Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ

To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Manning self-identified as a woman in 2009, and used the name Breanna. Why was the article title not moved at that time, and/or the pronoun changed?

It was revealed after the arrest in May 2010 that Manning had self-identified as a woman several times, and in November 2009 had discussed having surgery with a gender counsellor. In January 2010 Manning lived for one or more days as a woman while on leave in Boston, and in April 2010 wrote to a master sergeant about having experienced gender identity disorder. These concerns were repeated in May 2010 during chats that Manning apparently believed were private. Between being arrested in May 2010 and the recent statement on 22 August 2013, Manning signed documents as "Bradley Manning," and appeared willingly in male uniform for a recent photograph. Manning's lawyer referred to Breanna as an "alter ego," and the Bradley Manning Support Network continued to refer to Manning as "he" and Bradley. Because of the lack of a public statement from Manning that she was transitioning, Wikipedia stayed with the male pronoun and the old title at that time.

Q2: Why is this article titled Chelsea Manning?

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". A majority of sources now use the name "Chelsea" when referring to Manning which would make it the common name.

Q3: 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 " [sic]" may be used where necessary)."

Q4: Shouldn't we insist on a legal name change before changing the title of the article?

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; legal name usually has little bearing on the title of an article. A long discussion in October 2013 concluded that the article title should be "Chelsea Manning".

Q5: Why is this labeled as a good article? This article clearly no longer meets the criteria for that rating of its quality.

A request was made at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1, which was speedily closed as "too premature". Per WP:GAR, "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate"; reassessment should instead "wait until the article stabilizes". A second request for reassessment was made on 12 September 2013, but was declined the following day. Seeing that some time has gone by however, there is nothing stopping an editor who wishes to see this article undergo another good article review.

Q6: Why is Manning in transgender categories?

The fact that Manning is transgender, and is 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 Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization for more information.

Q7: I feel that Wikipedia is being biased towards my beliefs here, what should I do?

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

References