Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 11 February 2014

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editor behavior around the article title discussion was brought to Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelsea Manning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is this article titled Chelsea Manning? A majority of sources now use the name "Chelsea" when referring to Manning which would make it the common name. There has been consensus among editors since October 2013 that this name should be used. Historically, the first 2013 formal move discussion closed, and a committee of three uninvolved and experienced admins determined the move to Chelsea Manning should be reverted back to Bradley. Discussions since that close upheld that waiting 30 days was a good idea and the time should be spent making the case for a new move discussion. In a subsequent move discussion, consensus was against a proposal of "Private Manning" as the article title. A new discussion about moving the article back to "Chelsea Manning" started on September 30 and was closed on October 8 with a consensus to move the article to "Chelsea Manning". Q2: Why does the article refer to Manning as she? MOS:IDENTITY says: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and ' ' may be used where necessary)." Q3: Why is Manning in transgender categories? The fact that Manning is transgender, and was a transgender inmate, a transgender soldier, etc, is notable and defining and has been discussed in multiple reliable sources (which are cited in the article). See Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Categorization for more information. Q4: I feel that Misplaced Pages is being biased against (or towards) my beliefs here, what should I do? Misplaced Pages policy mandates that articles reflect the content of reliable sources and be written from a neutral point of view, avoiding advocating for any particular perspective. Minority ideas and opinions must not be given undue weight or promotion in Misplaced Pages articles. It is impossible for coverage of real-world controversies to leave everyone happy – ideas change and adapt over time, and partisan viewpoints are typically entrenched and unable to self-assess bias – but seeking and maintaining neutrality is an ongoing process. Concerns over bias can be addressed with bold editing following the WP:BRD cycle or by starting a civil and constructive discussion at this talk page to suggest article improvements. Q5: Why does Misplaced Pages include Chelsea Manning's deadname? Misplaced Pages's guidelines say that we should include the birth name for a living transgender person in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is the case for Chelsea Manning. By doing this, we ensure people who have only heard of Manning as her deadname can still find and recognize the article.

	Chelsea Manning has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 11, 2012 Good article nominee Listed August 23, 2013 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Middle East / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oklahoma Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned or used by the following media organisations:

Stern, Mark Joseph (August 22, 2013). "Misplaced Pages Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning's New Gender". Slate. Retrieved August 22, 2013. Abcarian, Robin (August 22, 2013). "Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman named Chelsea Manning". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 23, 2013. Sharrock, Justine (August 22, 2013). "Misplaced Pages Changed Its Entry To Properly Reflect Chelsea Manning's Name". BuzzFeed. Retrieved August 23, 2013. Nelson, Steven (August 22, 2013). "Bradley Manning: 'Real Me' Is a Woman Named Chelsea". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved August 27, 2013. Kearney, Ryan (August 22, 2013). "He Is Not Bradley Manning. She Is Chelsea Manning. Deal With It". The New Republic. Retrieved August 27, 2013. Kollmeyer, Barbara (August 22, 2013). "Bradley Manning: 'I am a female'". MarketWatch. Retrieved August 29, 2013. Hern, Alex (August 23, 2013). "Behind the Misplaced Pages wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea". New Statesman. Retrieved August 23, 2013. Sampson, Tim (August 23, 2013). "Misplaced Pages battle rages over Chelsea Manning's gender identity". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 28, 2013. O'Hehir, Andrew (August 24, 2013). "What's in a name? Chelsea Manning and Muhammad Ali". Salon. Retrieved November 25, 2013. Knickerbocker, Brad (August 25, 2013). "'Bradley' or 'Chelsea' – What to call Pvt. Manning?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved August 28, 2013. Steinmetz, Katy (August 28, 2013). "Media Makes the Manning Switch". Time. Retrieved August 31, 2013. Hathaway, Jay (August 31, 2013). "Misplaced Pages decides Chelesa Manning will remain 'Bradley' for now". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 31, 2013. Hern, Alex (September 4, 2013). "Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Misplaced Pages". New Statesman. Retrieved September 4, 2013. Hern, Alex (October 24, 2013). "Chelsea Manning name row: Misplaced Pages editors banned from trans pages". The Guardian. Retrieved October 24, 2013. Collier, Kevin (October 26, 2013). "After Chelsea Manning row, Misplaced Pages bans transphobic editors". The Daily Dot. Retrieved October 29, 2013.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Bradley Manning Chelsea Manning Breanna Manning Arrest of Bradley Manning Discussions: RM, Arrest of Bradley Manning → Bradley Manning, Moved, 3 September 2010, discussion RM, Bradley Manning → Alleged leaks of Bradley Manning, No consensus to move, 8 Dec 2010, discussion Move/revert, Bradley Manning → Breanna Manning, Move was reverted, 5 May 2012, discussion RM, Chelsea Manning → Bradley Manning, initial move of the article to "Chelsea Manning" is reverted, returning the article to the original title, "Bradley Manning", 31 August 2013, discussion RM, Bradley Manning → Private Manning, Not moved, 4 September 2013, discussion RM, Bradley Manning → Chelsea Manning, Moved, 1 October 2013, discussion

The contents of the Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage page were merged into Chelsea Manning on 18 September 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The photo (at the top of this article)

Why does she look like a man? Is she a trans? --Ceroi (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Look under the FAQ at the top of this page for your answer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ceroi. Did you read the first paragraph of the lede?

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of classified documents ever leaked to the public. Manning was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years confinement with the possibility of parole in eight years, and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army. From early life through much of Army life, Manning was known as Bradley, and was diagnosed with gender identity disorder while in the Army. Manning is a trans woman and in a statement the day after sentencing said she had felt female since childhood, wanted to be known as Chelsea, and desired to begin hormone replacement therapy.

If you think this is confusing, could you indicate how you would change that to make it more clear? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now nobody has a photo of Chelsea (woman), because she hasn't yet finished her transitioning. But — if she would have — we probably could change the main photo. --Søren 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Søren (talk • contribs)

She was also asked about the photograph on Misplaced Pages specifically and stated that, despite beginning her transition, she is proud of the photograph we have up there currently, and is happy for it to stay there until a better one becomes available. --Connelly90 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This last comment is slightly overstating what we know. We don't know if Chelsea has any opinion specific to Misplaced Pages and we only know specifically what her lawyer thought was appropriate back then, as per the FAQ. We shouldn't really assume past that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This also has been already discussed per the archives in detail, and more than one reason was given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Manning's opinion should have absolutely no bearing on this article. Even considering Manning's opinion is a clear violation of Conflict of Interest policy. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If you read the policy you cite more closely you might see how it's not a violation. Additionally, the subject is at times considered per Neutrality, Due Weight, BLP etc. even if they're not necessarily accommodated. You might want to review some of the earlier archived discussions to see if your concerns haven't been previously considered. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If I read the policy "more closely", meaning "if you read the policy and interpret it as I do". I read the policy closely enough. Seems to me this policy has been ignored when it was convenient to do so. - Boneyard90 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm, no, I actually mean that COI isn't generally considered applicable in this case, by editors other than me. COI is about direct editing by personally-involved editors, and I don't think any Misplaced Pages editor involved has been considered or suspected to be family, friends, or employees of the subject, and neither the subject or the lawyer are editors here. I'm not going to ask you to read the policy again if you said you already have but I don't see where the COI violation is supposed to be. I don't understand your assertion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not argue for arguments' sake. Is there a concrete change to the article that anyone wishes to put forward? If so, I can't find it, but let's get back to it. If not, lets abandon this thread. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been editors who have been in communication with Manning's attorney, and it has been on the subject of this article, the use of pronouns, and the use of the photo. Even if Manning and his attorneys are not actively editing the article, adhering to Manning's wishes means that Manning is influencing the way in which the article is edited. Manning's opinion concerning the article has been used to support editorial directions. Therein lies the conflict of interest. There is no difference on whether Manning personally edits the article, or communicates to others how it should be edited. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

They are not being asked about the facts presented in the article, or to even rubber-stamp the overall content of it, but rather they were asked clarification on the use of pronouns and the picture that was used to head the article. If they requested the actual content of the article be altered in a way that omits something factual about Manning that she maybe didn't want to be on here, then we'd have a different story. --Connelly90 (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

recent changes to the MOS explicitly allow for following the wishes of the subject wrt pronoun usage I believe. Also, we also regularly reach out to subjects for photos, as they are often the best source of high quality photos that can be freely licensed to us. Check the help screens, it explicitly gives subjects help on uploading better photos of themselves. It doesn't mean we slavishly follow their advice, but I see nothing wrong with putting up a photo that is agreeable to the subject esp since we don't have many other photos, esp very few of manning as a woman.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Article Title Change to "Bradley Manning" Based on Logic of FAQ #4? *See Above*

K, I'm throwing up a Good Faith / Not-Trolling flag right from the get go cause I am generally confused by this.

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

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

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

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

We're not the New York Times, and Google hit numbers of those magnitudes are basically meaningless. We went over all this twice. Please stop flogging the dead horse. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

the discussion of the title of this article consumed multiple archives and megabytes and even an arbcom case and many news articles about wikipedia's various titling dramas. So while you are entitled to your opinion, there isn t much point in discussing this further. In perhaps 6 months or a year another formal move request could be put forward and again launched into a huge debate but absent that I see no point. Please read the old move discussions and notice that your argument, and many others like it, was put forward by dozens of editors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I understand and agree with the original post. I think it's important to note objections by editors who were not present for any of those past discussions. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What?...So we can circle round this again and again every time someone has an objection to a transperson and their lifestyle? Google search results aren't a great measure by which to judge this; As it obviously includes a lot of pre-announcement material. --Connelly90 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The debate isn't going to go away, because closing it as it is doesn't close the issue. Bradley Manning remains male, he hasn't changed his body, and he isn't commonly known as a woman, or as a transwoman. Every person who comes to wikipedia looking for information about Manning is going to instead wonder "who is Chelsea Manning?" Any picture of him clearly depicts a man. The confusion is never going to go away so long as the article is titled Chelsea Manning, and editors will continue to try to fix the article so that it makes more sense, probably for a very long time.Walterego (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A trans woman is a woman. And that's what Chelsea is, and her surgical status is none of your business. This matter's been settled here, and it was a long and painful process. So let it lie, already. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A transwoman is obviously not a woman. Manning's "surgical status" is common knowledge, he doesn't have a surgical status because he hasn't doesn't anything about it. He's a man with a mental disorder. The matter hasn't been settled as the continuing debate amply proves. Walterego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That is the conservative point of view but her mental instability has not been proven to be true per the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S."How the sausage was made"?...haven't heard that phrase before, but apparently it's a thing! You learn something new every day I suppose --Connelly90 (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is, unless we can make the caption of the picture and the lede even clearer, but I for one wouldn't know how. That's unfortunate, but the only thing we can do is keep explaining it.
About the P.S. it's a quote from Bismark, famously(?) applied to Misplaced Pages by Jimbo Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably not Bismark. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

At the time of the discussion on this article MOS:IDENTITY didn't say that yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

So that being the case what would hold more weight? Policies do at times contradict others but not all policies are weighed equal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like an invitation to abstractly consider policies. Isn't there a current consensus that this talk page is not a general forum about policies? __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It Is true by the way, for example WP:NPOV is a core Misplaced Pages policy and one of the five pillars so being neutral would take importance. As for not a forum this section is talking about MOS:IDENTITY which has been debated here and something that impacts the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As the current consensus about the article title considers it in multiple agreement with the policies spoken of here, (ArticleTitles, NPOV, MOS, etc.) then continuing a debate on which policy should be more considered seems pretty abstract at this point, and on this talk page. Of course the title should be generally in line with policies; you haven't offered any new evidence, or argument not considered, that there's a fresh policy conflict here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Re "Of course the title should be generally in line with policies; you haven't offered any new evidence, or argument not considered, that there's a fresh policy conflict here." — It might help if you gave diffs of the messages from the old discussions that you are referring to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your request doesn't seem to make any sense, Bob. You want me to give diffs regarding my assertion that KnowledgeKid87 hasn't shown there's a fresh policy conflict here? Or that article titles should generally be in line with policies? Or that the last move request closed with a consensus for the present title, after a long discussion referencing the policies discussed here and more? Is there a brand new policy conflict or development not already heavily discussed and considered that would indicate a need for change? __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Bob is asking for Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request. Or are you looking for something else? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful link Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request. (I note that it is in Q2 of the FAQ at the top of this page.) As the closers' statement of 23:25, 8 October 2013 indicates, the last change in article title from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning was based on WP:COMMONNAME, not MOS:IDENTITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes I remember now, MOS:IDENTITY was not a factor in the final move outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There are broad issues at stake here with Manning. Like our own article says: “Reaction to Manning's request by the news media was split, with some using the new name and pronouns, and others continuing to use the old.” Until someone has a sex-change operation, U.S. police have a common-sense approach when arresting street prostitutes in drag who announce that they are females and insist that they should be taken to the female wing of the local jail. The police merely ask “Do you have a penis?” The arrestees tend to pause, deflate a little, look down at the road, and admit “Yes.” And so it goes at federal lockups like Leavenworth: Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth. He has all his ‘junk.’ Deciding which pronoun to use should be be based more upon common sense to avoid "!" brain-interrupts when reading the article. The reality (truly) is Manning wrote that he would like all correspondence sent to him in prison to refer to him as “him”; the only “female” thing about him is that's the way he thinks of himself. Misplaced Pages shouldn’t be exploited as a vehicle to help promote the transgendered community’s agenda to better be respected and accepted to the point that Misplaced Pages’s articles read awkwardly and defy logic. Our own guidelines suggest rewording constructs such as He gave birth to his first child for obvious reasons: prose that calls attention to itself is poor prose. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's incredibly offensive to think that a person's simple desire to be accepted by their fellow humans, for whatever reason, is a concept that is sometimes talked about in such scathing tone. Even biological sex isn't as binary as you put it here! Chelsea Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth as this was her identity when the charges were brought against her, it wasn't an issue like it might have been with an "out" transgender woman being brought in. All the legal proceedings are against a "Bradley Manning" for the sake of consistency, nothing else. --Connelly90 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Connelly90, I think you are far too quick to pull out the ol’ “I’m soooo very offended” gambit. Nothing I wrote above had squat to do with “accepting (or not) a fellow human being.” As our own article says on Manning, the rest of the print world is split as to which pronoun to use when referring to him (her). Why is the decision not an easy one? Because as we all trip on our shoelaces trying to be as “inclusive” and inoffensive as possible, editors end up with awkward constructs on Misplaced Pages like He gave birth to his first child in favor—according to Misplaced Pages's guidelines—of the rather ambiguous He became a parent for the first time, which holds open the possibility that maybe "he" adopted a child.

Note also that since facts still matter, even when someone professes to “taking great offense at something,” it’s worthwhile pointing out that you are just flat wrong when you write Chelsea Manning is held in the men’s section at Leavenworth as this was her identity when the charges were brought against her. The gender an individual believes himself to be at any time during legal proceedings has absolutely nothing to do with decisions regarding incarceration. Even if Manning had self identified as a female and dressed the part at the start of legal proceedings, Manning would have been incarcerated in the men's wing. Why? Because “she” has a penis. (There we go with another “!” brain-interrupt due to awkward prose that calls attention to itself.) That's the practice with all U.S. penal institutions—federal and state. Can you imagine the security problems in prisons if wardens threw women equipped with penises into a population of women who were born women?

Please don't try to make this an issue about “taking offense” and “holding the banner for inclusivity.” As I wrote the first time, it’s all about communicating encyclopedically. My point the first time around was simply that prose that calls attention to itself is poor prose. That's still my point. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The nature of Ms Manning's genitals is none of our damn business. Can we please stop re-fighting this? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Anon IP user, what set of private parts Ms. Manning currently has is of absolutely no relevance to the issue and continual references to them will not convince anyone that your position is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your solemn pronouncements, where you pretend to speak on behalf of every other wikipedian on this planet do not make your desire become true. I didn't weigh in here pretending I would convince people like you, or even to effect change in this particular article. I weighed in here because it’s about influencing others: the very many silent wikipedians who have common sense, aren’t nearly so animated on issues, and will eventually weigh in at other, future RfCs. The prison officials have Manning locked up with all the other men because they exercise common sense. Our tripping over our shoelaces to be as inoffensive as possible has resulted in encyclopedic prose that draws attention to itself and looks absurd. But that’s Misplaced Pages, where really dumb things occur—sometimes for years—before it eventually corrects itself. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not for one second confused by the wording of this article, but you (IP) are clearly very bothered by this concept. If we are to endeavour to write the article by WP's own guidelines, then we should consider only what Chelsea wants with regards to pronouns etc (MOS:IDENTITY) not what the police force or justice system of a single nation decides, and Chelsea made it very clear what she wants in her announcement. If you wish to discuss your issues with trans people, then this isn't the place to do so. --Connelly90 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal Name

Manning stated her legal name is "Bradley E. Manning" so I suggest we change the intro of the article to:

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (legally Bradley E. Manning; born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)

--71.59.58.63 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that she has changed her legal name yet again? If so, please provide a citation for this which post-dates her legally effective announcement that her name is now Chelsea. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

She says "I can recive checks and and money orders payable to my current legal name without any titles, "Bradley E. Manning"."--71.59.58.63 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I think this would be a useful reference should the article ever be expanded to discuss the legal or administrative issues surrounding the use of her names. However, I don't believe this information needs to go in the first sentence of the article—I can't think of any other biographical articles for subjects who are or have been known by multiple names where we make a point of pronouncing one of them as "legal". —Psychonaut (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Farrokh Bulsara, Phillip Jack Brooks, David Robert Jones...etc etc are not listed by their "legal name". Should we change them too? Chelsea Manning is now her name, and it should be used in all instances; except the outstanding court cases that were brought up post-announcement, for the sake of consistency, as the complaints were raised against "Bradley Manning". A "legally known as..." part is a bit disrespectful in my opinion; like saying "sure, you identify as a woman, but we don't agree with that". As if her new female name is some kind of nickname. --Connelly90 12:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• not needed in lede Most ledes don't necessarily mention the subject's current "legal" name, and we already mention that she was born Bradley in the lede. If there is a section later on in the article that goes into detail based on RS around the use of Manning's legal name for correspondence/legal issues, it could be noted there that Bradley remains the legal name, but I don't think this is needed in the lede.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Unnecessary for lede. If added, would look like we are labouring some point. Sufficient as is. --Tóraí (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This addition would be an NPOV clarification that the name "Chalsea" has not been made legal, otherwise readers may be confused between what they read in the article and the name that is used in news sources, especially those that date to before the name-preference announcement. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, this wording most certainly is POV, as it implies that "Chelsea" is not her legal name. The citation states that "Bradley Manning" is her legal name; it does not state that "Chelsea Manning" is not. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be "implying", it would be very explicit that "Chelsea" is not a legal name, because it isn't. To avoid the issue is misleading. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what about the current article you feel is misleading, and where you feel you're being misled to. The article currently states that Chelsea Manning is the subject's name. This is indisputably true insofar as it's an identifier she and others customarily use to refer to herself. The article does not make any claim one way or another as to whether this name, or any other name by which she is or was known, does or does not have any particular legal status. Thus the reader is not currently being misled on any point of law. However, in this discussion we are contemplating the introduction of a claim about the legal status of one the subject's names which is not reliably sourced to any authority on matters of law. You furthermore freely admit that the claim is worded in such a way that it leads readers to draw conclusions about the legal status of an entirely different name. How is this proposed insertion then not misleading? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
        • By not stating the legal name, the reader is left conclude that, by de fault, the name of the article must be the legal name. You freely admit that "Chelsea" is the subject's name "insofar as it's an identifier", but an "identifier" is not a legal name. A nickname, nom de plume, alias, or any other pseudonym are all identifiers. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't think readers will make such an assumption—after all, it's standard practice in Misplaced Pages and most other reference works to title biographical articles by the subject's common name, irrespective (and usually being completely silent on the matter) of whether that name has any particular legal recognition. But if readers happen to make such an unwarranted assumption here, they will almost certainly arrive at the correct conclusion anyway, so no harm is done. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - We're not lawyers, we're not here to make legal declarations. This is an attempt to revive the dead horse. Please stop already. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support The additional information, if true, would be germane, encyclopedic, and more informative. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But (and I am rather tired of repeating this) there is no uniquely defined entity 'legal name' in the context of Anglo-American common law. People are, at law, called by the names they customarily use. The issue is not whether Chelsea Manning has used another name - of course she has - but whether it is being given undue prominence if we label it her 'legal name'. There is no foundation for this claim, and it's tending in the direction of WP:UNDUE to boot. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per AlexTiefling, "legal name" is a construct of law which varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even within the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Disrespectful to add "legally known as...", as it implies her being transgendered is in someway "not real". Also, laws change throughout the world, and Misplaced Pages isn't confined to the US. --Connelly90 08:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose of course This doesn't change anything. We already knew this. This could be referenced up the wazoo and it still doesn't change things because we didn't change this article title due to any legal name to begin with because article titles may not be that of a legal name. Moving on.....dead horse is now a greasy spot. Nothing left to beat.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The construct "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)" is standard for Misplaced Pages articles. Why change it for this one? --NeilN 14:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What the Hell?

Why are you buying into this man's delusion that he is a woman?--76.105.96.92 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (military) articles
• Low-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• GA-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• GA-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• GA-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• GA-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• GA-Class Oklahoma articles
• Low-importance Oklahoma articles