also be given additional credit for good behavior, and could be released in about eight years. that need to be fixed. ThemFromSpace 17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that policy would support refering to Manning with female pronouns within article namespace. That said, that policy does not apply to talk pages (I am of the opnion that it should not apply to talk pages)), I personaly disagree with that policy, but as it stands, I would agree that the article needs to use female pronouns. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering how quickly the pronouns are being changed in the article, I think this is the place to discuss. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the article needs to be returned to what most valid sources call Manning. If you're concerned about pronouns, substitute "Manning" for the pronouns, and then you're safe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The title has NOTHING to do with the pronouns. End of story. Prince changed his name to $#@% but that doesn't mean we followed. The title is based on WP:AT, which dictates common usage. If common usage moved to Chelsea, we will move the article. The pronouns are a separate case, and in this case I agree we should use the feminine pronouns, but not in a copy-paste way, but in a careful way. There's no issue with having an article titled "Bradley Manning" that says "She did x"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You want to use "Manning" every time there is a pronoun in that article? We'd probably double the total length... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be great style, but it would make the article less fatuous - for the time being. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Especially as no valid source is saying "she" yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

God invented singular they precisely for such exigencies. --Mareklug ^talk 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not use "it" until gender has been legally established? 65.51.209.126 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is English not your first language, or are you just trying to be funny? Moncrief (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the singular they, as I find it grammatically incorrect. "It" is unquestionably offensive. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The singular they (and its associated plural pronouns) has validity when referring to a non-specific person. (E.g., "The clerk tells each juror to give their response.") Using it to describe a specific person sounds patently ridiculous. Moncrief (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I suggest you (and GorillaWarfare, as well) take a gander at Singular they#Acceptability, as well as the rest of that article, a much more cohesive Wikipedia creation then the one we are discussing. :) --Mareklug ^talk 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, but as it says there, it's still an ongoing debate. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I don't have to read a Wikipedia policy in order to know that, in English, using "they" as a pronoun for one known, specific human being sounds absurd. "George Washington was the first president, and they served with distinction." Pick your own example of a specific person, one with gender-identity disorder or not. The way the language is structured, it is utterly comical to use "they" when describing one particular human being whose name is known. It's an entirely separate issue using "they" as a non-specific, general singular pronoun. I see both sides of that issue, but it's not what's being discussed here. Moncrief (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah well desperate times require desperate measures...--Tennenrishin (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It was sarcastic, because what has been done to this article is crazy. Perhaps, it should be "he" up until the letter dated 21 Aug from Manning, afterwords it can be Chelsea and "she". 65.51.209.126 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It is haphazard. Dealing with these issues is delicate, and search/replace does not work. It doesn't help that ppl have been revert warring. The best would be to allow a few admins who are versed in these issues (calling @Bearcat: perhaps?) to carefully go through the article and correct the pronouns. Exceptions can of course be made in certain areas, for sentence flow for example or when framing quotes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading through and fixing inconsistencies or instances where editors have accidentally changed pronouns that don't refer to Manning. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to become involved in whether Manning is now a man or a woman. But I believe it is wrong, clearly grammatically wrong, to use the pronouns "she" and "her" of Manning, in describing events that took place when Manning was a man or a boy. Sentences like "Her sister .. had been Manning's principal caregiver, waking at night to make her a bottle and get her back to sleep" are absurd — Manning was male at that time. (It would be similarly absurd if the article on Bertrand Russell referred to him as "Earl Russell" when describing events that took place before he inherited his title.) Maproom (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, how Wikipedia reflects the name and gender identity of a transgender person can never just be a question of "following the majority of sources" — precisely because the bulk of the existing sources about Manning were published before she announced her new name, it'll be a long time before the new sources that describe a woman named Chelsea actually outnumber the existing ones that referred to a man named Bradley. (And that's leaving aside the fact that some sources will undoubtedly not respect correct etiquette around transgender issues, and will continue to call her Bradley anyway.)

Rather, the principle that applies when a notable person comes out as transgender is an outgrowth of WP:BLP: as soon as her gender identity and new name are properly verifiable in reliable sources, neutral respect for her own self-identification trumps any other consideration. So normally, a page gets moved to the person's preferred name, and the pronouns switched to reflect the person's professed gender identity, as soon as those things are announced. (Admittedly we held off a few days when it came to actually moving Laura Jane Grace from "Tom Gabel", because we needed better clarification as to whether Grace was going to be her surname or a second middle name which was still going to be followed by "Gabel" as her surname, but the pronoun change happened right away as it should have.) The fact that the existing sources refer to Manning as "Bradley" instead of Chelsea is irrelevant, because they were published before we could properly verify any other name for her, and can't be retroactively changed now to say Chelsea instead — and anyway, the redirect means that anyone who searches for "Bradley Manning" is still going to find this article anyway.

It is also not necessary for a person to have completed SRS — in most places, a person has to undergo a program of psychological counselling, living as the target gender for a few years despite still having the opposite kind of sex parts, before they're allowed to have the surgery at all (and if you were transgender you certainly wouldn't want to be having your surgery in any place that didn't require that anyway.) At any rate, gender is not a question of what kind of sex parts you happen to have between your legs — whether you understand it or not, the phenomenon of a person's internal gender identity failing to match up with their external sexual characteristics is a rare but very real phenomenon for which the only known cure is to change the external body to match the internal identity. And, in fact, given how carefully privacy is maintained around medical issues, we're unlikely to ever be able to properly verify whether most transgender people are actually "pre-op" or "post-op" anyway — so that can't be the determining factor either.

Simply put, once a transgender person comes out and announces their new name, WP:BLP obligates us to respect their expressed wishes. It's no different than if your neighbour asks you to call him Robert instead of Bob: no matter what you personally think you should be allowed to call him, simple politeness demands that you respect his wishes and call him Robert if that's what he asks for. You don't have to like it if you don't want to, but WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are absolutely non-negotiable policies on Wikipedia and there is no other alternative that satisfies them. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Simple politeness" is irrelevant to how Wikipedia determines its policies, otherwise we would remove portraits from Muhammad and stuff like that. Shii (tock) 22:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bearcat,Shii - Politeness is irrelevant. Verifiability is everything. Policies that you feel support your position are always "absolutely non-negotiable". NickCT (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

AYFKM? The manual needs work. I'm willing to accept that a man can become a woman, and that he doesn't need to do anything but want to be a woman for that to happen, but saying retroactively that he was a woman in the past is surely a bridge too far. The whole concept of "changing" sex implies there was one before the other. I'd allow for some slop in this, for cases where past events are adjectival, for example, "she was born in..." but saying something like (hypothetically, not about Manning) "she was the fastest boy on the high school team..." really gets strange. And I just don't like seeing a whole article redone based on events today. What happens with a transsexual (in general) if next week (s)he finds out there will be no way to receive hormones and gives up trying? I imagine that as our society becomes more enlightened about this sort of thing there really will be people who switch gender identity twice a month. (after all, what woman wouldn't want to switch around that time of the month?) Wnt (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone comes out as gay after being in an opposite-sex relationship, we don't write the article to state that they were straight up until a point and then turned gay, because our best understanding is that sexual orientation is determined at a very young age. The inference is that the person was always gay, even if they did not state it publicly (and may not even have accepted it internally.) Our best understanding for gender identity is much the same. Stating "I am a trans woman" carries with it the necessary implication that the individual has always been a woman, not that they decided one day to change their gender identity.--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, plenty of people will play around with gender presentation for casual fun or entertainment purposes (drag queens, Hallowe'en costumes, sex play, etc.) — lots of people in fact already do — but there's a big difference between playing around with it for fun, while remaining otherwise secure in the gender identity that you usually express in your regular daily life, and actually having the rare but very real medical disorder in which your internal sense of your basic gender identity is actually not in sync with the body that you're living in. The latter is not a decision one can undertake lightly, nor is it something you can just casually and freely change "twice a month". It's not something that someone just wakes up one morning and decides to do on a whim — just because she didn't publicly come out about it until yesterday doesn't mean she hasn't been dealing with this her whole life. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We should refer to Manning by the gender that the majority of reliable sources use. WP:RS is one of Wikipedia's core policies and should take precedence over any manual of style that editors have created. I have not looked through many sources at this time, so this should not be taken as an endorsement of any specific gender usage. I also recommend rewriting some sentences to avoid using pronouns where possible. --PiMaster3 ^talk 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentally this is a case of "verifiability, not truth", a principle which still stands though its detractors object to its bluntest expression. The inner mind knows what is true, but what we report is what is verifiably stated in sources. If all the sources from the time of his arrest say "he", then he was a he at that time, no matter what the "truth" may be. The gender identity we should report from a given point in time is not the innermost truth, but the outward expression indicated by his or her actions. And - not to suggest this for the article, nor to claim it is true, but only to make my point - I should say that I don't know that what you think is true is true. For all I know the gender identity disorder was a legal ploy. For all I know the living as a woman may be a way to get better conditions in jail or a better chance at parole. You don't know the truth any more than I do - we can only know what is verifiable.

The comparison to sexuality is not fully relevant, but I should just point out that I don't think we should accept as dogma that sexuality is unalterable. Some people say they have changed. Some people do change, at least in terms of what they do. If the subject of a BLP says he was always gay then he was always gay - that's basic sourcing. And if he says he was heterosexual and then he switched, there's no justification to doubt that - that's also basic sourcing. And if he doesn't say, then we should word our article carefully to avoid speculating beyond what we know. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the use of female pronouns in the article, as well as the inclusion of an explanation near the top of the page that Manning is a self-identified trans person, to help with possible clarity issues for our readers. Many parts of the article will have to be rewritten to make sure it flow correctly, however. NewAccount4Me (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously this is somewhat moot at this point in time, but the Manual of Style was produced by consensus and is based on reliable sources including other style guides. For instance, the AP style manual calls for using pronouns reflecting self-described gender. It seems to me that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS settles the matter in favor of following the MOS, at least until the MOS is changed. There shouldn't be a discussion here about whether or not to follow the MOS, there should be a discussion at WT:MOS regarding MOS:IDENTITY. In fact there is such a discussion going on at the moment that anyone who's interested should peruse. AgnosticAphid talk 22:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2013

KathrynBrooks1 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) There are many ambiguous pronouns in the article, making it difficult to follow. Also, there is one use of "they" that should be "he." This occurs in the section about secondary school in Wales.

KathrynBrooks1 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm in full support of pronouns changing to feminine per her request, there's several places where 'he' has been changed to 'she' but the 'he' wasn't referring to the subject of the article, but rather someone else (e.g. Adrian Lamo). —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support this full-protection. Despite attempts to discuss pronouns/names/etc. here, the article is seeing no end of conflict on the issue. I'd protect it myself, but it would be improper considering my involvement in the issue to date. Oops, I misread this request. Anyway, I'm currently going through and fixing any inconsistencies I find. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support this request. It's as if someone has used the "Find-Replace" tool in places. - AJF (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific where the error is, so that whichever admin is dealing with the request don't have to go through the whole article finding where you mean? -- KTC (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Passim. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Any changes should be in accordance with MOS:IDENTITY. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have changed all inconsistencies I could find. If I've missed anything, please let me know. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• A new edit request. There is a point where it says " if she wanted to harm himself, she could do so with her underwear or her flip-flops". It should be herself. Rgrasmus (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

but there's still a "himself" in a quote. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - it isn't a quote in the article, I was just using quotes in my comment to refer to what was written in the article. So it still needs to be changed. Rgrasmus (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Added a new {{edit protected}} for this. —me_and 21:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Yeah, it looks like it may have accidentally removed when someone undid an edit. Fixed now. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the edit that was requested but it must have been removed somehow (like how my comment above got mangled). What bothered me was 'it was felt she was "a risk to himself..."' It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to Pte Manning

What about for the time being moving the page to the gender neutral Pte Manning, till the name issue has been resolved. To demand a legal name change is asinine as many transgenders change their name years before the courts will allow a legal name change, and this is never made an issue, so to make that a key argument now is just plain mean. 69.244.220.253 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pte? What is Pte? Moncrief (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing move discussion above; I suggest you put your suggestion there, rather than starting a new discussion here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pte is the british Army abbreviation for Private (rank). The equivalent U.S. Army abbreviation is PVT. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Except Manning is, or was, a PFC (private first class). Pfe? That's a new one on me. Moncrief (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He was, but the court-martial reduced his rank to E-1, or private. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He was an American soldier, so "Pte" is no appropriate. Just spell out "Private". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be Private Manning or Pvt Manning but he will no longer be a Private when he is released and his dishonorable discharge goes into effect; this would not seem to be an appropriate move. While he is in prison, he is technically a Private but he is not afforded any military benefits. The E1 rank is only left to keep him under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ and the military --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 09:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS-TW template

Just for transparency, I reverted an attept to add an Ominous Warning to the head of this talk page [6]. Many editors here are honestly discussing what the appropriate course is, and that includes consideration of whether certain style policies are correct. A banner suggesting that the policy cannot be debated, and that participants representing one side of the debate should be reported to a wikiproject (for some reason) is not helpful. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The talk page of any individual article is not the correct venue to discuss any potential changes to a general policy or guideline. -- KTC (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That warning was bitey and inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 19:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@KTC:, were you agreeing or disagreeing with 168.12.253.66? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Redrose64:, neither. I was solely pointing out that this talk page is not the location for debating policy/guideline. The only opinion I have express on this page (so far) is up above in the RM. -- KTC (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; which is why I added {{MOS-TW}}. Despite not being worded as an "ominous warning" - it states agreed procedures - this action was apparently bitey. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to place that disclaimer. Per WP:PG policies and guidelines should always be applied using common sense. Also, consensus may change and it would be better to let editors exercise their own judgement. Brandmeister^talk 09:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly we should use common sense. Manning has stated unequivocally that she considers herself to be a woman and has stated unambiguously that she wants to be called Chelsea and referred with female pronouns. This is the very definition of a trans woman - having a gender identity as a woman although assigned as male at birth. the MOS-TW template is specifically for articles dealing with these issues. Manning meets the definition of a trans woman, Manning identifies as a woman. Wikipedia has already developed protocols for these issues and we should follow them. The template is not bitey it informs as to these protocols and provides information if there is further issues. Bitey is removing a helpful template. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of trans people

Has anyone ever read biographies of people who are man/woman ---> woman/man trans? I assume they are titled with the name the person chooses after their identity switch is "cemented", so to speak, but how do such books approach naming, pronouning etc. within the text? Consistent usage throughout, or do they switch after the person starts identifying as the other gender? Do people think it is worth taking into consideration the approach of biographies of trans people? LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not read biographies, but the general press guidelines (Associated Press, for example) say to use the person's chosen pronouns even before they publicly transitioned. Based on personal experience, that's what trans* folk want, too. I could dig up a whole bunch of websites about trans* people (some self-authored, some with permission of the person in question) that also follow this convention, although I don't have printed biographies I can point to. —me_and 19:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Where by "even before they publicly transitioned", I mean when writing about times before they transitioned. I don't expect people to be precognitant! —me_and 19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, cheers. That would have been my guess, and has guided my vote to oppose. I'm sure that like at least some others here, I've never really looked seriously at sex-and-gender stuff, have never had trans friends or acquaintances, and so largely have treating people as individuals, being open-minded, conforming to someone's wishes, and just not being an asshole to rely on. LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would be great to look over some biographies that use the current (latest) pronoun throughout. I'm curious how that situation is handled in other situations. It might shed some light on how to approach the pronouns for this article (for example, how to talk about past situations in which Chelsea would have been assumed to have been male). CaseyPenk (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In practice, I think it is complicated. Some biographers choose to be consistent, others don't. Kate Bornstein (2012). A Queer and Pleasant Danger: A Memoir. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807001653, is an autobiography that is playful with the gender of its nouns and pronouns, and often intentionally juxtaposes them within a sentence, but that is very much Bornstein's approach to things. Similarly Helen Boyd, She's Not the Man I Married: My Life with a Transgender Husband (Seal Press, 2007) intentionally juxtaposes genders within sentences for literary purposes. Christine Jorgensen (1967), Christine Jorgensen: A Personal Biography, includes at least some referring to herself as a child as a "boy" according to the WP page quote of it. News agencies seem to aim to be more consistent in their editorial tone (rather than playful or thought-provoking, both of which are fair game for biographies). Also in the past, trans-folk had to be more careful about how they talked about their own past in order to continue to be eligible for the medical treatments they wanted. The last decade or two have seen more recognition that many different kinds of narratives about one's transness or past, might still warrant HRT or surgeries. Personally I know trans folk that always refer to their past selves using their current nouns/pronouns, trans-folk that refer to past selves with Gender-Assigned-At-Birth pronouns and switch at the time of transition, and trans-folk that use multiple sets of nouns/pronouns for their past selves. There is a lot of variation. Similarly, there can be differences between when one begins transitioning, and when one transitions "publicly." Lana Wachowski, for instance, transitioned and even completed her transition, years before she presented her transition to the press or public. Even with HRT, the transition process usually takes several years, without HRT ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.157.156.137 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK! Well, that puts paid to my hopes for a cut-and-dried affair, 98.157.156.137! I think I'll leave the decision regarding pronouning this article to others... Still, at least Chelsea wasn't man ---> 'neither', like some people I've read about! Whatever does one do then... ;D LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to thank the IP for providing one of the few calm, evidence-based and thoughtful posts in the midst of all the above discussion. I hope it gets considered. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also thank the poster for the thoughtful share. I would note that a number of reasonable arguments have been put forward by both sides, even though it seems to get drowned out by the confrontational noise. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This explains how the issue off Wikipedia is handled and why there is differences found. On Wikipedia however, a living persons biography, and mentions of them in other articles, adheres to the person's latest representation of themselves. This is cut and dry as Manning has stated unequivocally she considers herself female and want to have she/her used as pronouns and is also seeking to change her physical body to match her gender identity. If Manning had died we would have a different set of considerations and the most common name would come into play. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2013: Change Gender Identity Disorder to Gender dysphoria

Change "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria". The latter is becoming ever-more common these days, and is the preferred term in the DSM-5. Also, the former suggests Manning is disordered, somehow. AJF (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

seconded ViniTheHat (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. If she has gender identity disorder, she has gender identity disorder. That is, after all, the name of the article. — Richard BB 20:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose rename the article first. Many news sources describe her as having gender identity disorder. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I moved the article. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I object to the use of the term "gender identity disorder" in the opening section. The term is controversial (many consider it bigoted) and is no longer used even by the APA. (It was replaced by "gender dysphoria".)

Moreso, Manning has never used the term to describe herself, and it is wrong to force such a stigmatizing term on her.

"Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood" should be changed to "Manning has experienced gender dysphoria since childhood" or "Manning has expressed that she has felt female since childhood". --71.116.34.80 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a really good point I wonder about too. I would change now but thought we could discuss further. Any objections? Moncrief (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of newspaper articles and defense testimony used the term gender identity disorder. We go by reliable sources. There are only a few exceptions - notably, which pronoun a person wants to use. But they don't get to choose which name, and they don't get to choose how their disorders are described by professionals esp when those are part of the documented court case. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Following an informal search engine test, at the time of this post Google returns 238,000 results for "manning 'gender identity disorder'" and 97,400 results for "manning 'gender dysphoria'". Bing, meanwhile, returns 90,100 results for "manning 'gender identity disorder'" and 6,170 results for "manning 'gender dysphoria'". CaseyPenk (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Gender identity disorder says that another name for the condition is gender dysphoria. There is also a Gender identity disorder in children. Given that Manning had gender dysphoria since childhood, would it not be appropriate to link to that article at least for that sentence (at the end of the lead)? Also, how about changing or piping all other instances to "gender dysphoria" since I'm pretty sure "disorder" is NPOV? The relevant section is WP:MEDMOS, which requires that WP:COMMONNAME is overridden for the titles of articles on medical conditions but which does not require every article on Wikipedia to conform to that standard. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If the medical community commonly calls it a disorder, it would be a violation of NPOV to censor their opinion. Whether they're right is another question entirely, but Wikipedia describes what is, not what should be. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's wrongheaded. The medical community is by no means unanimous on this or any topic. Also, there is no censorship; the title of the article Gender identity disorder is not in question here. Abductive (reasoning) 20:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling it "disorder" is a neutral point of view. If she has gender identity disorder, she has gender identity disorder. That is, after all, the name of the article. — Richard BB 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore. Abductive (reasoning) 20:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I moved the page back. Controversial name changes should be discussed and achieve consensus on the talk page first. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, under the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves," "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." CaseyPenk (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot to move the article and only did the talk page. Sorry about the confusion. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The present name conforms to WP:MEDMOS consensus. See http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender%20Dysphoria%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Go ahead and request the move back yourself. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) There's another specific reason to use the old terminology - one of our heavily used sources has a conversation including the term. Again, for the reader's benefit, we should try to avoid using both terms in the article and try to be consistent with the sources used in the article. Medical terminology is confusing enough. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "gender identity disorder" is no longer used by medical groups including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the largest psychiatric organization in the world. In May 2013, the APA officially started using "gender dysphoria" instead.

— Chelsea Manning's case puts focus on transgender rights in prisons, Amanda Holpuch, theguardian.com, 22 August 2013

2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:49D (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia uses the term gender identity disorder. Please keep a neutral point of view. Avoiding insult by changing facts, or names is not a productive change. Disorder does not imply a negative condition, in addition. It is possible to view gender identity disorder as something good, which I am sure Bradley Manning does, as he is not ashamed of it. Sovetus (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: Sorry, but I don't see any consensus to make the requested edit at this time. As some of the other commenters have suggested, the proper way to decide this is by a requested move discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder. I suggest that editors try that first and then make another request here if the article name ends up being changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What leaked material was actually classified

I would like to see this article be more clear about how much of the leaked material was actually classified. The section heading "Release of classified information" suggests that everything Manning leaked is classified. But I've seen op-eds saying that "most" of the material leaked by Manning was actually not classified—example: The Nation.

The classification information I've been able to glean from Wikipedia and cursory web searches is confusing and contradictory. List of charges against Bradley Manning says that a particular PowerPoint presentation and 51 US State Department cables, including the "Reykjavik 13" cable, were classified, implying that the rest perhaps was not. Meanwhile, the United States v. Manning article, in its summary of the List of charges article, only says that the Iraq war logs were classified. A number of media reports refer to the 2007 July 12 Baghdad video as classified, but United States v. Manning refers to the defense's January 2012 request to depose witnesses about the classification of material, including one who was expected to say that 3 Apache gunship videos were not classified at the time they were leaked—implying that there has been some retroactive classification of at least some of the material. I also get the impression that documents placed on SIPRnet, including all of the SIGACTs ("war logs") inherit some kind of classification, but it's not clear how that really works.

I feel it's important to resolve this. What was classified at the time of the leaks? What was retroactively classified? If we can't answer these questions, we should at least to state that there's uncertainty. And we should provide citations for any assertion that a particular set of material was classified. Can someone point to good sources for this information? —mjb (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Slate article

It might be worth reading this article which applauds Wikipedia for being so responsive and changing the page name:
Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning’s New Gender Liz ^{Let's Talk} 20:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth realizing that (a) this slate article is already linked at the top of this page, and mentioned in several sections, but (b) more importantly, the slate article is wrong (as it says there is little dispute, whereas, there is a ton of dispute here), and the fact that they applaud us should be embarrassing actually - at least w.r.t. to the name. We should NOT be ahead of news sources, we should be BEHIND them, especially when it comes to what we call someone or something. I think the only exception is the pronouns. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(a) it's a random Slate blogger, who appears to consider the US the world (b) we're not ahead of the UK media, who have gone pretty much to "Chelsea", "she", "her" as extensively documented above on this very talk page - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Slate is not a politically neutral publication Shii (tock) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was politically neutral. But I don't see how calling someone by their chosen name is a "political" issue. It has to do with WP:BLP and WP:Article Titles. This isn't the first transgender BLP on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Microformat metadata

Since this article uses a custom infobox (won't {{infobox person}} do what's needed, perhaps with a module?), please add the following parameters

| bodyclass   = vcard
| titleclass  = fn

(their position is not significant, but near the top would be good), to generate an hCard microformat as used in regular biographical infoboxes. No visual change will occur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21

25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing through protection

Would admins please stop editing this article, unless it's in response to an uncontentious edit request? Shii added the NPOV tag, meant to be used only as a last resort after discussion has failed (now removed by Mark), and Moncrief has removed the middle initial, showing he hasn't read the statement. The point of page protection is that editing is supposed to stop, except for minor requests such as fixing typos (and similar uncontentious things). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, there are advocates abusing their admin privileges to shape the article to their personal point of view. That's supposed to be against the rules. But the only rule in effect on this page at present is that imposed by the advocacy zealots. They've been chomping at the bit for months, waiting for this to happen. And now they've done it, policies and wikipedia's reputation be damned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite an accusation... what edits have been made that suggest that? – GorillaWarfare (talk)

Any edits made by advocates since they froze the page, are illegitimate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was to prevent edit wars. Presumably admins are wiser, and able to make tweaks as needed. Those sound to me like tweaks...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that a couple of very long in the tooth admins deliberately eschewed discussion/consensus-building/deliberation, and rapidly force-edited this, causing a riot to boot, I take now a very dim view of the actual wisdom of our admin corps. --Mareklug ^talk 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see 10 pronoun changes per this requested edit, the addition of a protection template, two infobox tweaks, the removal of an oddly-placed {{blockquote}} template, two additions of a missing quotation mark, a filename fix, the addition and removal of a NPOV template, the requested edit to add microformat metadata, the requested edit to add the Transgender and transexual military personnel template, the removal and readdition of Manning's middle initial, and the addition of a colon to introduce a quote. Which of these constitutes "abuse [of] their admin privileges to shape the article to their personal point of view"? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Until the advocate-admins move it back to the properly sourced title, Bradley, they have no business editing the article at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop perverting the Manual of Style

I keep seeing reference to the MOS, to wit:

"My move request is also not a suggestion of which pronoun should be used. WP:MOSIDENTITY makes it clear that in this case we should use the "she" pronoun."

This is not the intent of the clause being referenced.198.161.2.241 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributors. Also, WP:NOTFORUM. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The advocates, the zealots don't care. They're using it as an excuse to justify pushing their point of view, just as Manning's lawyer is trying to use "gender identity" as an excuse for committing crimes against the USA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs:, please comment on content, not contributors. Talking about people who oppose you as "zealots" is just as uncool as referring to those who have a preference that the article reflect the subject's former name as "transphobic". LFaraone 21:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) You must have missed the similar discussion from some months back, where editors were just dying to rename the article "Breanna Manning" or some such. Their arguments then were as valid as they are now. Namely, NOT. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY says "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." That seems to clearly support referring to Manning as "she", considering that she most recently expressed the desire to be referred to as female. Where do you disagree? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no valid sourcing for "she". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is a perfectly valid source. Actually, Manning is the only valid source. Get used to it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple sources already use she. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/bradley-manning-woman-chelsea-gender-reassignment, for example. We can certainly wait until there is a greater consensus, but honestly it's probably inevitable.Jbower47 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I said a valid source. Once CNN starts saying "she", then you've got something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And I guess you get to decide what a "valid" source is? Fritzendugan (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian hates the US, so it's not a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This line of argument is unproductive. Shii (tock) 22:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's actually quite productive, all day today. It's a textbook example of what happens when changes are made without consensus, and when admins abuse their power to enforce their personal point of view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the Guardian is not a reliable source because you dislike its political viewpoint is sufficiently far outside any standards of citation on Wikipedia as to invalidate your entire argument and perspective here. That's just not how this works. If you think it is, you're so far off the reservation that you're no longer editing under the basic rubric of how Wikipedia works. Sorry, but this is so far past helpful as to constitute active abuse of the project and its rules. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No, the argument you gave above is indeed unproductive. Firstly, it's wrong. The Guardian is a highly regarded newspaper and generally accepted as a reliable source. Secondly, it's an entirely fallacious argument. Even if the Guardian would hate the US, why should that make a difference for its position on the gender of Manning? Jailing a man is neither better nor worse than jailing a women, or a transgendered person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is no more a reliable source than is the National Inquirer. Maybe less so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever that is true about that statement, at least in terms of Wikipedia's policies. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying National Inquirer IS a valid source??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're saying that Manning's own statement that she is female is insufficient to prove that "female" is her latest gender expression? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Some months back it was "Breanna". Tomorrow it could be "Zelda". Are you going to change the article on the subject's whim every time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And in either case, the pronoun would be "she". This particular section of the article is discussing which pronouns to use. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good for you Baseball Bugs. Now can you stop the crappy US-Patriotic zealous garbage you're spouting? --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My only POV is to oppose the abuse of wikipedia. Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it. Jumping on this PC-driven bandwagon, violating the rules in the process, thus making wikipedia look stupid, is what's "sad". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"convicted criminal" - like e.g. Nelson Mandela, Martin Niemöller, Giordano Bruno, Socrates, and Jesus? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall any of those guys having their attorney demand that the media start calling them by female names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The MoS has been "subject's preferred name and gender identity" for ages, Bugs. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My argument here is that when an individual very clearly says that she identifies as female, referring to her as such is exactly what the rules tell us to do. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MoS is a guideline and not a policy or legal rule. Shii (tock) 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And your argument is bogus. Once CNN starts calling the subject "Chelsea", then you'll be within the rules. The MOS is merely the opinions of editors, it's not a rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS IDENTITY doesn't require sourcing to agree that it's appropriate to call her she. All it requires is to reference that Manning has referred to herself as she. There is absolutely no disputing that the RS have reported that Manning is self-identifying as female. MOS: IDENTITY isn't based on the RS's take on whether they think it's valid; it's based on the individual. They have reported Manning identifies as female. Therefore, we should identify her, at the very least any present tense references, as female as well, including appropriate pronouns.Jbower47 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What we should be doing is trying not to make wikipedia look stupid. No valid source says Manning is female. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that the MoS is a rule - specifically, a guideline. There may be exceptions, but they need to be argued for on a case-by-case basis, and on terms better than "a major newspaper that is widely used as a reliable source throughout the site is not a reliable source." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A "guideline" is not a "rule". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this Bugs person a particularly unsavoury troll, or just spectacularly ignorant, prejudiced, and bigoted? See above, the section about what the E. stands for now, where he unashamedly ventured another nakedly transphobic remark. Has he been given a block warning? The guy should be roundly ignored. Is there WP:Don'tFeedTheTrolls? LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How dare you call me a "person"? I self-identify as a rabbit. So cease your bigoted remarks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Rabbits are persons, too! Stop speciism! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Leporidaephobia! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Yintan  00:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the word you meant to repurpose was leporiphobia. ~ Left-brain word fetishist Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Shit, it really exists... Yintan  14:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

When there's a recognized medical disorder in which it's accepted as being genuinely medically possible for a human to have the internal self-identity of "rabbit" despite having a human body, for which the only known cure is for the person to actually enter the process of living as a rabbit instead of as a human, then maybe your self-identity as a rabbit will count for something. Until then, the fact that you actually think that demanding to be called a rabbit is in any way a valid or productive or legitimate response in a discussion about the very recognized and very real phenomenon of transsexualism certainly says something about you — but that something isn't that you're a rabbit. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't you guys think you're being a little hasty? JDiala (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning has made NO move to legally change his name, which is quite within his power to do. Until such time he is legally, at least on this plane of reality, Bradley Manning. Male and Female you can debate all day, but he CANNOT legally enter a woman's bathroom or be housed in a woman's correctional center. Besides, the news stories are all HERESAY and Wikipedia is looking quite poorly now for now reverting and locking this thread and putting an illegal identification on its main news page. If he said he wanted to be called 'Barak Obama' would we be having this discussion?

You're right. All we have is a lawyer, grandstanding for his client, trying to lay the groundwork for an appeal. Wikipedia's advocate-admins swallowed that bait wholesale, and are making Wikipedia look (even more) stupid by so doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Conviction given undue weight

She is more notable as a whistleblower than for being persecuted by one country in its aftermath in retaliation. We wouldn't normally refer to a Soviet dissident only emphasizing their convictions. The first paragraph gives the legal proceedings/conviction (which are hardly recognised by most people in the developed world) after the case that made her famous undue weight. It would be more appropriate to have a first paragraph concentrating on her role in the WikiLeaks case that made her famous. Legal proceedings in its aftermath belong in a second or third paragraph of the introduction. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. You should be writing for the Onion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, Bugs, you misunderstand the purpose of the Talk page. I would recommend you reread wiki policy. This is not a forum, place to engage in attacks on other editors, or a place for inappropriate humor.Jbower47 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to direct your complaints to the OP of this section. "legal proceedings/conviction (which are hardly recognised by most people in the developed world)"??? If that ain't soapboxing, nothing is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Felony convictions are pretty much legally recognized by most judicial systems and border crossing points world-wide. htom (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If the convictions were motivated by political objectives, no other country is in any manner obliged to legally recognise them as valid. Manning disclosed a long, persistent pattern of US interference in the domestic policymaking of other, supposedly-sovereign nations. I'd suspect some of those nations might not agree with the Obama régime's position on this matter, if only because they themselves want the US interference to stop. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:49D (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

She has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by former Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and there is a worldwide campaign backed by over 100,000 people in support of the nomination that has received significant media attention around the world, and that is also unprecedented in Nobel history. This needs to be mentioned in the article. [7] [8] Josh Gorand (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Literally thousands of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year. A nomination is not, of itself, at all noteworty in the general case - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, thousands of people are absolutely not nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize each year, the figure is much, much lower (less than 200). Only select people are allowed to nominate, such as former Nobel laureates, Norwegian MPs, and so forth. And thousands of people are not nominated by Nobel Prize laureates either, and there are not thousands of people whose nominations receive worldwide media coverage, or for that sake petitions supported by over 100,000 people. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of any similar case. This is clearly notable because reliable, third party sources say so. If media worldwide reported "thousands" of nominations for the prize, they would be flooded with them. Are they? No, only a handful of nominations at best receive worldwide media coverage. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a notable event but Manning hasn't been nominated for the prize. "A pacifist group has submitted a petition signed by 100,000 people online in support of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. soldier Bradley Manning" An online petition has been set up and it's been submitted to the Nobel Comittee. However "Petitions have no bearing on the selection of a recipient for the $1 million prize, though they are often submitted on behalf of a candidate, according to the Nobel prize committee.." I wouldn't call that a Nobel nomination, really. More like a request. Yintan  23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, which you would have noticed if you had read what I wrote above. She was formally nominated in June this year by Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and the nomination is backed by a campaign/petition signed by over 100,000 people. [9] Josh Gorand (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what you get for reading too fast. I stand corrected and will strike some of my comments. Yintan  23:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to admins

On User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Chelsea_Manning_2 it was noted by SV and Mark that there are a lot of non-minor edits going on in this fully protected page. After seeing the high rate of admin edits, including my own, I agree. Please stick to minor edits suggested and discussed on this talk page, to limit the number of disputes going on and prevent the dread Wheel War. Shii (tock) 23:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect IMDB link

Under external links: "Chelsea Manning at the Internet Movie Database"

Wikipedia has renamed its article but IMDB hasn't renamed its page (or switched its pronouns). Therefore, this should still say Bradley, no? Oren0 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends if we see treat the link as a reference or as a description. If it's the former, it should be as IMDB is, and use "Bradley Manning"; if it's the latter, it should reflect the wording of our article and refer to Chelsea Manning. I don't know which we should default to (in a usual situation, let alone this one), though the two options—in terms of markup—are:

1. {{IMDb name|id=4808915}} — which renders "Chelsea Manning/Archive 5 at IMDb"
2. {{IMDb name|id=4808915|name=Bradley Manning}} — which renders "Bradley Manning at IMDb"

There's no way I'm touching the article with a barge pole to make name or gender edits, though. matt (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Semied

I semied the talk page due to the BLP vios that were coming from some new users. If any admin disagrees with this, feel free to remove the protection. If there is an IP/new user who would like to add a comment to this page, my talk page is open to you and I will gladly add it to any section. Merci --Guerillero | My Talk 01:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good protection. Hopefully we won't have to full protect. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, stop insulting people.

Let's keep discussion focused on the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I explicitly said it shows justice. If you are going to defame people as Homophobes be informed there're anti-defamation laws. --fs 02:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators editing through full page protection

Attention administrators: Full page protection means that YOU cannot edit the article for any purpose either, absent a clear-cut edit request. The next person who edits through full protection will be blocked for edit-warring. Risker (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker. Perhaps a new standard question at RfA should be: "Do you understand the difference between 'can' and 'may'?". Now, how about blocks for those who continue to accuse anyone who disagrees in good-faith of "virulent transphobia"? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a common occurrence. I haven't looked at every single edit yet, but some admins are completely out if line with their editing over full protection. It's a major crock of shit and is one of the biggest flaws in Wikipedia. I can't fucking stand how bad Wikipedia has gotten to tolerate major abuses. And every time this happens the offending admins never get punished. JOJ ^Hutton 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it ought to be less common in the future. I have blocked Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 for editing through protection despite the warning on this page. Two of those edits are controversial, at that, and none of them had talk page consensus. Their blocks are for the duration of the protection, and may be lifted by any administrator once the blocked editor agrees to not edit the article through protection again. Risker (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please update link to list of charges

Please update the link "List of charges against Bradley Manning" to its new title "List of charges in United States v. Manning". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daira Hopwood (talk • contribs)

 Done -- KTC (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Current event

I think it would be appropriate to add a {{Current person}} (or similar) template tag to the page. The {{Current person}} template looks like this:

Space simian (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• That current tag is about likely edit conflicts, not an alert to the reader that the subject is involved in a current event. Given that the article is locked down, no such tag is needed. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It would give a heads-up to the admins who are abusing their tools to edit the article, so that they won't disturb each other. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Current event templates states that "Current and future event templates are designed to indicate that an article or a section is describing a current or future event, and to warn readers about the fast-changing or speculative nature of the article." (my highlighting) Space simian (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And it's not changing fast, get it? Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

      We interpret it differently then, as I understand it the point is not to warn about edit conflicts but rather to warn readers that the article describes a person involved in a current event and as a consequence the contents might quickly become out of date and/or change. The fact that the page has been locked down by administrators does not change that. Space simian (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

      • I've disabled this request as it has been archived, and also because I don't really see a consensus for the change from the discussion above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Statistics

For what it's worth, Bradley Manning had 173,000 views yesterday, while Chelsea Manning had 65,000. StAnselm (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How does this add to our understanding of the issue at hand? Pageviews do not dictate policy. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the suggested page move, the name that people are most often searching for may be an argument, thought that is more often a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC consideration. In terms of anything else, it simply serves to highlight how popular this page is right now. StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The other relevant statistic is that this page had 16,700 views. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when you say "the issue at hand", there are lots of issues discussed above, and I had started a new section. Did you mean the page move? StAnselm (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

These are useless statistics. The article was located at Bradley Manning up until 12:00 or 13:00 (UTC), around the time of the announcement; no one would have been going to Chelsea Manning before then. -- tariqabjotu 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do think this is something to consider. Above all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as the redirect is functional (and nobody is remotely suggesting that it shouldn't be), what is lost by simply allowing the person's former name to redirect to their current name? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Text of Chelsea Manning's letter to president Obama

http://www.startribune.com/nation/220585651.html
http://www.ktvb.com/news/national/220585211.html
http://boingboing.net/2013/08/22/chelsea-mannings-statement-o.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11112670
http://www.kansas.com/2013/08/21/2955981/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter.html
http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/08/21/5136944/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter.html
http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/08/21/2641833/text-of-bradley-mannings-letter.html
http://www.montereyherald.com/growth/ci_23912317/text-bradley-mannings-letter-president
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_23912317/text-bradley-mannings-letter-president
http://longisland.news12.com/news/text-of-bradley-manning-s-letter-to-president-1.5933688
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2013/aug/21/wikileaks-text-bradley-mannings-letter-president/
--Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What the heck happened to WP:COMMONNAME?

No, I didn't see that. I will close this section and post a comment above. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be titled by the most common name. Why on Earth was this article renamed? Even a cursory search of reliable sources demonstrates that the most common name in English for this article's topic is Bradley Manning. This is a no brainer. It clearly needs to be changed back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Hello. I don't know if you noticed, but there's a WP:RM about this a bit further up the page. Does adding a new section discussing exactly the same thing help matters? Morwen (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

german wiki: bradley again

the reason was an ongoing discussion which led to this decision i do support. there are folks from the english wiki spamming the german discussion board now in english language with long past discussion points. peace! Maximilian (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to request a fix

I can't edit this article. Maybe an admin can? It says: "On April 30 she posted on Facebook that she was utterly lost, and over the next few days wrote that 'Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment.'" I think that switching between "she" and "Bradley Manning" is confusing right there. The first few times I read it, I thought one person was writing about another. It would be clearer if it said: "On April 30 she posted on Facebook that she was utterly lost, and over the next few days wrote that she 'is not a piece of equipment.'" Saxman1984 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Direct quotes are specifically addressed by and exempt from the MOS:IDENTITY gender/name issue. As this is a quote by the topic thmesleves, and many of the arguments here are arguing that we should respect their own self-identification, we should not change this quote because it suits someone here's purposes/reading. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that link does not say direct quotes are exempt. It says they "may" in cases be exceptions: "Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text." So, yes, let's do as that link says, and avoid confusion very simply by starting the excerpt two words later and using a pronoun outside the quote rather than a confusing proper name inside the quote. Saxman1984 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy and guideline index

Disclosure: I (User:CaseyPenk) proposed the move request from Chelsea Manning to Bradley Manning.

For reference, here is a list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that people on this page have invoked. This list may help editors find arguments that others have found useful. This index is intended for convenience for readers who want to quickly glance over policies and guidelines that may be relevant; it is not a definitive guide. Please refer to policy and guideline pages for further reading.

Please feel free to expand these two lists; they are continually subject to revision. Please do not remove policies that others have added, even if you disagree with their applicability in this case. Sorted in alphabetical order by full Wikipedia namespace title. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Policies

• Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title (WP:CRITERIA)
• Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names (WP:POVNAME)
• Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (WP:COMMONNAME)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)
• Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)
• Wikipedia:Libel (WP:LIBEL)
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Guidelines

• Wikipedia:Manual of style#Identity (MOS:IDENTITY)

Question about the first line

1) It's clear to me now that the rules seem to clearly support the name/pronoun changes in the article. I was surprised to learn that it in fact is a retroactive change. I figured you were supposed to use their old name/pronouns when talking in the past tense before they expressed a preference, but you learn something new every day. :-/

2) The change to the title could be argued either way according possibly via the common name rule, but as more media outlets make updates as they roll out new stories, it will probably be resolved in favor of the use Chelsea.

One question however. The first line currently reads: "Chelsea E. Manning[3][4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)..."

Would it be more clear, to people just jumping to the page, to say the following until she legally changes her name: "Chelsea E. Manning[3][4] (legally Bradley Edward Manning, born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)..."

I ask because the story I read mentioned that she would still need to be referred to by her legal name at times in prison and when contacting her in prison.

Shoeless Ho (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Legally" isn't too clear, as in many parts of the US simply using a new name can make it your legal one. LFaraone 20:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should note the date range s/he was "Bradley", rather than just a start date. Would be more informative. But no, noting the same legal and birth name is a bit pointless. Also, congratulations to this talk page for all the text it's produced! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Claim of "Bradley Manning" neutrality and systemic bias

There is a common argument that using Chelsea Manning for a title would not be a neutral stance. It is true, using the Chelsea Manning name would be a political statement in support of gender as an identity that one can decide.

However, to claim that Bradley Manning would not have a neutrality issue is to suffer from WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Renaming to Bradley Manning would also be a political statement. That Biological gender or legal gender triumphs even the biography's subject's choice. Alternatives that make the title gender neutral also have that issue. It would be a claim that transgender people are a third gender or an ambiguous one.

In some cases, it is not possible to take a neutral stance. If neutrality has to be broken, I think it is best to put care into deciding in what way to break this neutrality. In a situation in which systemic bias is such a important factor, the popularity of an alternative shouldn't be the only decision factor. Vexorian (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since their notability largely comes from military service, has anyone considered naming the article "Private Manning"?--v/r - TP 17:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I also think a lot of people want this argument to happen (i.e. they are treating it as a social war that has to be won for their side). CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not our call to make, though. Neutrality in a Wikipedia context basically means to reflect reliable sources in the most representative way. So, for the time being we should wait and see what the media decides (and the article should not have been moved to Chelsea in the first place). Only if media ends up being permanent inconsistent or divided over the issue will we have to make our own decision. Iselilja (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that's out of the question. We are not going to move the article back, as it would violate BLP. Wikipedia's position is fairly clear based on the relevant policies, as explained by Sue Gardner and others on this talk page. And the media have long ago started using Chelsea Manning, as Sue Gardner demonstrated in her above comment. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, you do not own the article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For the nth time, Sue Gardner is not God, and her opinion is not law on the Wikipedia. There is a stark disagreement on how BLP is interpreted and applied to this specific case, and it'd be in the best interests of everyone involved if you stop claiming that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Deep and Tarc said it well, but I want to strongly emphasize to anyone reading that statements along the lines of "We are not going to move the article back" are generally not statements about Wikipedia policy and may or may not reflect consensus. In short, no individual has complete authority over what this page should be titled. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Sue Gardner, why is this person so important, and why do I keep hearing about her on this talk page? Should I care about what she thinks? Does her existence in this universe negate community consensus? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"… a political statement in support of gender as an identity that one can decide."
Firstly, I do not believe the issue (the article's title) involves politics.

Secondly, Chelsea did not decide to be born a woman in a man's body, so to speak. I did not decide upon my identity (straight male in a man's body)—I just am what I am. Same goes for her. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps the other policies. Thus the article is named Chelsea Manning. Case closed. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop doing this? It's tantamount to shoving your palm in someone's face and telling them to put a sock in it, yelling "case closed, go home". The reason that we have discussions on Wikipedia is because our content is consensus-oriented. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see why BLP mandates that we use the name Chelsea in the title. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't, it is being invoked for the proverbial chilling effect reasons. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Consensus seems to favor moving it back and the folks who are hollering "case closed" are obviously troubled by that fact. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This was a controversial move made with little discussion. It would seem like the appropriate procedure would be to revert the move and discuss. I don't understand why this hasn't happened. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Especially as there are currently approximately 50 more "supports" than "opposes" and the majority of the "supports" policy-based, while many of the "opposes" are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based and some are outright soapboxing. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The numbers do not matter, what matters are the arguments, 1. This move was never reverted back to how it was going against WP:TITLECHANGES this article should have been reverted back to Bradley Manning and locked, thus saving a good article canadate. 2. Those who are opposing as said are citing WP:BLP with nothing in that policy that mentions title changes, it says in MOS that title changes are referred to in the Title changes policy, nobody has been able to counter this argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record I support changing this to Private Manning per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013

Footnote 4 in the lede has extraneous punctuation in the date "22 August= 2013". Should be changed from "August=" to "August". Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Attn: Mark Arsten, et. al.; that is what an uncontroversial edit looks like. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Suspending GA status

I'm not going to bother linking to all the numerous discussions about it, but the latest big thingy is this person being sentenced to prison and then asking to be known as a woman. As the article was promoted to GA more than a year a go, I propose it is temporarily demoted, "suspended GA", until it's all quietened down when a reassessment can be conducted. This suspension should take place as soon as possible and a proper rewrite should be done after the fuss has subsided so that it complies with the manual of style and references and all the rest of it. If you'd consider this, that'd be good. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This was attempted, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has he/she formally changed his/ her name? Soranoch (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That rather depends on your definition of "formally". Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the US there is a formal method for name changing. Like notifying Social Security, driver's license bureau, IRS, banks etc. You can't just decide to informally change your name for it to have any meaning. Soranoch (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Prisoner of conscience

Is he a real prisoner of conscience? Unlike the others, he is neither thief nor terrorist. What does it mean? Really, we talk about the whole USA or about some stupid officials from Defense Department etc.? --Søren 21:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, he's a military prisoner for a military crime. --Niemti (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning does seem to fit part of the definition in our article: "those who have been imprisoned...for the non-violent expression of their conscientiously held beliefs". It might be argued that the beliefs in this case were misguided, but I have not heard any alternative theory as to what motivated Manning. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot understand the motive for his crime (if Manning is a criminal). He doesn't seem to be a spy. If he was insane, he couldn't have a "mens rea", so Bradley cannot be sentenced. --Søren 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she is a classic prisoner of conscience, and the repicient of several human rights accolades[10], who has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Mairead Maguire. She is the American equivalent of Carl von Ossietzky. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a question we here need to decide. We can note the different views on the matter easily ("is argued by X to be a prisoner of conscience"). But a formal decision at this point, when the world itself isn't sure, is not ours to make.

Wikipedia-wide article name policy

Hi all, I encourage you to discuss Wikipedia article naming policy over at Wikipedia_talk:Article titles. Note that that discussion is for multiple articles, not just for this one. In other words, THIS talk page is the better place to discuss Manning specifically. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

i would like any administrator to edit these article and fix the issues relating to Manning's gender. At some places in the article instead of "she" , "he" is written. It creates problems for the users and readers. As it is a good article, i would like any administrator to fix these issues. --Param Mudgal (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a purely aesthetic issue, I noticed the "Gender reassignment" section sort of buts in between "Legal procedings" and "Reaction to disclosures". I'd like to request it be moved to the end of the article, so it doesn't break the flow of the article. I'd also like to request (separately) that the sections "Disclosure of classified material" and "Reaction to disclosures" either be merged (with a new subsection "Reaction"), or that the "Reaction to disclosures" section be moved to after "Disclosure of classified material". Thechungling (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

An excellent idea. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Yes it should. It should be reverted back to the DMY version per WP:DATERETJOJ ^Hutton 23:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

The wording does not apply to people. You don't say of a person that "there goes a modern US military", do you? The wording makes is obvious (at least to me) that it applies to battles, equipment, forts, battleships, fighter and bomber aircraft, organizations, etc, but not to people. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dates

Also see discussion beginning 31 July and 23 August.

Dates used in this article (e.g., Manning's birthdate, etc.) should be in American format, not British. I see no reason why British format would apply in this article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Subject is an American citizen, so it's quite odd to see the British format throughout the article. --Tocino 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:DATEUNIFY, as most of the dates on the page were the m-d-y format anyway. Not sure why there was a {{use dmy dates}} tag here to begin with. Per WP:STRONGNAT an article on a topic with close ties to one particular country should use the date format commonly used in that country. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably lost in some archive (there's been a stampede of edits since this whole Bradley/Chelsea naming thing exploded), but a user said that he/she found it easier to maintain DMY date format and had waited ~2 weeks for any objections and found none. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Chelsea Manning#Date_formats above. SlimVirgin made a suggestion, didn't get much feedback and then changed it. --Malerooster (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I asked on 31 July if there were objections, and there weren't, so over two weeks later I made the change from MDY to DMY. DMY is the more common format, including in the US military; it's not British style, it's used internationally. So although MDY is more common generally in the US, we have grounds to use DMY in this article if we want to. It depends on consensus.

But now the dates are inconsistent, because Zzyzx11 only changed a few; changing them all is quite a lot of work because all the dates in the article, as well as notes, references and further-reading sections need to be changed. I'm therefore going to revert that edit when the page is unprotected, assuming no admin will revert before then, and I'll post an RfC asking for consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you see other U.S. military figures' articles use the British date format? A quick survey: Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Raymond T. Odierno, Army Chief of Staff, Jonathan Greenert, Navy Chief of Staff, Mark Welsh, Air Force Chief of Staff, James F. Amos, Commander of the Marine Corps, Frank J. Grass, Chief of the National Guard, etc. suggests not. It's clear that when it comes to the articles of the people of the U.S. military, that the U.S. date method is preferred, just as it is for American politicians, American scientists, American economists, American sports players, and American spies.

Also, you say that "now the dates are inconsistent", but I cannot find any DMY dates in the article now that it's protected from editing. The dates are all in the MDY format. --Tocino 11:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 didn't change the date formats in the Notes, References and Further reading sections, which is where most of the dates are. So now most dates are DMY, and the ones in the text itself are MDY. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything right now seems to be DMY. Needs to be left that way. Anything still MDY should be changed as soon as possible. JOJ ^Hutton 21:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: date format

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

---

Would an admin please revert the recent change to some of the date formats made here through protection by another admin?

This is an editorial issue that needs to be discussed first (for example, the US military and almost all other countries use dmy). Also, the format has to be consistent throughout the article, notes, references and further reading sections, whereas the edit only changed some of the dates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a perfectly valid edit to me, Manning is a U.S. soldier who is notable for events in the U.S. Apperntly I was wrong I appologise, this edit was controversial and should have been discussed. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not in the U.S. He's notable for events in the U.S. military. As SlimVirgin correctly pointed, out dmy format is the correct choice for such articles, and that edit made the article less consistent. As an analogy, just because the U.S. still uses Imperial units doesn't mean U.S.-centric science articles should use them too; we use SI exclusively in all science articles. Similarly we should use dmy in all military-related articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The style we use in the Air Force is DD MMM YYYY, are you proposing that? What I've seen has the full month spelled out and that's not how I've seen it done around here.--v/r - TP 18:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The style "dmy" does not specify any particular format regarding leading zeros and spelling out month. It simply says that the format is day-month-year. Whether that's "23 AUG 2013" or "23 August 2013" isn't the issue. The point is, the edit to change some dates to mdy format (e.g. "August 23, 2013") introduced inconsistencies into this article, which was already established as dmy. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a note TP if you look at the tongue and quill if you use the 3 letter designator for the month you are actually suppose to use YY for the date. Also the date format is one of the 13+ that I have seen acceptable depending on which form/area/report you are discussing (also air force.) Tivanir2 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly fine and actually helps my point. My point was that I don't think there is a single "US Military" way and you've shown that even in the Air Force alone there are 13+. It doesn't really matter though, I've never really cared about date formats.--v/r - TP 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

"a former United States Army soldier"

Is he not still a private in the United States Army? --RA (✍) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Several reports I'm reading talk about discharge in the future tense. When does the discharge take effect? Now or on release? --RA (✍) 00:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

...or sidestep the question, for example by saying he "...was a Specialist in the United States Army..." thereby avoiding saying what he is now. --RA (✍) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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? --RA (✍) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

The Army has solved this issue for us. They said today that he is still considered a soldier. Of course, I've now lost the link to the source, but wanted to post this anyway to explain why I removed "former". Will post the source when I find it again! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning's sentence included a dishonorable discharge, which is a punitive discharge. In accordance with 10 USC § 871(c), execution of the discharge is temporarily stayed pending an automatic appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) where the dishonorable discharge will be reviewed along with the prison term. Hypothetically, that decision could then be appealed under discretionary review to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). During this process, however, Manning will remain a Private/E-1 incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth and will be what AR 190-47 Chapter 3-1 calls a "sentenced prisoner" after the convening authority approves the confinement portion of Manning's sentence. Later, after review of the dishonorable discharge is complete by the ACCA (and the CAAF, potentially), the dishonorable discharge will be executed and Manning will become what AR 190-47 calls a "discharged prisoner" (not discharged from prison, but discharged from the military). At that time, instead of being an incarcerated Private/E-1, Manning will become a discharged former soldier who continues to be incarcerated at a military prison. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

What Manning wants is irrelevant! This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace.198.161.2.241 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Preference doesn't matter, this is an encyclopedia, only facts should matter. The fact is that he is a man. You shouldn't cater to his delusions. Certain things in life you don't get to choose, and your sex is one of them. I would prefer to be a king but don't go around making people call me your majesty, they'd think I was insane.

You are failing to employ a neutral point of view, referring to his sexual identity as a "delusion". Dmarquard (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It is also poor to second-guess someone's gender with an arbitrary standard. LFaraone 15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is identity, not genitalia or enocrinology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Identity does not depend on hormone levels. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(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)

It is not clear what Wikipedia practice, MOS:IDENTITY or 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)

Gender identity ≠ real gender. Azirus (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that on Wikipedia. That is entirely a political belief. yonnie (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict) 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)

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)

How do you know what chromosomes Manning has? 1 in 300 apparent males are not 46,XY. When it comes to Transsexuals, the figure is even lower, but we have no reliable data for how much lower. Zoe Brain (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism January 1, 2008 vol. 93 no. 1 182-189 To say that both the mother and the daughter she gave birth to are male because of their chromosomes seems counter-intuitive to say the least. Zoe Brain (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, to the extent there is a sliver of a legitimate debate about this, it's whether or not Manning has sufficiently transitioned to warrant changing the article. Outright politically motivated denial of the existence of transsexualism, contrary to the position taken by MOS:IDENTITY and the current medical-scientific consensus is not going to help, as are tired old arguments about chromosomes that can be disproved quite simply with the slightest bit of research (hint: see androgen insensitivity syndrome). We are in fact not going to rewrite all the articles about the same to denounce the idea of transsexualism, so let's stop these arguments that presuppose that as a starting point, eh? Morwen (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly. You have a grossly simplified understanding of biology, Jaakko, but that is neither here nor there. MOS:IDENTITY, however, is highly relevant here, and it is completely apart from your entire argument, impassioned as it is. Pez Dispens3r (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest those arguing "chromosomes = identity" give Sex and gender distinction a read. The simple facts - those with XY chromosomes are biological males, those with XX chromosomes are biological females, and those few with other combinations (XXY, etc) fall into various types of biologically intersex categories. It is also the fact that "man" and "woman" (and the corresponding adjectives "he" and "she") are not synonymous with "male" and "female", but only roughly correlate with those categories. The fact is, some biological males (such as the subject of this article) identify as women and some biological females identify as men. Some basic biological vs social distinctions that really shouldn't be driving people to consternation. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. 1 in 300 men are not XY. Some women are. Rarely, so are the daughters they give birth to. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism January 1, 2008 vol. 93 no. 1 182-189 Chromosomes will also be changed by receiving bone marrow transplants. See Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8 Zoe Brain (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Using "she" is just confusing. It will be especially confusing to read for non-native English speakers. All philosophical arguments aside, the language should be used to communicate the information to the audience. Pronouns exist for reasons of communication not ideology and the correct one should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.234.49 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job foreign language versions of Wikipedia exist for those non-native speakers then Rhialto (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I recommend using "he" for past events, and "she" for events since his/her announcement of coming out. This can be pushed back if there is a reliable source for Manning identifying as a female before that point. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Then please take your recommendation to the talk page of MOS:IDENTITY. There's no reason why this article in particular should be exempt from it; if we're going to change the rules for pronouns here then they should be changed for all articles on transgender people. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Where does MOS have anything to say about past vs present identity and how to handle it? For my part, I agree with this suggestion. I'm a believer in using pronouns that reflect a person's sexual identity, however, if that's changed over the course of somebody's life, then I don't agree with retroactively rewriting someone's previous gender identity, and I think how people identify at different points in their life should be honored. Since I see no evidence that Manning stated that s/he identified as a woman, at least publically, before today's announcement, I see no reason for retroactive changes. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are actually several reasons why this article should be exempt from it. He only just claimed to be a woman. It is illogical to refer to events before his gender switch with anything other than the gender he was using at the time. This is especially the case since his significance relates to a military court case where his gender is clearly established in all records and reports surrounding him. Moreover, Bradley Manning is still a member of the United States Army where his name Bradley, his sex male. All documents and records of note regarding his activities use this name and gender identity. He will serve his time as a man with the name of Bradley and will likely not be able to legally change either until he is released. His previous, current and future appearance, behavior and records will all be as a man under the name Bradley Manning. His status in the military and as a prisoner, which both limit how he may be behave and what he may do legally, are significant factors in whether or not he should have this guideline applied.
    • Years ago, it was established that Chelsea had gender identity disorder. She very likely has always referred to herself as a woman, but we're just now seeing her official statement on the transition. Dmarquard (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Seems like not only Manning even Wikipedia has issues with transgender identity, irrespective of Manning's choice and when she announced it, we need to gain a consensus to make the article with just She or He and not mix it up all over the article. obviously some concerns are there in regard to references which are older than the announcement and would be using He, but obviously we are not going to try paraphrase text and would be trying to replicate the information.  A m i t  웃   03:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • First to [User:a.amitkumar| A m i t ]] 웃   I don't find it "likely" in any sense. I would have thought that transgenders are socialized to be their gender of birth and then have a transition inlcuing priods of confusion. In any case, discussing what she thought early on in life is pure conjecture rather than fact. I had to read the piece on "her" being bullied at school twice as I had understood that Bradley (now Chelsea) was a he in that timeframe. Otherwise the adjective effeminate makes no sense at all. Use of the word he in this specific passage would not be "mixing it up" but perfectly sensible in the given context. Dainamo (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether "she" or "he" should be used as a personal pronoun, edits to this article have resulted in a profligate overuse of personal pronouns. Sentences following each other need not all commence with "she" where interconnected clauses and/or use of the surname would suffice and make for an easier and better flowing read. Qcomplex5 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• He wants to be called "Chelsea". Note that I used "he" because Manning's male. It's redundant and contradicting to call a male person a "she" even if Manning wants to be a woman. Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum and replaced with synthetic ovaries and has his sex changed from "male" to "female" will I call Manning a "she", but for now, if you have testicles and aren't a hermaphrodite, you are subjected to be referred to with male nouns. Keep the name of the title, but don't refer to Manning as a "she". Hitmonchan (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Anyone who is arguing that Chelsea cannot be a woman because she hasn't undergone physical surgery has clearly not read and/or understood the consensus-driven and unlocked transgender page. Also, I encourage my fellow editors to avoid ignorance...if you have not seen them for yourself, you cannot know what genitals Ms Manning has. Hurtsmyears (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• To the LGBT community: you are the force, and Bradley is trying to attract your attention. Thus he's trying to force you to listen to the voices of his unborn children: "please help us come into the world! Save Bradley from prison!". --Søren 21:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a "member of the LGBT community", whatever that really means these days. Personally I think this wiki change has been rather hasty based on newspaper reports, at a time when Manning's state of mental health is questionable at best. I'd suggest that there should've been a hold off in changing the page until something more official was confirmed, and that Manning's gender progressional was confirmed as being underway.Gymnophoria (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Timing

Are there any secondary sources that explain why Manning waited until the day after sentencing to declare her desire to become a woman? Does it have to do with transfer to prison? Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"She didn't want this to be something that overshadowed the case." googly-oogles. ViniTheHat (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's got to do with the lawyer trying to negotiate the sentence. Presumably, he's going to argue that Manning shouldn't go to prison, because the crimes were caused by "gender identity" problems. Especially not Leavenworth, which is male-only. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of caselaw stating that women, be they cis-, intersex-, or trans-, can be left in all-male facilities. Nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment does not require the separate placement of inmates based on sex. Galvan v. Carothers, 855 F.Supp. 285 (D. Alaska 1994) (The placement of a female inmate in an all-male prison wing did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.); Dimarco v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, 300 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1192-1194 (D. Wyo. 2004) (The placement of an intersexual inmate, who was of alleged female gender but was anatomically situated as a male due to the presence of a penis, in segregated confinement for a period of 438 days, with concomitant severely limited privileges, solely because of the condition and status of ambiguous gender was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment where the safety of the inmate and other inmates was secured by placing the inmate in administrative segregation, and the inmate was provided the basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing and medical treatment.); Lucrecia v. Samples, 1995 WL 630016 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (The transfer of a transsexual inmate to an all-male facility and her housing in an all-male cell did not violate the due process clause where the inmate failed to demonstrate the infringement of a liberty interest.). So your supposition is either based on lack of knowledge of the legal position Trans people are in, or something else. As for the public declaration, transsexuality is progressive, becoming more intense over time. Something we know was bad enough to cause suicidal ideation 4 years ago is likely much more intense by now. The only surprise to me is that she decided on the name "Chelsea" rather than "Breanna" - as reported in multiple sources back then. Just not emphasised. Zoe Brain (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, that's unverifiable speculation, and arguably an attack on the integrity of Manning's lawyer. Kindly refrain from both crystal ball antics and personal attacks. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2013: Swap army photo for photo of Manning dressed as woman

Since she intends to live as female now, perhaps we should swap

for

Non-free image replaced with link to image. Fair use rationale extends only to one particular section of the article; this being a talk page does not excuse its use here. matt (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

?

Not too sure about this myself, mind. AJF (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

see Kristen Beck - I ended up using two photos. But we should get a better photo first, if possible... does one exist? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) This isn't the person's facebook page. The person is the person, dressed up or not, and the military photo is far more informative as to the reason for notability. If Pte Manning ends up as a champion of the LGBT movement and that is the enduring legacy, sure, we should change it. For now, the photo we have is fine. It's much more recognizable anyway. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we use both, then. The female picture is more representative of her as a person, but the second picture is more representative of her notability. - AJF (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would qualify as fair use - as she's still living, it would still be possible to obtain a free image in the future. If we don't want to use the picture of her as a male (which I have no opinion on), then we should just remove it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Images

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. Posting a photo of Manning as a male would be false. ViniTheHat (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would qualify as fair use. After all, it's been released to inform the public. - AJF (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The first photo is of superior quality and a public domain government work. The copyright status of the latter is unclear. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've requested clarification on the image license from Manning's attorney in VRTS ticket # 2013082210012666 (requires permissions-commons access) and will post back if I have more details. LFaraone 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have contact info, why not reach out to Manning's attorney and request a better (and free) photo. The one we have is terrible...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; I requested a preferred photo in addition to requesting a license for the current one. LFaraone 22:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been done on the ticket. As it stands I think the grounds for fair use on that image are shaky at best. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to put too much importance on a photo of Manning "dressed as a woman". At least to my perspective, the differences are all fashion fads that are prevalent in more sex than another, but don't define sex or gender on their own. I mean, women look far prettier without that awful eye makeup; men look much nicer with long (real) hair; ties are a cultural foul-up nobody can explain ... when I filter out all these details, Manning seems just as much male in the wig photo, and of course he's always been somewhat female, especially in the face, in the other photos. So I think we should look more to the significance of the photos to the sources and not look for an ideological reason to feature a low grade B/W photo. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning isn't ideological, it's simply that Manning is uncomfortable in a masculine role and would obviously prefer to be shown as a woman. Hence the name and gender change. - AJF (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm using "ideological" in a broad sense here, such as statements about what someone prefers (how do I know? If he wants to make clear to us what he prefers he can donate a better-quality picture.... :) ) Wnt (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Manning as a male is what most people identify with. There is no disrespect in using the photo of them as a male, as the news events up until now have shown them as they looked. Enough pandering to this LGBT "respect", the photo of them wearing a wig should be presented in the section about their sexual identity. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not "pandering". Nor does wiki decide on article titles and images used based solely on how the public knows them. If a person identifies as another gender and states so publicly, the journalistic standard is to respect that identity and abide by it. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that person's identity and their public announcement of their preferred identity, but this should be done in a separate section. It is in that section that Manning's previous identity and images from that period should be presented, if at all. If you are concerned that users won't know where to find info on Manning as most know her from when she identified and prsented as a man, then make a redirect page and put "formerly known as Bradley Manning". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Manning identified themselves as, it matters what the rest of the world identifies them as. Until a few days ago, nobody conjured up that cross-dressing (and yes, dressing as a woman while having undeniable male biology is cross-dressing, that's the definition of it. When the legal or biological status changes, then they are transgendered. Until then, they self-identify as X. Note the difference: "Is" vs "Identifies as". Chelsea IS a man. She identifies as a woman. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You have your terms backwards: Manning is a male and identifies as a woman. The standard in journalism, medicine, psychology, and most other fields is to use the self-identified gender of the person when referring to them (the identity part), not the sex (the biology part) and not how the world sees them. This is also Wikipedia's policy. Also, that is not the connotation of cross-dressing; the term implies that the person does not necessarily identify with the opposite sex/gender. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A person does not become transgender only when the process of gender transition is completed. As soon as they publicly come out as having a gender dysphoria disorder at all, they are transgender no matter how far along they are or aren't in the process. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Agreed, Manning was not notable for crossdressing, he was notable for the crimes he committed as an army private. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning is not just "crossdressing". EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that this is not what Manning is notable for. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Who says the photo has him dressing as a woman? What do women dress like? I don't know who added the photo, but why does it say "feminine wig"? What does that even mean? StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't even know what gender is anymore. I'm just an amorphous blob. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I think the move discussion is very professional and constructive. Quite a few of the other discussions are arguments about information that shouldn't be argued about. It shouldn't be about whether certain users who are against your position are trolls who are disrupting the Wiki. It shouldn't be accusation upon accusation of transphobia, as one editor noted earlier. It shouldn't be a bunch of sarcasm. What we should be talking about is what Manning should be addressed as. That's very simple. Could we please stop with the personal attacks and baiting now? --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a significant number of contributors are saying that the article should be a particular way because of a basic opposition to the notion of changing one's public gender identity is, in point of fact, virulently transphobic. There's not really a way to respond to it without calling it what it is. I'm far more concerned by people bringing bigotry into the discussion than I am with people calling them out on it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this talk page includes vast amounts of appalling hate commentary that obviously violates BLP (including comparisons of transgendered people to people claiming to be dogs). In fact, it's hard to see any other explanation for someone insisting on calling an individual who self-identifies as female by using their former name with which they no longer identifies, than virulent hatred of transgendered people. I say we end this discussion now, because we are not moving it anywhere because of some (mostly new?) editors' transphobia, and because Chelsea Manning is the only acceptable title per a very straightforward application of Wikipedia policy, and common human decency. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Josh, your statements are pretty offensive. I support moving the page back to "Bradley Manning" simply because that is the name that is most commonly used for Manning. "Virulent hatred of transgendered people" doesn't factor into my reasoning at all. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• "a very straightforward application of Wikipedia policy" Absolutely untrue. Reasonable people can disagree, and a very sizable portion of people commenting on this matter have a different interpretation of Wikipedia policy than yours. If there was a Wikipedia policy that stated 'articles about trans* individuals should take the name of their current chosen name' the debate would be solved. But no such policy exists.

"common human decency" Again, people have different standards of what is common and what is decent. It's important, in my view, to understand why people say what they say and try to explain your perspective in a calm, rational manner. That encourages compromise and understanding rather than entrenched opposition. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Except for one thing: the people who are most directly affected by the situation get to hold the trump card in any discussion of what's offensive and what isn't in writing about their community. African-Americans get the final say in what uses of the n-word are or aren't offensive; lesbians and gay men get the final say in when it is or isn't acceptable to use "faggot" or "dyke"; trans people get the final say in how (gender pronouns, names, etc.) it is or isn't acceptable to write about a trans person — and if you're not in those communities yourself, then you don't get to say SFA about what those communities are or aren't entitled to be offended by, because they, not you, are the ones who actually have to deal with this stuff every day of their lives.

Trans people, not you, are the ones who can still, even 20 years or more after completing their gender transition, have to deal on a regular basis with people who still insist on referring to them by their birth gender and/or name. Trans people, not you, are the ones who still have to deal on a regular basis with having their genuine medical and identity issues dismissed as equivalent to somebody arbitrarily declaring himself to be a dog or Napoleon or an alien from the planet Xorfblarg. Trans people, not you, are the ones who still have to deal on a regular basis with people who think it's acceptable to ask invasive questions like whether she still has a penis or not. Trans people, not you, are the ones who still have to deal on a regular basis with day-to-day life issues like possibly not being allowed to use a public restroom because they're not "really" the target gender. All of which means that if you aren't one of them, you do not get to tell them what's offensive and what isn't — they get to tell you what's offensive and what isn't, and you get to shut up, smile and accept it with no ifs, ands or buts under any circumstances.

Whether you agree or disagree with how widely Josh appeared to cast the net, there has absolutely been offensive anti-trans hate speech being spouted on this page in the past 24 hours — and people who let that stuff slide without comment, but then get their noses out of joint about the word "bigot" being thrown around as if that were somehow more offensive than the original hate speech is, don't exactly get to claim the moral high road. Sure, it's possible that you're genuinely not a bigot, but if you get labelled as one in a discussion about a sensitive speech issue, then the onus is on you to consider how what you said might have come across that way whether you intended it or not, not on anybody else to grant you the benefit of the doubt — especially not if that person is themselves a member of the affected community, and thus their word on whether a usage is offensive or not is therefore the equivalent of a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

You want to earn not-a-bigot cred? Show me that you can find one of the numerous examples of clear anti-trans hate speech that are already present on this page. But make no mistake: it's your responsibility to earn that not-a-bigot cred, not anybody else's to grant it to you as a default position. My right as a gay man to not be subjected to anti-gay hate speech in the first place, and a trans person's right to not be subject to anti-trans hate speech, are infinitely more important than anyone else's supposed "right" not to be called a bigot. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Have your opinion however you want, but WP:NPA is granted automatically to everyone. So knock it off.--v/r - TP 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, there's nothing for me to knock off, because I posted one single, solitary comment on the matter — and secondly, the fact that hate speech is not acceptable is not just my "opinion". WP:NPA explicitly states, right in its very first example, that homophobic or transphobic hate speech is not acceptable — it does not say that responding to (potentially or actually) homophobic or transphobic hate speech to call it homophobic or transphobic constitutes a "personal attack". Saying "that was a transphobic thing to say" does not constitute a personal attack, no matter how deeply offended you are to be told that you've offended someone else — nothing about Josh's comment crossed any "personal attack" lines, because he kept his comment completely on the level of engaging the substance of the arguments being made and not one single word of it lapsed into ad hominem or epithet territory. The only people who have violated NPA on this page at all are the posters of the original anti-trans hate speech, and that is not just my own "opinion". Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm presumed to be a bigot, and I must prove to you that I'm not if I don't want to be called bigoted? Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really all that concerned with what you do or don't choose to take seriously; I'm concerned with the fact that virtually everybody who's appealing to WP:NPA in this discussion is glossing over the actual anti-trans hate speech that has happened on this page in the past 24 hours, and is instead training their guns on anybody who's responded to it even if those responses contained no personal attacks at all. If you do accidentally give offense that you didn't intend, then take ownership of that fact, and think about how and why your words might have communicated something you didn't intend — but if you don't want to be perceived as a bigot, then whether you like it or not you have to accept that trans people are the ones who get to decide whether you're coming across as an anti-trans bigot or not. If you don't want to be perceived as a bigot, then you have to listen when they tell you why something you said came across as offensive. If you don't want to be perceived as a bigot, then you have to take it seriously when someone tells you that you are being perceived as one.

You don't get to decide what trans people are or aren't allowed to be offended by; they do. Whether you like it or not, that's just how it works. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat, I just saw your post. I can see that you care passionately about this issue and I applaud you for having the courage to speak up about it. I would think it very difficult to do so in a society that tends to discount and belittle the experiences of trans people..

I have seen numerous comments that I find quite offensive. For example, the comparison to dogs above, to which I responded disapprovingly. You can also refer to my other responses throughout the page. I think it is rude to intentionally refer to Chelsea as Bradley or as a male or using the "he" pronoun. I prefer to refer to Chelsea using her current name and the "she" pronoun, as I have done consistently.

All that being said, I have no responsibility to prove that I am not a bigot. I do not need to defend my character against attacks I consider to be unfounded. I politely but earnestly ask that you comment on content and avoid drawing conclusions about the character of others. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "draw any conclusions" about the character of others; "commenting on content" is exactly what I was doing in the comment that you responded to. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• "because of some (mostly new?) editors' transphobia" - Josh, if you took the time to turn on WP:POPUPS and check the people involved in the discussion, many of these people that you seem to be attempting to demonize have been here longer than you have. I find it appalling that you resort to blackening the names of other people to fulfill your agenda. Having a look at the comments you have made here, I've seen a fare share of appeal to emotion, moralistic fallacy, appeal to ridicule and poisoning the well, amongst other things. There's all this talk about "human decency", as if the alternative to what you are calling for is inhumane or indecent. It's difficult to discuss things with you, because you like to place yourself on the higher moral pedestal with your self-flattering words. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusion for the sake of what?

I don't want to cast aspersions on the motives of anyone favoring either version of the title or which pronouns to use, but some of the statements above seem motivated by something other than reporting about Manning. By the way, what does trans* mean? In any case, this article is very confusing in its current state. Imagine someone coming to Bradlee Manning and seeing Chelsea Manning. WTF is a likely response. I see there is a sentance at the bottom of the first section explaining Manning's disorder. If that were moved to the very top it might stop people from scratching their heads. It also might help if an explanation were given as to why the article says "Chelsea" and uses female pronouns.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a template we could place at the top of the article to indicate that the article uses the subject's preferred pronouns, and not the birth pronouns? That would help alleviate reader confusion. If we don't have a template, I'd be happy to make one. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, I second. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify, the template probably only needs to refer to "the subject's preferred pronouns", We can put it at the top of every BLP page. Be they transgendered or not. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I oppose that idea. If the article is confusing, perhaps you could propose a change to the lead that would clarify things - though, it seems quite clear to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

With regards to changing the lead, we could say something along the lines of "she prefers to be referred to using female pronouns." But I think a template would help convey Wikipedia style guidelines as they relate to Chelsea's wishes. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. Use a few words in the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose template, that seems like a way of "warning" users that the subject "is not really female". Transgendered people should not have special yellow badges on top of their articles, that would be almost as bad as having "this person is Jewish" templates. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

... And its finally happend folks, Godwins law, lets have a round of applause for wikipeida for lasting slightly over 24 hours...(sarcastic applause) CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And if you were wondering that was a straw man but i couldn't help myself, sorry. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well Manning is not really female. But I suggest moving "Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood and released a statement the day after her sentencing identifying as female, taking the name Chelsea Manning and expressing a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy.[14]" immediately after the first sentance. That would address the name/pronoun issue right away.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she is female. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The facts are fairly clear, according to her, she is female, according to genetics, he is male. I don't think anyone is arging that.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Transgenderism can result from a variety of factors, granted, but in at least some cases it most certainly can and does happen that due to a variety of prenatal or epigenetic complications, a person can end up with a body that is genetically XX but develops male sex characteristics instead of female ones, or genetically XY but develops female sex characteristics. So unless you have personal access to Manning's DNA, you have no way of being able to actually verify which gender she genetically is or isn't. The only thing you can be sure of is that she was assigned to the male gender at birth by virtue of what type of body part happened to be externally visible between her legs — the fact that she had male parts doesn't, in and of itself, prove that she's genetically male. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a less than a %0.01 chance that Manning is afflicted by the disease that would make the body appear male but be genetically femal, if we are going to require that kind of rigor on wikipeida, we are going to have to delete ~%90 of the content here.CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you a world-renowned expert in the prevalence or non-prevalence of genetic abnormalities? I'm willing to bet that you're not, so on what authority can you presume to know how likely it is or isn't that she has any one particular disease, or even that there's only one disease that can cause a mismatch between a person's DNA and the kind of naughty bits they have? (In actual fact, there are several possible causes of that, not just one, and they're not even all "diseases" — and while it may be true that there's less than a 0.01% chance that she has any particular one of them, when you add up all the possible causes it's not that unlikely after all.) And indeed, my main point was simply that you made an unverifiable assumption about what combination of sex chromosomes she happens to have inside her cells — unless you actually have personal access to Manning's DNA test results, it's still an unverifiable assumption no matter how likely or unlikely you presume it to be. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we seriously going to the argument of "you've never seen his/her cells, you cannot prove that he/she is a man"? I know that the statistics claims being thrown around here aren't really supportable with evidence, but surely we're not headed towards the outrageous "not male until biologically proven with official test results" hole? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

CombatWombat is the one who asserted an unverifiable assumption as if it were incontrovertibly known to be true, not me. All I'm saying is that it is not up to you to decide what another person really is or isn't when it comes to gender. You don't get to make the decision for another person about what they really are or aren't when it comes to gender identity — you get to make that decision for yourself and only for yourself. And incidentally, there is no "not male until biologically proven with official test results" hole that we're headed towards either, and you're outlandishly misreading my comment if you think I'm pushing toward one — what I'm saying is that we don't get into unfounded and unverified speculation about people's chromosomal makeup at all, nor should we. I'm not arguing for genetic testing of our article subjects; I'm arguing against unverified assumptions about what genetic testing would find. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to argue by being purposely obtuse you are welcome to that approach, I suspect that anyone who reads your argument and mine will see my point. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being obtuse in the slightest. You asserted the unverifiable assumption that her chromosomal makeup matches her birth gender rather than her target gender as if it were proven fact, I'm merely pointing out that it is indeed an unverifiable assumption. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

People's genetics are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for trying to provide clarity to the argumet, but you said "she is female" without caveat. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think explaining the use of pronouns is stigmatizing. I think it helps the reader understand the topic. Imagine someone who knows absolutely nothing about trans* people. That person, when reading the article, might be very confused, and might jump to assumptions about who Chelsea is or how she identifies. By explaining the pronouns - laying out the rationale in clear language - we make it very clear what pronouns she prefers, as well as the Wikipedia style guidelines on pronouns. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I got involved in this discussion because I was searching for "Bradley Manning" and ended up on the Chelsea Manning page. I was unaware of the change in gender identification, so I was pretty confused for a while. Eventually I figured out what was going on when I read the Talk page. I agree that some clarification can be helpful. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with CaseyPenk above -- I think there's no particular need to add an explanation box to all transpeoples' articles, but in cases like this one where the person has notoriety under different identities that used different pronouns at the time, it's worth clarifying what choice Wikipedia is making and why. Chris Smowton (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What bothers me is that people are making comments based on their own personal agenda, this is not a place for that, please put your personal feelings aside and try to be neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification (Minor edit request)

The text " the CPU is not made for this motherboard" (#Loss of rank and recommended discharge 1st para) is an analogy that most may not understand, seeming to be a non sequiteur.

Any opposition to editing it to read:

"[...] plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ..."^CITE (meaning, the brain is not a match for the body.)

This would clarify it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Most people aren't familiar with computer hardware. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree it needs clarification. Not sure the proposed explanation is perfect (it might be, just not sure). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, it looks odd to single out one expression and explain it, and anyway this is the kind of normal editing that can take place when protection is lifted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any other statements of that ilk in the article :) That's just how it is. One statement is unclear. Saying "it would be odd to single out one" when none others exist would be a curious comment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of remarks in the chat that readers who aren't computer literate probably won't get without looking things up, e.g. "penetrating US classified networks, mining data ... date time groups, lat-lon locations ... transferring that data from the classified networks over the 'air gap' ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it ... while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage ... weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why cant we do this? - Make wikilinks to CPU and motherboard? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it doesn't explain the analogy.

(To put it in a context that's as alien as motherboards will be for many people - if someone gave an analogy for some reason, that you or I didn't understand, that "the boson doesn't share symmetries with the quark", it wouldn't help us make sense of the weird comment to wikilink the words 'boson', 'symmetry' and 'quark' to their actual articles.)FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree we can and should wait until protection is lifted, if any change is to be made there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unless we can quote a reliable source's explanation for the metaphor, any clarification we write should probably be in a footnote. I do understand the metaphor, so it's not easy to read this from the perspective of someone who doesn't, but I would expect to want a bit more context than Anthony's suggestion offers (although it is a good start). I've disabled the edit request for now, as there is currently no consensus for the specific suggestion, but there is no reason why it can't be discussed further. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender Identity Disorder → Gender Dysphoria

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

---

"Gender Identity Disorder" was dropped in the DSM-5 in favour of "Gender Dysphoria". The language used in this page should be updated accordingly. The term "Gender Identity Disorder" appears (and should be replaced with "Gender Dysphoria") in the final paragraph of the introduction and in the final paragraph of section 4.3.

• Support. This appears to be correct (see page 14 of Highlight of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 from dsm5.org). Space simian (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

LGBT studies

What is this article's Importance rating in “WikiProject LGBT studies”?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

None. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013

In the section "Guilty plea, trial, sentence" it says "all pay and benefits" will be forfeited. This is incorrect. According to Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), Rules of Court Martial (RCM) Rule 1003(b), Authorized Punishments, subsection (2) calls for the forfeiture of "all pay and allowances". ["Benefits" is not used in the MCM except in other contexts. Benefits overall can include retirement benefits, the privilege of wearing the uniform, burial in military cemeteries, etc..] The only word needing change is "allowances" instead of "benefits". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Another Edit request on 25 August 2013

In the Return to the United States section, stepmother is spelled stepmonther. Why, exactly, have established editors been blocked from fixing silly little things like this? Thegreatdr (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Because even established editors and admin have got involved in making poor choices. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any rational person would think this is a controversial change. Would an administrator please fix this typo?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are making the incorrect assumption that wikipedia editors are rational persons. ;) Space simian (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox bugs

Firstly, please reinstate this uncontroversial change to the first infobox, which appears to have been inadvertently undone as part of another change.

Secondly, because this article uses a custom infobox (I repeat my earlier question: why is {{infobox person}} not thought suitable?), the line:

| birth_name = Bradley Edward Manning

does not display. The birthplace is also displaced. Please therefore change, again in the first infobox:

| label2      = Born
| data2       = {{birth date and age|1987|12|17}}<br />[[Crescent, Oklahoma|Crescent]], [[Oklahoma (U.S. state)|Oklahoma]], U.S.
| label3      = Birth place
| data3       = 

to:

| data2       = {{birth date and age|1987|12|17}}<br /><span class="nickname">Bradley Edward Manning</span>
| label3      = Birth place
| data3       = [[Crescent, Oklahoma|Crescent]], [[Oklahoma (U.S. state)|Oklahoma]], U.S.

The HTML markup class="nickname" will ensure that the birth name is part of the emitted hCard metadata, and will not change the visual appearance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox list format

To improve accessibility, please apply {{Plainlist}} in the top infobox, by changing:

| data10       = [[National Defense Service Medal]]<br />[[Iraq Campaign Medal]]<br />[[Global War on Terrorism Service Medal]]<br />[[Army Service Ribbon]]<br />[[Overseas Service Ribbon#Army|Overseas Service Ribbon]]

to:

| data10       = {{plainlist|
* [[National Defense Service Medal]]
* [[Iraq Campaign Medal]]
* [[Global War on Terrorism Service Medal]]
* [[Army Service Ribbon]]
* [[Overseas Service Ribbon#Army|Overseas Service Ribbon]]
}}

and

| data11       = Brian Manning<br /> Susan Fox

to:

| data11       = {{plainlist|
* Brian Manning
* Susan Fox
}}

These changes will make no visual difference, but will assist the users of screen reading software. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I concur (just going off to change all my br-separated lists to plainlinks) - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Compromising the facts for political correctness

Why is Wikipedia referring to a biological male who identified as a male for the periods of time which are most relevant to the article as a female throughout? "Chelsea" was a boy when he was born, he was a boy throughout school, he was a man when he served in the army, he was a man when he did the leaks, he was a man when he was arrested, he was a man for much of his stay in prison.

We should not rewrite her past because she prefers to be seen as a woman now. Wikipedia should not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of political correctness. I think that we should refer to Chelsea as Bradley during the periods which she was named Bradley, and we should use the appropriate pronouns when we do so.

Let me list some examples of where political correctness results in things not making sense:

"Manning was regarded as small for her age – as an adult, she reached just 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed 105 lb (47.6 kg) " As someone brought up before, small for a man -- but not so much as a woman. Understanding that she was small while identifying as male helps give insight into her life while she lived as a man.

"Manning was by then living as an openly gay man. Her relationship with her father was apparently good" Why are we misgendering a gay man?

"She gave an anonymous interview to a high-school reporter during a rally in Syracuse in support of gay marriage ..." Women do not get kicked out of their homes and lose their jobs for wanting to marry men.

These are just a few situations where misgendering Bradley can lead to misunderstandings. I understand why people wish to respect Chelsea's recent transition, but we should not treat her transition as if it took place retroactively. I believe that we should refer to Chelsea as Bradley and use the male pronoun following the introduction up until the section "Gender reassignment".

Am I a massive trans-hating bigot, or am I raising a fair point?

24.22.47.95 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does this because Wikipedia's style guide says we should. —me_and 17:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem. Per WP:IAR we should do precisely what the IP suggests immediately. jj (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing rules override any "style guide" wikipedians have invented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to bring the same idea. Per WP:PG, policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Currently Manning is both legally and biologically male since, to my knowledge, his identity document and other official documents refer to him as a male. The present state of the article is indeed confusing. Brandmeister^talk 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The announcement is nothing more than part of the attorney's negotation process for the appeal. This PC-driven move lowers wikipedia's credibility even further (if that's possible). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to reconcile your use of the phrase "PC-driven" with an assumption of good faith. Morwen (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your throwing around the term "transphobic" destroys your "good faith" argument. This story is nothing more than a lawyer's negotiation tactic, and you all have swallowed the bait, making wikipedia look even more stupid than it already does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Women don't get kicked out of their homes for loving men, but trans women get kicked out of their homes for being "gay" (i.e., people not respecting their gender identity and calling them gay for being male-bodied and being sexually interested in "other" men. this is a very common issue amongst the trans populace.) 71.90.172.117 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But Manning did identify himself as a gay man at one point of his life: "Amidst the disintegration of his family, pubescent Brad was coming to terms with his own sexuality. [...] He also told his two best friends he was gay. [...] “I was kicked out of my home, and I once lost my job [because I am gay],” he told her". Source Now some ideologically motivated people are anachronistically trying to rewrite his entire personal history by using the pronoun "she" at all times of his life. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender doesn't change over night. It is not the case that she was a man up until her announcement then suddenly became a woman. Her gender will have always been female, but it is only now that Manning became certain of her gender and that we have found out. 86.16.146.123 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article currently reads: "She will serve her time at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas in the United States Disciplinary Barracks." While the article on United States Disciplinary Barracks reads: "The USDB is the U.S. military's only maximum-security facility and houses male service members convicted at court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice"¨ By claiming that Manning is a "she", this article is essentially claiming that the USDB were a mixed-sex prison, which it is not... And anachronistically rewriting Manning's personal history so that all references are in the form of "she" or "her" seems kind of Orwellian: "We've always been at war with Eastasia"! This is insane. Political correctness shouldn't trump facts. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the historical rewrites, it makes the article really incoherent. I'm not sure why her declaration that she's a woman now should require changing past events when she wasn't a woman - there doesn't seem to be an issue in articles where people have just changed their names, they just use the identity that they had at the time they did stuff (e.g. Szmuel Gelbfisz was born in Warsaw, Samuel Goldfish was the Chairman of the board of Famous Players-Lasky, and Samuel Goldwyn started Goldwyn pictures) --Jeude54cartes (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's really a matter of perspective. I don't know Manning's particular story, but I do know that some trans people, say those born male, feel like "women" for much of their lives. So while we may say "Manning WAS a man when he was arrested", you don't know how Manning himself/herself felt at that point in time. So the revisionism is odd, but it does seem to hew a bit more closely in some cases to the actual inner identity of the person in question. --Obi-Wan Kenobi ([[User talk:::biwankenobi|talk]]) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another instance of 'political correctness' being used as justification to launch an ad hominem attack on editors acting in good faith. If you say 'politeness' or 'common courtesy' instead of 'political correctness', the complaint disappears. 'Political correctness' is simply emotive language, an I-don't-like-it objection dressed up as a real argument. If you've got something useful to say, say it - all you show by objecting to decency is that you are unkind. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The moment somebody trots out "you people are just adhering to political correctness" as their line of argument, I immediately know that they're not a person whose opinions I need to accord any respect or consideration at all, because it's not a real argument. "Political correctness" for its own sake is not a motivation that anybody adheres to; it's a pejorative way of dismissing other people's motivations as automatically invalid without actually making a substantive or reasoned argument for another position. This is a real issue that actually has real effects on the real life of real people — it is not just a meaningless abstraction that people are arguing about for "politically correct" reasons, and it is not a trivial discussion that people are robotically joining in because George Soros' Magic Laser Mind Control Beam told us to. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And you think calling people "transphobic" (as you are doing below) is a real argument? It's not – it's a pejorative way of dismissing people, who disagree with you. A phobia is defined as an anxiety disorder based on irrational fear. Diagnoses on phobias are made by psychiatrists based on careful examination – they are not made anonymously on Wikipedia talk pages. If you read the examples given in the first comment in this subsection and the follow-ups to them, you will see that referring to Manning as a female throughout his life creates very real problems. The "considered to be small" thing is one example: Manning was considered small on the male scale (since he is male), yet the article insists on writing "small for her age" even there – even though nobody called Manning by the female pronoun at the time in question, and even though the height in question would not have been considered to be that small on the female scale (which, again, was not used, since no one considered him to be a female). --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Transphobia is a real thing — and I didn't call anybody that either; saying that an argument is coming across as transphobic is not the same thing as saying that a person is transphobic. Maybe other people crossed that line; I did not. Political correctness is not a real thing. That's the difference. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia had better hope that the general public doesn't learn that this "debate" is going on here; the result would be the total discrediting of Wikipedia--facts are being tossed aside for the sake of Manning's emotional needs. Facts: Manning's legal name is Bradley, official paperwork continues to refer to him as male, he will be incarcerated in a male-only prison, and for the next 35 years he will not be seeing a gynecologist. There is simply no question as to his maleness--except in his own head--and there for no basis for invoking MOS:IDENTITY. Manning's emotional needs, important though they are, do not override facts. He should be referred to as Bradley Manning, and as a male, until the appropriate changes are actually made in official legal documentation. At best, "Chelsea Manning" can be regarded as something like a pseudonym. This isn't transphobia; this is common sense. 208.163.239.119 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In exactly the same way as it is almost entirely impossible to verify in reliable sources whether a transgender person is "pre-operative" or "post-operative" in regards to the surgery itself, it is very rarely ever properly verifiable in reliable sources whether their legal name change has or hasn't taken place: there are privacy laws preventing that information from becoming available on the public record at all. And for the same reasons that a trans person may not even be able to actually have the surgery in the first place, the legal name change may not be available to them either — not being able to afford it, not being old enough to be legally allowed to make their own consenting decisions about surgical or legal procedures, etc.

Many transgender people are unemployed or underemployed, for instance, because discrimination against them as trans people is sufficiently strong that they're not always able to keep a job, even if they're outstanding workers, just because people aren't willing to hire "freaks" — and because of this, a considerable number of them are forced to accept unsafe and/or low-paying jobs, or end up having to live on social assistance. And while some places cover the surgery under health insurance programs, many do not. So actually having the surgery, or filing the paperwork to have their name and documents legally changed, may be a luxury that not all trans people can actually afford right away.

It is, therefore, transphobic to insist that recognition and acceptance of a trans person's identity is or should be conditional on her success in jumping through these extra hoops: she may not have the financial resources to do so, and there's very rarely any way at all for us to ever properly verify in reliable sources if and when she's successfully jumped through any of them anyway. And even years down the road, there will always still be people who insist that those changes still aren't enough, and that we should still describe her by her birth gender and birth name on the grounds that transgenderism is a fundamentally illegitimate phenomenon in the first place.

Which is why a transgender person's name and gender identity have to be accepted at face value as soon as those things have been announced on the public record, ABSOLUTELY, UNCONDITIONALLY REGARDLESS of how far along in the process she is or isn't. No matter what excuses you use to justify yourself, there is no non-transphobic way to take any other position. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's rather impervious to say that all arguments again this are transphobic. Many of us have expressed no disregard for Chelsea's expressed gender beyond this point, but rather feel that the retroactive application of this (ie "She was always a woman but just figured it out now", maybe she hasn't fully figured it out yet, or maybe it is a psychological issue where she can't identify with gender) is both confusing, illogical, and against the record. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, that attitude is transphobic. We don't treat people with a psychological condition as being "illogical," nor do we somehow separate them into two different people. We deal with them as they are - transgendered. A biographical article about the person *today* must reflect their expressed gender. There is likely to be a time and place within the article to discuss their personal history and transition, if it is a significant public event (as I would agree it is in Manning's case).

Is the issue confusing? Quite possibly. That is something to work out through the editorial process, through educating the reader as to Manning's gender identity and transition. That does not in any way suggest that we should deny Manning's self-identified gender or persist with the use of a name and gender she rejects out of some concern about "confusion."

It may be "confusing" to some readers that we describe two men as being married. They'll just have to get educated about same-sex marriage and stop being confused about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're being deliberately transphobic or not. A transgender person does not go through life happily and comfortably living as one gender and then just suddenly decide on a whim to transition to the other one — rather, there are virtually always some early signs of gender dysphoria visible in childhood. Some kids do understand what's going on quite young but it takes them until their teen years or adulthood before they have the courage, resources and ability to actually come out about it, while other kids don't actually put all the pieces together in the first place until they're much older — but signs of a mismatch between a person's internal gender identity and their external genitalia typically start to emerge as early as the age of two, three or four (i.e. as soon as they're old enough to even begin engaging in distinctively gendered behaviour at all), and do not just suddenly show up out of the blue in adulthood in someone whose internal identity formerly did match up with their body. That's why pronouns have to be converted all the way back to birth: whether you understand it or not, whether she had the comprehension to put a name to it yet or not, a transgender person's internal gender identity has always been that of the target gender.

This is not a rule that Wikipedia made up on its own to be tendentious or confusing, but rather it's the exact same rule that applies to any other media outlet, any other book, anywhere at all: either you follow GLAAD's Media Reference Guide to the letter, or you are being transphobic whether you meant to be or not. Sure, you have the right to make up your own different way of handling the topic if you want — but you don't get to make up a different rule and then call it not transphobic. There are only two possibilities — GLAAD rules or transphobic — and there is not so much as one single solitary hair of wiggle room between those two things. Bearcat (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

BC, I have a lot of respect for you, but when you make these categorical statements like "not so much as one single solitary hair of wiggle room", it does not contribute helpfully to the discourse and consensus building on this page. I'm sure you realize that TG is a complex constellation of identity, and Manning's own experience of being TG has been complex and nuanced and perhaps fraught with confusion. Stomping in and saying "Follow GLAAD or you're a transphobic asshole" does not permit discussion of these delicate and nuanced matters, especially when there is a seeming conflict between Wikipedia's long-established article titling policies and your GLAAD rules, for example. This confusion has manifested itself in how the news media has reacted, with similar waffling. Going around and saying all of those news media editors are transphobic is an abuse of the term and trivializes real transphobia, which likely led to a trans-person being recently killed in NY. You are welcome to say that, in YOUR personal opinion, not keeping the page title as Chelsea is insensitive to Manning's expressed wishes, but tarring everyone who opposes with a transphobic brush, simply isn't helpful. If there are particularly odious comments, please engage with the editor in question directly or refer to ANI.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I didn't say "asshole"; you inserted that yourself, while I left open the possibility that some transphobia could be committed by well-meaning people who aren't intentionally being transphobic and thus are probably not fully informed rather than actually being assholes. But the reality is that while you do see a variety of ways in which media outlets actually write about transgender people, there is only one way to write about transgender people that is correct, only one way to do it that is appropriately considerate of all the BLP issues involved and appropriately respectful of a transgender person's right to define and name themselves — and that way is GLAAD's rules. Not all published sources actually follow them, true, but only the published sources that do follow them are writing about transgender issues correctly. There's no nuance to be had on that question; a transgender person has the same right as anybody else does to define their identity (their name, etc.) for themselves, and by definition you're taking that right away from them (and thus being transphobic, intentionally or not) if you don't follow the GLAAD rules. "Transphobia" does not only cover acts of physical violence against transgender people, any more than "homophobia" is limited to acts of physical violence against gays or lesbians — it means anything, physical or verbal or non-verbal, malicious or well-intentioned, which has the result of subjecting them to different treatment than the "normal" (note the quotation marks) people get, and that does include discounting or withholding acceptance of the person's preferred name. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat, you've just painted yourself into a corner. Those arguing based on COMMONNAME are making that exact point you just made - we should not treat Manning's name change and differently than that of Cat Stevens or Snoop Dogg. OTOH, you are arguing for exceptionalism here. For the pronouns, that's fine, I'm not arguing that. I shouldn't have added "asshole" above, thats just the way I read some of the comments by you and others, but I apologize. If we met Manning in the street, common decency would require that we call her Chelsea (and I'm sure Snoop's friends call him Lion), but until that is the search term people use, and that is the way major media refer to her, I don't see why Manning should be treated differently. That's the problem with the categorical language you're using - you're saying "It's GLAAD's rule or you're transphobic", but our policies are intended for recognizability for users, while balancing BLP concerns. In this case, it's a pendulum and can swing either way, but there are reasoned arguments and reasoned people on both sides.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

For any example you could come up with where an article about a performer who changed his or her stage name wasn't moved, I can point to others where an article was changed immediately upon or very soon after a name change announcement, regardless of the volume of old sourcing that used the old name — so Snoop Dogg and Cat Stevens prove nothing except that we have conflicting precedents in different circumstances. And we'll never mind that both Snoop Dogg and Cat Stevens were stage names for people whose legal names were entirely different in the first place — I'm pretty sure, for instance, that Snoop's personal friends call him Calvin, not "Dogg" or "Lion", in day-to-day interaction — and thus are not comparable to the matter of a person changing their legal given name (or their public gender identity) anyway.

And again, I never said that Wikipedia is under an obligation to follow GLAAD's rules; yes, it can make up its own different rules if it really wants to. But the GLAAD rules are the only option that is not inherently disrespectful to and dismissive of transgender people — so what you do not get to do is make up your own alternative rules and then demand that people refrain from calling that choice what it is. I'm using categorical language because it is a categorical issue — whether you mean to be transphobic or not, titling this article anything other than Chelsea Manning is, in and of itself, an act of transphobia no matter what reasoning you use to make that decision. There simply is no such thing as a non-transphobic way to discount, disregard, circumvent or undermine a transgender person's right to define her gender identity for herself and to have her chosen name privileged over her former one — you may believe that you have non-transphobic reasons for doing so, but the act of doing so is itself a transphobic thing to do. I'd love to be able to tell you there's a way around that fact, so that this discussion can settle down, but there just isn't one. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The way this particular person's transition has unfolded is the source of scrutiny. To announce it to the world the day after receiving a harsh sentence seems very ironic at best and manipulative at worst. It is also worth considering that this is a biography, and not quite journalism, but that's semantics really. I understand the need to be supportive of transgendered individuals due to the way they are ridiculed by a large segment of the population. However, acceptance shouldn't compromise honesty or curiosity under the banner of "transphobia", nor should it imply absolute obedience to one particular viewpoint and shut out any constructive criticism that while possibly ignorant, is made in good faith and without malicious intent upon the person themselves. It is fair to ask questions such as whether the timing is meant to garner public sympathy, whether the identity is legit or if she doesn't believe she fits in with any gender identity completely, or whether this person will change their name on a regular basis given that they wanted to be referred to as Breanna just 3 months ago. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I didn't imply a lack of good faith; rather, I acknowledged that it is possible to be accidentally transphobic without meaning to be. But no, for the record, it's not "fair" to ask questions which suggest that she might not be on the level — those, by their very nature, are speculative questions which cannot be answered without some kind of magical access to what's going on inside her head (i.e. there's no verifiable answer that can be gained by focusing on them until she says something about them herself.) Sure, any of them could be true — yes, a small minority of transgender people do find that actually living as the target gender doesn't actually turn out to fit them as well as they thought it would or to make their lives any better than their birth gender did, and thus either transition back or adopt a new "genderless" identity; yes, transgender people do sometimes opt to change their names again, just like some of us cisgendered folk do too; and yes, there have probably been a few people (but you could count them on the fingers of one hand) in history who have had ulterior or fraudulent motives for claiming a transgender identity that they had no real intention of actually following through on. But there's nothing to be gained by speculating about those things right now. If something about her identity (which gender she chooses to identify with, if either at all; what name she uses; etc.) changes again in the future, then we can deal with that when it happens — but until one of them actually does happen, it's crystal-balling to suggest that the fact that they could happen is a valid reason to withhold acceptance of the name and gender identity that she has professed as of today. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea E. Manning

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

---

What does the E stand for? Presumably not Edward any more?

A good point, and why is the E even there? Has Manning expressed a desire to keep using her middle name? If so, link/source? Without that expressed interest, who are we to include it? Moncrief (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds as though Chelsea signed the letter, "Chelsea E. Manning." CaseyPenk (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the letter. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edwardine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That sort of comment is not called for.Jbower47 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I saw it in the Guardian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think so. And I don't think you saw it anywhere else. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the Talk page. I would recommend you reread wiki policy. This is not a forum or a place for inappropriate "humor".Jbower47 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth. News for "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" Appropriate humor is okay: e.g. Jesus wept. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sneering, transphobic sarcasm is not my idea of humour, but each to their own. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Politicized trash is not my idea of an encyclopedia. Deal with it. Clinton (talk)

Your insistence on this having anything to do with politics merely betrays your ignorance. You need to deal with that. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I object to the very word "transphobia", even when applied to blatant bigotry. Not recognizing/agreeing with/being ignorant of/being insensitive towards gender identity issues and preferences has NOTHING to do with "irrational fear" (the definition of "phobia"). It is in itself a bigoted term meant to diminish, intimidate and silence the target, and should not be allowed here.Cowcharge (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the standard term for "bigotry against trans people." Take your objections up with the English language. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Not recognizing/agreeing with/being ignorant of/being insensitive towards gender identity issues and preferences has NOTHING to do with 'irrational fear' (the definition of 'phobia')."
Are you suggesting there is such a thing as a rational fear of trans people, or a rational reason to dislike them, etc.? If not, whatever are you talking about? LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of this arguement? It started as a question then went into jokes and accusations of people being transphobic? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing can be deleted without loss. Would have been better to have simply performed a don't-feed-the-trolls silence after "Bugs" decided to unpleasantly express (redacted). LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Middle Initial

The current version list the name as "Chelsea E. Manning", where the E, presumably, stands for the male name Edward. It is very clear in the reliable sources that Chelsea Manning is their chosen name, with no initial, or even any second name. The article title correctly reflects this. --Cerejota (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Manning signed her letter about this "Chelsea E. Manning." What the E now stands for, if anything, is unclear. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes found it, can be it be included? http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915 --Cerejota (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In the image of the actual statement that someone posted a link to earlier in the Talk page, her signature lacks a middle initial. It's the printed name under her signature that has the "E". --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Per request on my talk page--Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Middle initial E. now stands for Elizabeth. News for "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning" —Pawyilee (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can the edit be done now to reflect this as the full name, rather than the initial. Her male name is not abbreviated.--Cerejota (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that it's Elizabeth? Did Manning or her lawyer make another statement? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is reported in at least three reliable sources, the one quoted above and the one I added to the article and Voice of Russia. I don't know where they are getting it from but they are all consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that there are reliable sources for "Elizabeth", please cite them after the name in the first sentence. If not, please replace "Elizabeth" with the initial "E." - Pointillist (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I did add a source (which appeared to be reliable) with the edit that added the name (immediately after the name, rather than at the end of the sentence though). Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see where this source says Elizabeth. Voice of Russia is unlikely to be in a special position to know. That leaves the Nation, and they don't seem to explain how they know. Manning's statement said only Chelsea E. Manning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit needs to be undone asap in case it's wrong and we cause the wrong name to spread. Barring a statement from Manning or his lawyer, or from an organization or journalist that we know has good access, we should stick to E. for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but The Nation and Voice of Russia articles appear to be Op-Ed rather than news. - Pointillist (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the doubts expressed above about the reliability of the sources quoting a middle name I've undone my edit, reverting the article to "E.". I contemplated putting in a comment about it but given the length of the references there I think it would have got lost. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Thryduulf:. Thanks for your prompt attention to this (diff). - Pointillist (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edwina? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs)

This is an article talk page. It is not a forum for unsourced speculation. There are many female given names beginning with E so listing them all here would not be a productive use of anyone's time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes

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

---

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_title_changes The article of "Bradley Manning" was used in the past stably, and seeing as there is no consensus, it should be returned, as this is the default title. Without consensus, a title change cannot be made. Therefore the current title does not adhere to Wikipedia policy.

Excerpts from Wikipedia policy (full section linked above):

Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Sovetus (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to make a comment somewhat echoing this: Where was the discussion aimed at forming consensus to make the move from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning in the first place? This was a controversial move to begin with; there should have been a discussion before the move away from the status quo was made. Wouldn't this simply be a clique of like-minded admins bunching together and doing as they wish, ignoring the entire WP:CONSENSUS process? I am quite certain that there was no consensus established prior to the controversial page moves. I find it strange that supporters of the former status quo have to be the ones who need to justify a revert back to the old title with the above RM, and not the other way around. What happened? Did Wikipedia break yesterday? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Here. It was short, but claims of no discussion are simply factually incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That half-hour consensus of a few has clearly been negated by the amount of those in favour of the article being at Bradley Manning since. I agree that an admin should immediately return the article to Bradley Manning, pending a consensus for moving it (and am rather amazed that that has not been done). U-Mos (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick discussion to make the move, and then a 7-day RM to move it back... Look, I support LGBT rights as much as the next guy, but to me it feels like some editors are letting their views on social issues affect their editing. We report what sources report. I don't doubt that by the time the RM closes, Chelsea Manning would become as well-recognised as her former name, but Wikipedia shouldn't have been the one taking the initiative.

I'm not trying to take anyone to arbcom, but your actions (moving and then move-protecting) were hasty, and a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Yes, I know you think that it is a BLP issue requiring immediate action--but I can't imagine you did not foresee the controversy. Given that you clearly have strong views about the issue, you shouldn't have been the one making the call.

Beyond this article (which, even if moved back, would probably end up at this title in a few days anyway), I'm worried that this would set a precedent, that when certain social issues are concerned, Wikipedia must "do the right thing" immediately. What we should instead be doing is to follow is the lead of sources, and to discuss potentially controversial issues first, giving precedence to the status quo until consensus can be determined. wctaiwan (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • • The first decision to move was uncontroversial. The few editors interested in this article (before reddit brought users to fill the talk page) agreed because Manning herself is a very relevant source in case of a biographical article and MOS:IDENTITY (Which was not created overnight just to support Chelsea Manning but has existed long before Yesterday's events) dictated clearly what to do including changing the pronouns in events before the revelation. Vexorian (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, so now it's a "Reddit boogeyman" issue? Come on, is it really hard to accept that people might have a different opinion to you, and aren't part of a super secret conspiracy army? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP is a non-negotiable policy, and dictates that we are not in any case moving the article to her former male name, because that amounts to harrassment of the article subject. Also, it appears that most of the comments in support of such a move originates in a campaign by a third-party website. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is quite clear from this talk page that that interpretation of BLP is not generally agreed upon. U-Mos (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That interpretation of BLP is, quite frankly, bunk. The article should be restored to the person's actual name, and mention of the Bradley-to-Chelsea wish is certainly notable enough to mention in the article. But not to the point where it dictates what this project actually titles the article, or what pronouns are used to refer to the person in the article. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not an interpretation, but a straightforward application of policy also supported by other more specific policies. The Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation states above in this discussion that "MOS:IDENTITY [...] is unambiguous in requiring that WP "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification"". Any further discussion is not really productive. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And that's your interpretation.--v/r - TP 13:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is already adhered to in the article. Female pronouns are used throughout, as it stipulates. It mentions nothing about naming conventions. U-Mos (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(@Josh Gorand) I get the feeling that you're going to come up with all sorts of excuses, and will never ever accept defeat, no matter how legitimate and honest the "other side" is. First would be the evil redditors; next you're going to claim that Wikipedia as a whole is corrupt; after that, you'll come up with something else. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your belief that Wikipedia is corrupt due to naming this article Chelsea Manning in accordance with policy, but I don't think many users here are willing to listen to you. If you want to contribute to our encyclopedia, you should familiarize yourself with the basic idea Wikipedia is built upon and our various core policies. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're talking to me about core policies? What am I reading here? Also, stop putting words into my mouth, and stop with this "our encyclopedia" bullshit as if it's an "us versus them" thing. Wikipedia is a community of different people with different ideas, and your comment just then really pisses me off. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Benlisquare is plenty familar with "our Wikipedia." Having 15x the edits you have and being an editor in the pre-WP:BLP era.--v/r - TP 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware that we can reflect Manning's gender through pronouns while still having the title be "Bradley Manning." The title of the article and the gender used in the article are two entirely distinct issues. That said, this article should be moved back to Bradley Manning. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we please centralize discussions? There is a discussion about the RM above. The already-named closer of this RM has stated that the location of the article while awaiting discussion is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. This constant fracturing of the discussion is making it hard to manage however. If you want to comment on the page move, do so above please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to move and merge this section into the above discussion as another subsection. Yes, this discussion should have been placed up there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

With all the problems in the world....

...can nobody here think about a more important and valuable task than repeating the same WP:IDENTITY vs. WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:BLP arguments at each other over and over again? Imagine the world in 5 years. Will it be noticeably different depending on whether the article is at the right or wrong name (your choice of interpretation) for the next few days?

This very much reminds me of the parable of the City Hall bicycle shed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't think this particular case matters since you're right it will become clear in a few days or weeks but I do think given the length of discussion here, this case could affect policy and naming practices for article where the sources will be much weaker even months later, for years to come which IMO does matter. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think this discussion is some useful work. This could turn out to be a generation's primary exposure to trans issues, and thought here affects how the readers think. The quality of their thought determines the quality of their political and social awareness, and the quality of their political and social mores is what limits the progress of technology or even makes it counterproductive. The net result is that, in some indirect way, the discussions we have here will affect the problems that face men who want to bear children or the business success of virtual reality firms modeling other planetary ecosystems in the future. We should not underestimate the value of getting our thoughts in order. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this has actually become more of a way for people to soapbox about their political ideology more than it is about the renaming of the page - i.e. people unwilling to yield to the concept of gender identity because it's to "wishy washy". The whole argument isn't about the validity of a name change anymore - it's about the validity of gender identity, and in 5, 10, 15 years when people do look back at things like this, and they will, people will be judged on their lack of understanding. Countered (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It might seem uninportant but it will affect public perception of Manning (due to widespread transphobia in the world) and take focus away from her actions which are important and that is unfortunate. Space simian (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Essay by admin

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

---

I note that one of the main admin in charge of this page is already editorializing about her involvement here:

http://abigailbrady.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chelsea-manning-on-pressing-button.html

I wonder if one might draw the conclusion that "Morwen"/Abigail Brady is more concerned about making a name for herself through her actions here, than in acting in an accountable manner as far as "good governance" of this article? In Abigail's own words in the comments field, she says: " I'm doing this because it is the Best Practice for writing about trans people" - or in other words, advocacy. Perhaps it would be in Morwen's best interest to recuse herself? It seems inappopriate to be charged with the task of impartiality here while seeking fame by publishing articles and directing people to read political advocacy and self-promotion from their talk page.Michael Dorosh^Talk 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no rules against someone blogging about events on Wikipedia - and calling it "seeking fame" is a bit of a stretch. Also, I can't find any evidence of user:Morwen "directing people to read political advocacy and self-promotion on their talk page." Morwen clearly doesn't have a NPOV on this issue, but neither do many of the people chiming here. None of this is particularly relevant to the issue at hand either, which is Manning. If you think Morwen is biased to the point where they should not edit in this area, raise that issue elsewhere. This page should be for discussing the article, not the contributors. OohBunnies! (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

a) way to quote out of context. I was saying precisely the opposite of what Dorosh here is claiming I meant.

b) "main admin in charge of this page"??? I have moved it like a normal user, edited it a few times, and then have been sitting on talk explaining basic policy and trans issues to people quite patiently.

c) recuse myself from what exactly? Morwen (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

c) from administering this article and participating further on this Talk Page, obviously. I would suggest there is now a personal stake in this, if Abigail Brady is seeking attention beyond the scope of this talk page, to the point of directing traffic away from Wikipedia and onto a personal website to discuss her personal involvement as an editor and advocate that the article represent a specific political point of view (in violation of Wikipedia policy). Changes to the Wikipedia article on Bradley Manning are now not just about Bradley Manning, but now also about Abigail Brady in as far as there is a separate narrative being built in social media on a website devoted to Abigail Brady's life. Note also that Abigail Brady is the one making decisions, or participating in them, on matters such as moving pages, stopping discussion by non-registered users, locking discussions, hiding discussions (such as this one), etc.Michael Dorosh^Talk 17:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on, you're actually making this into a witch hunt. Countered (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing worthy of criticism in the thoughtful essay referenced, and it poses a useful question for those (as myself) who favor the first school of thought she mentions:

How would we phrase "[X] is imprisoned at Quantico, after [X] was convicted for multiple charges of espionage"?

My answer would be that this one isn't much of a problem: we just say "Chelsea is imprisoned at (wherever), after she was convicted..." Though I'd split the sentence anyway, with no real difficulty in this case. As I said in a comment above, I think we can give leeway to using the more recent pronoun in "adjectival" usages: we can parse she (was convicted) (preposition:for x,y,z) or she (was) (adjective: convicted for x,y,z). The former "was" occurs at a specific time, at the moment of conviction; but the latter is a status which she has at a recent time, though it references an older time. So I think we have the discretion to use either pronoun here as convenient for our purposes. Wnt (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"[X] is imprisoned at Quantico, having been convicted of multiple charges of espionage." Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Instead of the POV "Grandstanding" as the title for this thread, I suggest changing it to (something like) "Off-wiki comments by admin". – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you, User:Wnt, for making the change (30 seconds or so before I hit "Save page")! 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

[Later corrected to: Generally speaking] It is inappropriate for an admin who intends to exercise administrative privileges on this article to opine off Wikipedia. [While this admin says she does not intend to it still] could be seen as WP:Canvass out of frustration because, as the admin wrote on her blog: "Maybe putting these answers here will work. Because nobody seems to be listening on the talk page." And it could be seen, as the original poster alluded to, as a means of self-promotion since this is just the kind of discussion on Wikipedia that does end up getting covered in the major media. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I know I've been harassed for 6 year old posts that someone dredged up from the bowels of google to claim some excessive amount of POV, so I do find it a bit annoying that an admin [or any editor for that matter] would write an off-wiki blog post contemporaneously with being an active admin on the article in question. User:Carolmooredc ' 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Morwen has used no admin powers on this article; this claim is factually inaccurate, and you should not perpetuate it - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The larger issue is any editor writing about Wikipedia debates off Wikipedia and those writings being promoted by someone or other to the media. Right now the media is not reporting that there's a debate but making it sound like Wikipedia has in fact definitively decided to rename the article Chelsea Manning. I see that The News Statesman carries an interview with Morwin] regarding her original blog posting here and Morwen's tweets on the topic are reported at Buzzfeed. I don't know who alerted the media to or to her tweets. But this is what her writing off wiki about this has lead to and shows why it's not a good idea. I hope Morwen will stop doing it. User:Carolmooredc 04:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion section is quite irrelevant and out of place. The talk page is for discussion about the article's contents. But as mentioned, since the page was not locked in anyway, no admin access was required to perform the move. Vexorian (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd like to point something out here

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

---

Behind "it", "tranny" and "he-she", the worst thing to call a transgender person is their birth name. Crisis.EXE 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why it would be among the worst things to call a transgender person? CaseyPenk (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this Crisis, I think you've got right to the heart of the matter. It's understandable that hordes of redditors want to revert to the birthname, but its disappointing a few experienced wikipedians also seem desperate to brutalize this troubled woman and violate the balance of policy. WP:COMMONNAME can admittedly be interpreted either way, but the spirit of WP:BLP clearly supports the change and MOS:IDENTITY is totally unambiguous. There will never be consensus to revert to her birthname. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is calling her her birthname in the sense of seeing her in the street and saying "Hi, Bradley". At the present time, almost every source concerning Chelsea sees fit to mention her birth name (usually in their headline) as a simple point of clarification, as her chosen name of Chelsea simply is not common knowledge yet. Hence WP:COMMONNAME. U-Mos (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. Calling a transgendered person by their birth name if they no longer identify with it, is more than insensitive, it's pure harrassment, viz. a form of saying that one doesn't recognise them as the gender they identify with. As such, it clearly violates the fundamental principles and spirit of BLP. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I got edit conflicted, but yeah, basically that. Crisis.EXE 16:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not relevant to this project, nor it is harassment. Some editors really need to drop the histrionics and realize that not everyone in the world agrees with the "you MUST immediately refer to he as a she!" stuff. Your opinion that it should is just that; opinion. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I have told you directly that MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline and not a policy, and that when a guideline butts heads with actual policy, i.e. WP:COMMONNAME, the policy wins. So any argument that you make based upon the false premise that MOS:IDENTITY is policy is effectively discarded. Also, while I generally respect Sue Gardner and her opinions on Wikipedia matters, at the end it is just that; an opinion. My voice, Sue's voice, and your own voice are all on equal footing here. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Misgendering transgender people (using the wrong pronouns) is in fact offensive. It delegitimizes their cause and basically sends the message that their problem is not real or not important. A person's gender (not sex) is a completely mental condition, and as such, cannot be determined by anyone but the individual themselves. Because of this, to say that outside sources are more important than a person's belief of their own gender is completely nonsensical. In addition, the transgender community has long expressed support in using pronouns that the transgender person expresses desire for. You may hold the opinion that pronouns should not be switched, but that does not make it legitimate. As an analogy, you can believe that the n-word is fine to use whenever you want, but that doesn't stop it from being offensive, and people will probably criticize you for it. TheScootz (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But that's the problem here, I'm afraid; the "trans community" doesn't get to dictate content decisions of the Wikipedia, any more than Muslims are allowed to dictate what the Wikipedia does regarding images of their prophet in the Muhammad article. This is an encyclopedia project providing general-interest information to the reader, it does not exist at a vehicle for propaganda or activism, nor does it soften the sometimes rough edges of the truth just because someone or several someones are offended. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the article on Muhammad is written neutrally (as per WP:NPOV), which is not offensive to Muslims (despite what a few radicals might lead you to believe). Use of pronouns that are not preferred to the individual in question is explicitly offensive. You're right, Wikipedia is not an activist website, but since Chelsea Manning is the only legitimate source for her gender (mental state), using the wrong pronouns would not only be offensive, but factually incorrect. --TheScootz (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. The point is, outside interests do not influence Wikipedia policy. We have a naming convention for articles, esp contentious ones, that should not be bent in this case. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Name is not what I'm debating here, simply pronoun usage. MOS:IDENTITY already has a clear policy on this that is in line with preferences expressed by the trans* community (whose issue this is). --TheScootz (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mos:identity isn't policy, and the naming and the pronoun usage are the same issue. We have a conflict between what the trans community and supporters want to do, and the Wikipedia policy on article names and such. I think it should be obvious which trumps which. (Hint: it's the policy). Tarc (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Josh, please be aware of the Wikipedia policy on harassment, per Wikipedia:Harassment. Please also note the section on "Accusing others of harassment":

"Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."

CaseyPenk (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

CaseyPenk, please be aware of the policy on biographies of living people, and the policy on harrassment. I, and a ton of other editors on this talk page, state it as a fact that multiple users have posted comments that constitute harrassment of the article subject and thus violates BLP, including comparisons of transgendered people to dogs. If you intend to defend such comments (and I and others have cited examples), that clearly violate BLP, I see no reason to continue a discussion with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue to promote one's personal opinions on transgendered people. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The "not a venue to promote one's personal opinions" knife cuts both ways Josh, if you wish to claim that calling a transgendered person by thier genetic sex is illegal you need to provide citations of that fact, otherwise it is just your opinion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn what a straw man is. Wikipedia uses the name and pronoun that the subject identifies with because Wikipedia policy says so, as explained eg. by Sue Gardner on this talk page. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How is my request that you cite your opinion a straw man? If that reply is supposed to be a citation, link it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you continue with your strawmen, including your false claim that I have said it's "illegal" to use a person's birth name. Of course it's not, it's just extremely offending, and we don't use it here because it is against Wikipedia's own policies (MOS; BLP) and objectives (to build an encyclopedia). I don't need to "cite" anything, as you are well aware, because I and countless other editors have already cited the relevant policies a large number of times on this very talk page. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I admit defeat at the hands or your all powerful logic. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Similar to WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, it seems we need WP:Argumentum ad Gardneram now. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you intend to defend such comments... On the contrary, CaseyPenk explicitly called someone out for a comparison to dogs. Josh, I think you need to take a break from this talk page; you are way too emotionally invested in it, and you're beginning to bludgeon the conversation. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

citation needed CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

TheScootz, you do realise that female pronouns are already used throughout the article? There is very little argument against that on this talk page; the issue of contention is the article title. U-Mos (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Temporary Neutral Alternative: Private Manning

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

---

I came up with an idea below, could we agree with the article title to be "Private Manning" until the conclusion of the above RFC?--v/r - TP 18:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support until the main RFC ends. As the article currently stands, it's a huge political point of sorts. The Wikipedia front page gets millions of hits per day, and by having the page full-protected at a state resulting from the actions of a handful of admins without larger consensus, it's giving off the wrong signals to others about what Wikipedia is like (a la the Slate article). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Commment I don't think we should be having multiple RfC's open on the same thread. This woudd only be confusing. Therefore I have moved this discussion. Pass a Method talk 21:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as an emergency measure. The original move to Chelsea was made despite considerable evidence that such a move would be controversial. The current title gives the impression that Chelsea is the final title; it has the weight of inertia (resistance to change) behind it. A neutral title is the only way to have a fair discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is no reason why the normal procedure for requested moves should not apply here. I will create a redirect from Private Manning to this article though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a little late for that. If "the normal procedure for requested moves" had been followed here, the page would be at "Bradley Manning". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If there is one thing that we can source, it is that former-Private Manning has been dishonourably discharged and so is no longer carrying that title. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm far from an expert but somewhere in one of these spawling discussions, someone noted that a dishonourable discharge doesn't take effect until after a prison sentence has been completed, this is so that there is no doubt that legally they remain subject to military justice and can be legally held in a military prison (civilians aren't and can't). This says nothing about the suitability of "Private Manning" as an article title though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Umm, I don't know for sure, but generally when someone is given a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge, they remain enlisted until their sentence is completed and then they are discharged. I'm not sure if that's always the case, but I am 70% positive it is and we might want to check that. The order to be discharged and actually carrying out the order are separate things.--v/r - TP 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the rename discussion was decided to last one week. This "neutral" change is still a name change and shouldn't be fast-tracked under the assumption it would be temporary. Vexorian (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, not in accordance with naming conventions at all. The name according to policy is to be Chelsea Manning. And emphasizing being a former private first class in an article title is just ridiculous. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, NPOV term as last resort. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very few of the sources use this terminology and very few users are going to be looking for the subject under that name. Also, the subject held the rank Private First Class when the notability-triggering events occurred, until two days ago, so if we were to do something like this the title would more plausibly be "PFC Manning" or similar. Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Soft oppose essentially a weak cop-out. For better or worse the subject has a name, even if we can't decide which one to use. We should try to pick one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Please move subpages along with article

2 edit conflicts made me decide to make a subsection. This is just a quick FYI, there are a LOT of sub-pages attached to this article and I just moved all the ones I could find. IF you decide to move again, please make sure that all the relevant pages are attached. Thank you, Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Somebody seems to have done this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please move subpages along with article

2 edit conflicts made me decide to make a subsection. This is just a quick FYI, there are a LOT of sub-pages attached to this article and I just moved all the ones I could find. IF you decide to move again, please make sure that all the relevant pages are attached. Thank you, Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Somebody seems to have done this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)