Talk:Chelsea Manning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What?...So we can circle round this again and again every time someone has an objection to a transperson and their lifestyle? Google search results aren't a great measure by which to judge this; As it obviously includes a lot of pre-announcement material. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (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[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Probably not Bismark. __ 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[AlbaGuBràth] (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 Wikipedia policy and one of the five pillars so being neutral would take importance. As for not a forum this section is talking about MOS:IDENTITY which has been debated here and something that impacts the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As the current consensus about the article title considers it in multiple agreement with the policies spoken of here, (ArticleTitles, NPOV, MOS, etc.) then continuing a debate on which policy should be more considered seems pretty abstract at this point, and on this talk page. Of course the title should be generally in line with policies; you haven't offered any new evidence, or argument not considered, that there's a fresh policy conflict here. __ 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. Wikipedia shouldn’t be exploited as a vehicle to help promote the transgendered community’s agenda to better be respected and accepted to the point that Wikipedia’s articles read awkwardly and defy logic. Our own guidelines suggest rewording constructs such as He gave birth to his first child for obvious reasons: prose that calls attention to itself is poor prose. 66.30.86.154 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian officials today sent a British woman, travelling on a passport which stated her gender as female, to a men's prison without trial because they applied what they thought was common sense. I suggest to you that the 'common sense' of an authority which is acting against someone for reasons unrelated to their gender might not be a reliable source at all. Indeed, it represents a highly biased perspective. I'm astonished that anyone thinks the US military or prisons services can possibly be regarded as reliable or neutral in this matter. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks for assuming good faith! For the record, as a social worker I do believe transgenderism is a severe and self destructive mental illness, mostly because in my long career I often see it strongly associated with horrible abuses (physical, emotional, sexual) and rarely do I see well adjusted, stable people from safe backgrounds develop this condition, much as stable safe backgrounds rarely produce self-mutilators, eating disorders, suicidal or homicidal ideation, drug addictions or psychoses. Moreover, I do feel, as a scientist, that a persons gender is real, not a construct, and has real world consequences, as the jailers assigning Manning to the male cell block will tell you, and to place a persons feelings above reality does a disservice to the encloypedic mission. Think about it, what would happen to Wikipedia's credibility if Manning declared themselves a man again tomorrow, or androgyneous, what if they invented their own gender? Wouldn't it be better to ground your encloypedia in concrete, absolute and immutable fact, one imprevious to the opinions of the subject or its editors? Sounds like good encloypedic work to me!

But hey, none of that was present in my OP, i raised a valid point without bias and you, the guardian of human rights, responded with ad hominim based on preconceived and, btw, not widely shared opinions :D and you wonder why wikipedia has trouble getting new editors. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.233.250 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2014‎

There are many reason for our new editor retention problem. Refusing to go against our own manual of style is not, I suspect, one of them. Novusuna ^talk 02:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, yes, you did address the ad hominim in your response. Oh wait, you didn't, you completely ignored it but congradulations on your enclyopedic stewardship (with a rapier wit to boot!) :D— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.233.250 (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2014‎

If you (IP) do indeed work in the field you claim you do, then I doubt you would have issue with understanding a transpersons position regarding gender, and that it's definitely not a "fixed" Male/Female thing, but more of a spectrum. --Connelly90 07:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal claims of expertise aren't a valid source. In this case, I also don't find them to be a credible source. This IP poster has basically made a bunch of sweeping generalisations about trans people on the basis of this claimed expertise, generalisations that are at odds with my experience and are in any case entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. I think at this point (to continue overusing an overused metaphor) the horse is not merely dead, but has been tanned, flayed, and ground to dust. Does anyone have anything constructive to say about Chelsea Manning that does not involve mistrusting her report of her own gender? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This ip 184.36.233.250, by their admission, is the same editor as 66.30.86.154 and is not suggesting anything specific about the article itself and is treating the page as a general forum. I would suggest that I don't think the article is improved by engaging their general arguments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bradley" is a surname and "Chelsea" is the name of a place in London (and another in New York city). Why would either of them be regarded as gendered names?89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Requested move 14 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

Survey

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

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

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

This page clearly says that Chelsea identifies himself as a man, but then continues to use feminine pronouns. This is disrespectful to Chelsea's wishes.

169.233.216.79 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The third sentence clearly states she wants to be referred to as Chelsea and therefore feminine pronouns. -- Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Talkpage formatting issues

It could just be the computer I'm on now, but for some reason the TOC is showing up in the collapsible box which has links to press coverage this article has received. That's clearly not supposed to be happening, any idea how to fix it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the random untitled level 2 header from that box and it seems have fixed it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks right to me too; thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus check

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

• Support per WP:V (His ID is lists him as male, the military refers to him as male, reliable sources list him as male.

Per BLP we have to use high quality resources any time anything is conensted, as this is, per change per BLP as well as proposer  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read Wikipedia:Gender identity. Please study all the questions and their answers. Any problem you still have even after reading?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Gende Identity is an essay, under the auspices of WP:MOSID which is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V, yes I've read it already. WIkipedia relies on verifiable information, that's policy. Wikipedia states that we must get BLP's right, and therefore rely on reliable information only, not some unreferenced information. Think about it, If some celebrity said they were an asparagus, would you change their article to reflect that, when reliable sources state otherwise ? I'd hope not. WP:V and WP:BLP state that for now, this person's name is Bradley Manning, nothing else but. That said, Bradley Manning may very well want to change his gender, and he's free to do that, or call himself anything he'd like, but until it's reliable sourced, per Wikipedia, we call him Bradley Manning, that's policy,not transphobia.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   19:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that transgender people are people who make up fake identities arbitrarily?? Per what you're saying, the answer is yes. Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. (See eg.,[1]) Drop the stick. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Alan, what post was your "Wrong" a response to?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to KoshVolorn - 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC), Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment KoshVorlon, you may recall we had a massive move discussion one of the largest I've ever seen, that was closed by a panel of 3 admins who judged the move due to COMMONNAME. Legal name is irrelevant. I really doubt Deadmau5 exists as any sort of legal name but that's where his article is. In any case further railing on this point is disruptive and does nothing to improve the article, the pathway I mentioned above of formal collection of sources and submission of a formal RM in say 6 months time (eg 1 year after announcement) is the only way you have a chance of getting this article moved, and if the evidence shows usage in RS has swung significantly back to Bradley, then I bet the community would support it. But you have to demonstrate that, carefully and as neutrally as possible and with a robust and well documented list of sources . I suggest we shut this section down in any case as there's no action to take here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Allan Scott Walker I have 14 reliable sources that show his name as "Bradley Manning" including the military, however, you don't see me saying, it's resolved for that reason.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Others have told you to drop it and you should. Chelsea Manning exists in the reliable sources and your saying that Chelsea Manning does not, is false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Georgia guy that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, per wikipedia's guidelines, there's no reliable resource that shows "Chelsea Manning" exists in place of "Bradley Manning". I have about 14 reliable sources (including the military) that state as such. That's all.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   21:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Consensus has not changed. Drop it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Well, at least 3 users have told me to drop it. Per my agreement with Floquenbeam, I will now drop it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)