The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. <\/p>\n
The result of the move request was: Move from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning. <\/p>\n
First, thank you to all of the participants of this move request. The page history shows a couple of rough moments, but the overall picture was of good-faith editors making well-reasoned arguments grounded in both policy and respect for our values. <\/p>\n
As a reminder to both newer editors (welcome!) and those reading this who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes, move requests, like many other types of Wikipedia discussions, are not decided on the basis of vote counts, but on the strength of arguments. Thus, even though the numbers show that a strong majority of participants support the move to \"Chelsea Manning\", we must set that aside and focus instead on the substance of the \"support\" and \"oppose\" comments rather than how many of them there are. <\/p>\n
The core of the debate comes down to differing interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME, part of our policy on article titles. Both sides cite COMMONNAME as supporting their positions: those supporting the move see the intent of the policy as \"what do the reliable sources use (now)?\" and those opposing the move view it as \"what name does the average person recognize?\" Both of these interpretations are reasonable, but we conclude that the supporters' interpretation is closer to the letter and spirit of the policy. The guidance that COMMONNAME offers is that editors base their article titling decision on which name is predominant \"as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources\". <\/p>\n
Further, COMMONNAME seems to be the opponents' main argument, whereas the supporters make other persuasive arguments: for example, that, in the absence of overwhelming reliable source usage otherwise, Wikipedia should respect what an article subject says their own name is. WP:DIGNITY and WP:HARM are, it should be noted, only essays, but the supporters make a good case that we should have a good reason for disregarding the subject's stated wishes. <\/p>\n
A lack of reliable sourcing would be, per COMMONNAME, a good reason to overrule an article subject's preferences, but it appears, based on the evidence presented in this move request, that the reliable sources have generally (although certainly not unanimously) gotten on board with Manning's request to be referred to as Chelsea. It therefore does not seem credible to say that WP:COMMONNAME and the subject's wishes are on the opposite sides of the scale. <\/p>\n
Given that, we find that, on the basis of COMMONNAME, there is consensus to move the article from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning. <\/p>\n
That is not to say, however, that the opposing arguments lack merit. Regardless of how quickly the reliable sources adopted the new name, it is fair to say that due to past coverage of the article subject as \"Bradley Manning\", many people are likely to know of Manning as Bradley, not Chelsea. It is certainly true that the actions that garnered Manning notability were taken under the name Bradley Manning. Following the principle of least astonishment, a possible compromise title, such as \"Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning\" might be one way to satisfy that concern; however, the manual of style discourages longer titles where a short one would be sufficient to unambiguously identify the subject, so such a compromise proposal would have its own set of problems. <\/p>\n
There was a fair amount of discussion, from both sides, on the applicability of our biographies of living persons policy on a potential move, but no clear consensus on whether BLP concerns were applicable to the naming dispute. Indeed, several of those who supported the move to \"Chelsea Manning\" explicitly rejected BLP as grounds for a move. It is clear that there is a division among editors over whether, and under what circumstance, our BLP policy mandates that we follow an article subject's wishes regarding their chosen name. <\/p>\n
One additional concern that deserves to be addressed was that the move request itself was not worded neutrally. This is true, but to consider this something that compromises the integrity of the discussion misunderstands the nature of move requests. Move requests are, with rare exceptions, filed by an editor who believes a page should be moved, rather than someone who is indifferent. It is natural and, indeed, expected, that they would make their case in the move request for why they think the move is necessary and desirable. Participants are free to accept or reject the reasoning offered by the proposer, and to make their own cases to their fellow editors why the page should or should not be moved. <\/p>\n
Once again, thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion for your time and input, and for the trust you have granted the three of us in assessing consensus here. The page will be moved forthwith; please continue any discussion at the main article talk page, not here. Guerillero | My Talk, 28bytes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Bradley Manning Chelsea Manning As proposed by the closers of the last debate and agreed by subsequent consensus, I am starting the new move discussion and proposing that we move the article currently located at Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning, for the following reasons: <\/p>\n
Relevant sources on usage in reliable sources as well as relevant policies and guidelines, contributed by various users over the last few weeks, are cited below. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Please be civil, and respect the viewpoints of others. Please do not engage in battlegrounding. Please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks. <\/p>\n
Please cite relevant Wikipedia policies when you make your argument. You may wish to consider the arguments that others put forward in the previous move request. <\/p>\n
Wikipedia has editors from all over the world, raised in different societies and with different cultural norms, so please assume good faith and accept that different people may have different views from you on this subject. This discussion centers around the title of the article currently located at Bradley Manning. Please comment only about what you think the best choice of article title is according to Wikipedia's policies; please refrain from making other types of comments. For example, your personal opinions about transgenderism whether pro or con are not germane to this discussion, and such off-topic comments may be closed or ignored. <\/p>\n
Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy also applies on talk pages, so please familiarize yourself with it. To avoid what some perceive as transphobia[1] during this discussion and to ensure there is a welcoming environment for editors of all kinds, please consider adhering to the following guidelines: <\/p>\n
Please remember that the policy No personal attacks applies to this discussion, for all editors. If you see someone's comment and it offends you or you find it transphobic, consider informing them with a civil note on their talk page that you find their language inappropriate, or reporting their comment at WP:ANI if it is egregiously offensive. We're all learning here, and a more open approach (e.g. \"You said this, which could be construed as harmful language towards a BLP, can you consider rewording it\") may yield more dividends than simply accusing someone of transphobia because they crossed a line they may not have been aware of. Blanket statements like \"Those proposing to keep the article titled Bradley are bigoted transphobes\" polarize the discussion and are likely to make other contributors less willing to understand your view. <\/p>\n
Discussion of the subject of this article and\/or transgender issues falls under standard discretionary sanctions. See also, WP:BLPBAN. <\/p>\n
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning vs Bradley Manning as the primary name of the subject. <\/p>\n
Sources are sorted based on their latest use of one name or the other in an article or editorial statement from after August 22, when the announcement was made. It is trivially obvious that sources from before the announcement use Bradley; that is not of interest and such sources are not listed here. <\/p>\n
Note that regardless of which name they use on first mention, almost all of the sources listed in both sections mention and contribute to readers' awareness of the existence of both names. <\/p>\n
News sources which have mixed up usage of Bradley and Chelsea. In most cases, if a news source started using Bradley post Aug 22, and then started exclusively using Chelsea, we marked it in the Chelsea list. However, if a news source has alternated between use of Bradley and Chelsea since Aug 22, then it is listed here. <\/p>\n
On initial move from Bradley to Chelsea <\/p>\n
On reversal from Chelsea to Bradley <\/p>\n
(list courtesy of [14]) <\/p>\n
This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question. <\/p>\n
Some editors have expressed a concern that the following source is not reliable, while other editors consider it to be reliable: <\/p>\n
Procedurally, this Move Request was discussed and advertised at the last close and continuously on the Wiki since. At least three discussions rejected additional delay [19],[20],[21], and it appears to be a Move Request substantively within WP:RM, so the procedural and bureaucratic objections below should be rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
While BLP may guide a decision here, it in no way mandates the change, and it should not have been invoked to lock in the original move. That action turned August's RM into a referendum on enforcing the R in WP:BRD. <\/p>\n
Many editors here suggest that it should be policy that WP titles its biographical articles based solely on the subject's legal name, while others advocate that the subject's preferred name always be used. Both suggestions are short sighted. Manning's choice of Chelsea Elizabeth appears neither whimsical nor mocking, and I am glad to see the media respecting her choice. If she had instead announced a preference for, and possibly obtained a statutory, legal name change to IDidNothingWrong ImInnocent PleasePardonMeMrPresident Manning, the media would, at best, mention this as a footnote in their articles, and we would not find a consensus here on WP to support such a title change. But what if she had chosen Liberty Innocent Manning? That is a reasonable name, but would still be viewed by many as mocking her conviction. Would we automatically choose such a name for this article's title? Fortunately, we do not need to make such arbitrary decisions ourselves because we rely on outside sources. We should always follow our sources and never lead them. -- ToE 12:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
The majority of people making google searches are still using \"Bradley\". Like it or not, thanks to decreasing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and an aging population, the world has a surplus of wrinkly old men that outnumber young people within the developed western world (which also happens to be portion of the world that dominates internet usage), and statistically speaking (past surveys, voter statistics, etc) older people tend to hold more conservative views than younger people with more liberal ideas. Don't like this predicament? There's not much else you can do, apart from raising the fertility rate by having more babies. <\/p>\n
I personally don't give a damn about where this article goes, however. During the last RM, my main beef was that there was admin abuse over the whole incident, which was the reason for my !vote. I was opposed to how the whole situation unfolded, where admin action was taken without proper consensus. This time, I don't really feel that I need to care about anything. That said, I would like people to take the above points into account. --benlisquareTCE 07:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
* The wording should be neutral so as to not unduly sway the!voting or the consensus building process. This obviously taints the result. As a point of comparison, imagine voting in a presidential election and the voting booth contained a long list of all the great things Obama is doing for America and how terrible McCain is (or vice versa). Such a scenario would be completely unacceptable. That's basically what we have here. <\/p>\n
* This should be an RfC so as to better reflect community consensus. MRs rarely attract outside opinions from uninvolved editors. <\/p>\n
* This is bad timing considering that ArbCom is in the middling of finalizing their decision. I expect that ArbCom will topic-ban the most disruptive editors. It should be easier for consensus building process to proceed after ArbCom completes. I suggest that this MR be closed down, and someone open an RfC with neutral wording after the ArbCom case completes. BTW, someone apparently moved my!vote. Please do not do that again. All editors should be allowed to!vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
As a point of comparison, there are 408 page watchers over the main talk page[29] and only 81[30] over the sub talk page. Even if all 81!voted the same, that's still a tiny fraction of the majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
* Comment * - I didn't realize my comment would cause such a shitstorm (over nothing). That definetly wasn't my intent, so I appologize for that. However, I stand by my comments as being valid and pertinent to the discussion. KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Comment When is this RM supposed to be closed? Cam94509 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
@KB, The only complaint that is being made about this RM is that Josh Gorand acted like a horse's petute and launched his preferred version when he knew that a collaborative effort was in place. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
It's not quite snowing, but it's definitely a solid rain here in favor of NO SNOW CLOSE of this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
I would like to request that this discussion not be subject to a SNOW close. Everyone who wants to express their view should have the usual time to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
I think if we're still running at a roughly 36:1 ratio in a day or two we can probably declare that the Process Gods have accepted our tribute and blessed us with rain, or whatever. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
I agree that this should just be left to run it's course, we're only doing this weeks down the line because of the impatience and hubris of the initial move, so let's learn the lessons, take our time, and leave no doubt that the consensus is solid. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Comment: I am inclined to move the first two \"Neutral\"!votes by User:A Quest For Knowledge and User:Collect to this section, as they are addressed solely to the process, and not to the merits of the discussion. The third and fourth!votes by User:Carolmooredc and User:Sphilbrick are examples of!votes that actually weigh in on the topic at hand. Disputes about whether this should be conducted as an RfC rather than an RM (or disagreeing with the rules governing the RM process itself) should be limited to discussion sections. bd2412 T 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Comment. The instructions for a move request say to provide \"evidence in support where appropriate.\" Notice the last two words. It is inappropriate to provide mounds of one-sided evidence, while assiduously avoiding and omitting evidence on the other side. WP:NPOV is greatly undermined in this way. To provide all this evidence while omitting a simple Google News Search is obviously deliberate and obviously intended to produce a skewed result. No instructions anywhere prevent inclusion of non-supporting evidence, and it is never \"appropriate\" to deliberately omit non-supporting evidence from mounds of supporting evidence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Keilana has recused herself <\/p>\n
Keilana has been proposed as the closing admin for this move request, as per this discussion. However, her comments on Wikipedia Weekly on YouTube suggest that she strongly favors one side over another in this dispute. Therefore, while I do not doubt Keilana's integrity, I think that it would be more appropriate to find somebody who has not yet commented on this case. <\/p>\n
Unfortunately, links to YouTube are blacklisted on Wikipedia, but anyone can find them easily. The first video is titled \"Wikipedia Weekly #99: Bradley-Chelsea-Bradley Manning\", and the relevant discussion takes place over the first 16 minutes. The second video is titled \"Wikipedia Weekly #100 - Century Mark\", and the relevant discussion begins after 13 minutes. Edge3 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Note: I just learned how to circumvent the blacklist on YouTube links. Video 1 (first 16 minutes) and Video 2 (after 13 minutes). Edge3 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Manning move_discussion in progress: uninvolved admins needed, I have asked uninvolved admins to indicate their willingness to participate in a triumvirate to close this move request. -sche (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Being a contributor to The Wikipedia Weekly, The Wikipedia Signpost and so on shouldn't disqualify an editor from closing a discussion. The close is based on policy and consensus, not on the editor's personal views. Also, it doesn't appear that the close will be controversial considering the vote currently being 401, so it probably won't matter that much anyway. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
I'm proud of my ability to stay impartial in controversial situations, including the other RfCs I've closed. I had very strong opinions about the Muhammad images and Jerusalem cases, and in fact disagreed with the consensus in one of those situations. I have also been in similar situations with AfDs, where I have ascertained a consensus that I personally disagree with. If there's a consensus that I'm unsuitable, that's fine, but I think that given my ability to read consensus despite my personal feelings and the fact that two other admins would be involved, with their own opinions (let's be honest - no one has no opinion whatsoever on this topic), I would be an acceptable closer. But it's not up to me. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Keilana seems to be well suited to doing the close and if joined by two others I think it will be fine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
You know, I'm somehow not convinced this is going to be a contentious close... Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
It doesn't matter who is on the admin panel, Obi-Wan Kenobi can use the force to get the outcome he prefers. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Other than a couple of procedural things and my \"vote\" in the first RfC, I have stayed out of this one; but as someone who gets concerned about \"procedure\", I just wanted to make a comment. By my reading of the \"Closure\" section below, this RfC may be closed any time after 19:15 UTC, October 7. By the time I finish typing this, that will be approximately 17.5 hours away. At this point, User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero have been discussed as part of the closing \"team\" and each has said they will do it if asked. I have not seen any objections to either of them. As far as I can tell, they have not actually been \"asked.\" As for a third person, right now there isn't one. As for the ArbCom, they had a motion pending in which they would appoint the closers, but that motion has failed. I propose we take the bull by the horns (is that an Americanism? If so, apologies) and officially ask Kim Dent-Brown and Guerillero to be the TWO closers, that they try to close this as soon after 19:15 UTC as would fit in with the rest of their lives, and that their decision must be unanimous, otherwise there is no \"close\" and someone needs to come up with Plan B. I don't think it's my place to ask them unilaterally (especially since I have added the two-closer and unanimous parts myself), but I am hoping we can get quick agreement on this and that someone can do the asking. Neutron (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Note: This discussion is continuing under \"Closure\", below. Neutron (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Looking through the various applicable policies, I didn't notice anything explicitly addressing how name changes should be dealt with as a general issue (independently of any gender issues this particular one is enmeshed in). If Wikipedia had existed at the time Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali, at what point in the process would the change have been applied to the article? Would it happen as soon as he said that this was the name he wanted to be known as, or would it have to wait until more people knew him as that than his former name? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
It's incorrect to say that the transition name is currently the common name. Notice that there are sources that use only Bradley and none that use only Chelsea. --DHeyward (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
I'm somewhat confused by the instructions. They read: \"Add # Support or # Oppose on a new line in the appropriate section below, followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using. Please remember that this survey is not a substitute for discussion, and please provide a brief explanation for your recommendation. Responses to statements made in the survey sections should be restricted to the discussion section.\" If this is not a poll but a discussion, then why do I have to add a # Support or # Oppose, and why does my explanation need to be brief? If it is a poll, why is an explanation required? Should there be discussion? Or is the idea here that we just voice our opinion without talking to eachother here? If so, where should discussion take place? What is the validity of a poll\/survey? How will it be used in determining consensus? For something that had a month op preparation time, this seems rather ill thought out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
I don't know why dates are deemed as unhelpful. Somehow, any administrator would have trouble reading 200 or 400 votes in one day or two. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Just to note that we are in fact here again having a vote on whether to recognise someone's gender transition (what looks like a vote, walks like a vote and talks like a vote is a vote, even if Wikipedia editors often insist we are not voting). This was an issue brought up in press coverage and that provoked significant negative reactions in external media (see eg. [42] and [43]) and social media the last time. Having initiated this vote this time, I would like to note that I was and am very much uncomfortable with the fact that we are holding such a vote in the first place and that I don't think it's ethical or compliant with how we ought to treat biographies of living people, but alas, this is how things apparently works on this website, for now, and thus the only available method of getting the article moved from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Someone collapse this. It has zero valueTwo kinds of pork (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Well I saw that this has already been brought to WP:ANI regarding a closure request based on consensus by numbers. Consensus works by strengths of arguments not by numbers so I just want to put that out there first. Anyways is there a timeline for when this move request is to be closed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
See my note under \"Choosing a closing admin panel\" above. Basically I am proposing that User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero go ahead and close this together, without a third, and that their decision must be unanimous to \"count\". Neutron (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Although I think it's unlikely Kim Dent-Brown and Guerillero will deadlock in a tie over how to close this discussion, I've put out an appeal for a third admin to join them. -sche (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
When I pointed out earlier the ethical problem of voting on whether to recognise someone's gender identity, I was told \"we are not voting,\" as Wikipedia editors often insist, but here we are, with people talking about percents and votes. The oppose arguments in this discussion are mostly very weak, as they are not supported by solid rationales, often ignoring the evidence cited in the discussion and not based on policy (eg. a lot of claims she needs to have a legal name change or even \"an executive order from his commander in chief\" (sic!) (whatever that means) for us to move the article). Josh Gorand (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
Are there any objections to User:28bytes being the third closer? Plus, could we please not have debate in this section over the merits of the move or the strength of the arguments? This section is about how to get this thing closed. Neutron (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
A look at their edit history (new user as of August 28th) has them only editing within the topic of this move request. I have tagged their comments as such. Mike (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
This comment was removed above with the justification that it is not relevant to discuss Manning's gender. However, there have been other comments supporting the view that Manning is a woman and using that as a rationale. ([49], [50], [51].) If editors can use this as a rationale, is it not valid for this to be discussed? This article may end up being moved to \"Chelsea Manning\" partly for the reason that he\/she is a woman, and no discussion of this point will have been allowed. For the purpose of neutrality and the appearance of a fair discussion, I recommend that such comments be removed as off-topic. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n