This was the draft workpage that I used to work out the consensus of the community in closing the discussion at issue. These are the thoughts that I developed with respect to points raised throughout the discussion. It does not to reflect any predisposition as to the outcome of this discussion.
It is important to lay out the history of the article as a foundation for determining the framework of the close.
On June 7, 2010, this page was created by User:Gregcaletta as a redirect from the title, "Bradley Manning" to the article, July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike; it was immediately adjusted by User:Gregcaletta to be a section redirect to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#Leaked video footage. On the same day, a stub article was created at "Brad Manning", and another editor retargeted the title, "Bradley Maning", to redirect there; minutes later "Brad Manning" was also made into a redirect to the article on the Baghdad Airstrike on the grounds that the subject was not independently notable. On June 11, 2010, User:Gregcaletta converted the redirect to an article, adding information from substantial press coverage of reports of Manning's actions with respect to Wikileaks. On June 15, 2010, User:Gregcaletta moved the article to Arrest of Bradley Manning on the grounds that the subject was only notable for one event.
On August 9, 2010, a move request was initiated by User:Abductive, who proposed to rename "Arrest of Bradley Manning → Bradley Manning". This discussion remained open until September 3, 2010, at which time it was closed with an overwhelming consensus in favor of the proposed move. Consequently, on September 3, 2010, the article was moved back to "Bradley Manning". A proposal later that year to move the page to "Arrest of Bradley Manning" was unsuccessful.
In December of 2011, it was reported in the media that Manning had sought to establish an identity on Twitter and other online forums as "Breanna Manning". A substantial discussion occurred on the question of whether to move this page to Breanna Manning on MOS:IDENTITY grounds, although a formal move request was not filed. No move resulted from this discussion. In May of 2012, however, User:Sceptre moved Bradley Manning to Breanna Manning, without discussion; this move was reversed by User:Berean Hunter with the edit summary, "No consensus for move". This reversal was immediately reversed again by User:Sceptre with the edit summary, "prior consensus is not needed for BLP enforcement". Shortly thereafter, User:ErrantX moved the page back to "Bradley Manning", having noted in a previous edit that "significant BLP concerns exist in such a broad move on tenuous sourcing". The matter was discussed at length on the BLP noticeboard, where the move was ultimately deemed to be unsupported, largely based on the paucity of evidence of Manning's asserted desire to identify as a woman. User:HelloAnnyong then temporarily raised the protection level of the page on the grounds of "Move warring".
On August 22, 2013, it was reported in the media that Manning had released a statement through her lawyer that she considered herself a woman, intended to undergo gender reassignment, and had taken the name "Chelsea E. Manning". A new talk page section was created by IP User:68.81.192.33 titled "Time to move the article to Chelsea Manning", which suggested changing the title and the pronouns (although no formal move request was filed at this time). User:Morwen responded, indicating agreement, as did User:Nicholas Perkins. With no further discussion (other than in IP suggesting "If nothing else, we need an immediate redirect"), User:Morwen moved the page to "Chelsea Manning", citing the news article. This, by itself, was not in violation of any policy; it was a bold page move clearly done in good faith. This move was immediately reverted by User:Cls14, with the edit summary, "This is a bloke called Bradley Manning". This reversion, while tactlessly framed, was also not done in violation of any policy. Notably, Cls14 had not heard of the name change and Manning's new gender identity and thought the move was vandalism, and replied to this information, "Very sorry about that, hadn't even heard that Chelsea was potentially trans, let alone that she was now defining as a woman. Feel free to change back!".
Up to this point, everything was proper. However, within an hour of the second move of this page to "Chelsea Manning", User:StAnselm filed a technical move request, stating: "This was recently moved, and it should be discussed first, at is clearly a controversial move". Shortly thereafter, User:Tariqabjotu moved the page back to "Bradley Manning", with the edit summary: "Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink) [reversing undiscussed move]". Under the widely followed non-policy recommendation of WP:BRD, no further moves should have taken place after this, since the final move back to "Bradley Manning" was the call for discussion. At that point, the best practice would probably have been the filing of a move request, which would then require a showing of consensus to move the page to the proposed new title. However, immediately after the page was moved back for discussion, User:David Gerard then moved the page back to "Chelsea Manning", citing WP:BLP. This was not a violation of policy, and was not done with improper reasoning, as BLP concerns are important. However, as we have seen in this discussion, BLP may be an argument for changing the title of a page; it is not at all clear that it mandates such actions.
The requested move currently under discussion was then filed by User:CaseyPenk, at 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC), to be closed at 15:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC).
Whatever the outcome of this discussion, there will likely be a powerful impulse among those who disagree with that outcome to shoot the messenger. It is vitally important to note that the role of the closing administrators in this discussion, as with all discussions, is to determine what the consensus of the community is (or determine that a lack of consensus exists) and apply that determination accordingly. I have no opinion as to what the "right" title for this article is, as a matter of policy. So long as neither possibility is absolutely barred, the matter becomes one of weighing the options.
Before addressing the question of what consensus there is or is not, we must consider the effect of a determination of consensus or no consensus.
A number of "support" !votes are premised on the impropriety of the initial set of moves. As a matter of well-regarded practice (though not of policy), the first move (occurring prior to a full WP:RM discussion) was the B in the WP:BRD cycle; the second one was the R. The third move was troublesome, since the reversion of the bold move is the trigger for the discussion that is now underway. One editor summed it up as follows:
“ | The original rename was done summarily by an admin based on minimal or no discussion and then immediately move-protected. Since it should never have been done that way, the new name should not be treated as the default situation to fall back on if no consensus is reached. The default situation with no consensus is always the one that prevailed before the disagreement arose. | ” |
In short, although the article has since been locked at a particular title, the presumption is that the title it had before any moves took place is correct, unless there is a consensus of the community to change that title. Absent such a presumption, any editor who disagreed with a longstanding and stable article title could move that article to a new alternative title, and force a showing of consensus to restore the original title, even though there had been no consensus to move to the new title.
For example, I have long advocated moving Georgia (country) to Sakartvelo, which is the local name of the country. If an administrator were to make this move on the grounds that it was insulting to the people of the country to use the wrong name, and then lock the page until a requested move discussion was concluded, what would a lack of consensus indicate? What would it mean, in that scenario, if 54% supported moving back and 46% supported keeping the new title? What if some media outlets then announced that they would follow Wikipedia's lead and henceforth refer to that country as Sakartvelo? What if an administrator moved Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam, citing MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP, and then locked the page against a move back, pending a requested move discussion?
Here are some typical examples of comments in the discussion relating to this point:
“ | As others have noted, the move to Chelsea was premature and should have awaited fuller use of that name in reliable sources (see WP:COMMONNAME). A parenthetical statement in the lede about her preferred name would have sufficed until then. On these procedural grounds I support returning the article to Bradley, but by the time this discussion is closed, I expect the preponderance of sources using "Chelsea" will make this point moot. | ” |
“ | My suspicion is that the references to Bradley Manning will become rarer and this will simply default to Chelsea, but I am uneasy about the precedent of break the rules if it matches the political views of the majority of admins that is being set here. | ” |
It cannot be the case that one editor or a small group of editors can unilaterally move a page and then require a showing of consensus to restore it to the position from which it was moved. Consensus is the engine that moves the page in the first place. I intend to proceed according to this interpretation of events, and of policy. However, the very fact that some editors have weighed in on the process indicates that this decision will be, at least in part, addressed to the process itself, and not necessarily the merits. I believe that in a strong enough set of circumstances, the merits of a move that is absolutely required by policy could override circumstances such as these.
I would propose, however, that whichever way this closure comes out, we should have a cooling off period of perhaps a few weeks, after which the issue can be taken up in light of any new trends discernible from reliable sources, and perhaps with a somewhat more orderly arrangement of voting sections, on a subpage separate from the talk page to quell the breakout of side-issues.
Some thoughts on evaluating the discussion:
As a preliminary note, towards the end of the discussion one editor responded to a suggestion that this RM vote can not counter broadly supported policies, stating:
“ | 400 people is a broad consensus. I doubt any of the policies have ever had 400 folks !vote on them. | ” |
We can not read this discussion as changing any existing policies, but it certainly presents a large enough cross-section of the community to serve as a lens through which to understand these policies and their common interpretation.
There are excellent arguments on both (and some terrible arguments, on both sides). Most participants in the discussion were civil and directed their comments towards the question at hand. There were also experienced and well-respected editors on both sides of the issue.
Although a discussion is not a vote, we can not ignore the relative amount of support or opposition that a given proposition draws.
The final tally is 178 in support of moving the page back, to 148 in opposition. It is a longstanding practice to discount IP votes and single purpose votes. In this case, the page was semi-protected shortly after the discussion began; there were a total of 12 IP votes, 3 opposed to moving the page back to "Bradley Manning", and 9 in support of moving the page back to "Bradley Manning". The rationales (good and bad) put forth by IP voters did not differ markedly from those put forth by registered editors. In light of the overall numbers, their input makes little difference to the outcome. There were also a small number of single purpose votes on either side, again not enough to make any difference to the outcome.
Most editors who opposed the move have raised WP:BLP as a consideration. Some editors have also referred to "the spirit of BLP" - encompassed in the directive that "[t]he possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". I recall that BLP was adopted in the wake of the John Seigenthaler debacle, and "the spirit of BLP" was to shield Wikipedia from legal liability and ridicule arising from presenting completely made-up things as "facts". Notably, BLP applies only to living persons, which is congruent with the right to sue for libel generally being limited to living persons. If the subject of this article (or any other living article subject) were to die tomorrow, the protections of BLP would no longer apply. Obviously we do not want our article titles to harm their subjects, but how much harm can a title really cause? In this case, there are some mitigating factors. First, the subject has expressed through his attorney that she "expects" (probably meaning "realizes") that her birth name will be used in some instances. Second, a number of editors have pointed out that the subject is unlikely to see her Wikipedia article for quite some time, and will more likely experience any harm from newspapers and other print publications than from an Internet-based publication. Third, this name is not a typical epithet or a cruel taunt, but the name that this subject has used for 25 years up until now (although we know that the subject has long felt negatively towards the dichotomy between her psychological gender and her biological sex). Fourth, the subject is noted to have stated:
“ | i wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy… | ” |
This suggests that the subject is most concerned with the use of her image, and it is highly unlikely that an encyclopedic article would omit the image showing the subject as a male. The clash between these concerns highlights the tension between taking harm to the subject into account and the goal of the project is to create a neutral and informative encyclopedia. Furthermore, there is no question that the name "Bradley" will always appear prominently in the lede, probably within the first half dozen words, and in boldface type. This is different from that name being at the top of the page, but it does not strike me that it is so different that the harm is effected by such a display is substantially more grave than that necessarily effected by prominently referencing "Bradley Manning" in the lede, and repeatedly throughout the article (particularly if it is presumed that consensus will eventually exist to rename the article, and that this name is therefore temporary).
Finally, some editors have suggested that the wrong article title would actually be libelous. Having been a practicing attorney for the better part of a decade, and having worked on a number of defamation cases, no issue of libel or slander can arise from the title of an article that can be reliably sourced to media reports. This is one point on which I have certainty arising from experience in practice.
A number of editors have raised this guideline as an issue. The relevant language is:
With respect to the first point, this discussion clearly constitutes a "dispute", as does the differing usage still found in some media reports. With respect to the second point, adoption of a name associated with a particular gender identification (see Chelsea (name), "The girl's name Chelsea is a 20th-century coinage...") can be interpreted as an expression of gender self-identification. Oddly enough, Bradley makes no such gender identification, and some external sources indicate that "Bradley" can be a male name or a female name.[1][2] However, "Chelsea" as a male name is exceedingly rare. (Funny story - before I started law school, I was a research sociologist for several years, while pursuing an MA in the subject; I wrote a paper on the masculinization and feminization of names, which found among other things that names ending in "-lee" phonemes tended to drift towards feminization).
However, all of this is a guideline, and all of the principles of gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives would apply if the subject had announced her gender self-identification without announcing any change of name.
Name under which the subject engaged in notable activities. A number of editors noted that the subject acquired notability (i.e., engaged in notable activities - conveying materials to Wikileaks, being arrested and charged) while being identified as "Bradley Manning", and that readers will typically search for the subject, and expect to find the subject, under that title.
Use of the subject's name in media sources is complicated to some extent by the possibility that some sources are "following Wikipedia's lead". However, the degree to which any such following has occurred is a matter of speculation. This discussion is further complicated by the fluidity of events, as new reports continue to be made in which the matter is being discussed. In particular, some hay has been made of comments by the subject's attorney, particularly the attorney's statement that the subject "expects that the name Bradley Manning and the male pronoun will continue to be used in certain instances". This was read by some as indicating that the subject is resigned to the fact that this usage will continue, and by others (quite unrealistically) as indicating that the subject wishes for this usage to continue. Of course, the problem arises from the ambiguity of the attorney's statement. I am an attorney, and one thing we are taught in law school is how to express ourselves clearly when we want to, and how to be appropriately ambiguous when we need to. I suspect that there is some measured intentional ambiguity in this statement.
It has been noted throughout the debate that various reliable sources have adopted "Chelsea" as the preferred nomenclature for this subject. Many such announcements were answered with examples of other reliable sources continuing to use "Bradley". The real question, I think, is whether the adoption of "Chelsea" is a trend which continues to grow, or a blip which grows to a certain point and then recedes. Speculation on that point seems like a WP:CRYSTAL exercise, although I think that it is reasonable to take the major news organizations at their word when they say that they will maintain a certain practice from here on out.
I do not believe that any of this really addresses the issue of "Bradley" being the name under which notability arose (and therefore the most recognizable name and the most natural search term), but that is only part of the WP:TITLE inquiry.
A few editors have suggested, without elaboration, that the article title with which they disagree is or would be "a joke", "laughable", etc., or have argued that Wikipedia will look stupid or insensitive if we change the name back. Oddly enough, there is not a policy that says "Don't make Wikipedia look stupid".
Very little weight can be given to !votes buttressed solely by comments like:
“ | Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not a site designed to protect people's "feelings". | ” |
“ | [H]e is definitely male. Oh my God, I don't believe this title move... | ” |
“ | Wikipedia is not a soap-box for trans people to play with, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should value quality over political correctness ten times out of ten. Coming into the page and seeing "her" and "she" all over the place while the picture is of a young soldier is laughable, and unthinkable in a Wikipedia just a short year ago. | ” |
These are not valid arguments with respect to a page title. Comments that are or have been interpreted as transphobic (i.e. expressing hostility towards Manning on the basis of her gender identification) diminish the credibility of those who give voice to such expressions. On the other hand, some editors have asserted that accusations of transphobia have been made too blithely and against editors who have not expressed any such hostility.
I think that a great part of the problem with public perception arguments is that writing Wikipedia often is an absurd process, with drawn out debates and histrionics over matters of little consequence. Can we expect anything less when we debate a matter of great consequence? Although Wikipedia was applauded in some corners for its fast action with respect to this issue, we should not seek to condition the public to expect Wikipedia to act quickly, smoothly, and without dissent in reporting contentious issues. Per Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
I have worked in the United States federal court system, and believe me, Wikipedia has a much shorter arc, as it almost always gets around to resolving its disputes much faster than Congress and the courts.
Legal name: Some editors have asserted that the title should be at "Bradley Manning" because the subject's legal name has not changed. About a dozen presented that as their sole basis for supporting such a title. Per WP:OFFICIAL, however, a subject's "legal name" is only a factor that may be considered; it does not dictate the title of an article. For example, Bill Clinton is not the subject's "legal name". !Votes by editors who relied on nothing more than the "legal name" of the subject are not grounded in policy, and can not be given much weight.
Biology: Some editors have asserted that the title should be at "Bradley Manning" because the subject has not had a sexual reassignment procedure. About a half dozen presented that as their sole basis for supporting such a title. There is no precedent to suggest that this should have any effect on an article. See George Sand, who adopted a male name and was (and remains) primarily known by that name, despite there not having been any physiological change. See also Lou Henry Hoover, Michael Michele, Alice Cooper, Marilyn Manson. It has also been pointed out in the discussion that transgender subjects may have a brain physiology matching (and, in fact, responsible for) their psychological gender, which is at odds with the remainder of their anatomy. !Votes by editors who relied on nothing more than the external anatomy of the subject are not grounded in policy, and can not be given much weight.
Criminal conviction: A few editors referenced the criminal conviction of the subject, although no editors presented that as the primary basis or sole basis for supporting a given title. In any case, this is irrelevant to the subject's name; there is no policy under which this should have any effect.
Legal tactic: Some editors have raised the reported hypothesis that the announcement of Manning's gender identity and new name are a legal tactic engineered by Manning's attorney in order to somehow aid in potential appeals or efforts to obtain a better prison placement for Manning.
WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM: Some editors consider this move to be an example of recentism or reporting the news. However, we change titles all the time in response to "recent" events, and news reports of them (as with moving Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Prince George of Cambridge).
Redirect: Some editors note that whichever title the article occupies, the other title will redirect there. This cuts both ways, and therefore does not seem to be a compelling reason to consider the existence of redirects at all.
Eventual title: Some editors have proposed that the article will ultimately come to be titled "Chelsea Manning", and that keeping the page at "Bradley Manning" for the time being would be counterproductive. This argument is a little bit crystal ball-ish, since we can not know what the trend will be in the future among the reliable sources on whom our titles depend. However, it is not entirely invalid. Some sources have at least indicated that they will use "Chelsea Manning" henceforth, and the trend in that direction is entirely plausible. (Note: a few editors specifically raised WP:CRYSTAL in support of moving back to "Bradley Manning").
WP:POINT: A few editors suggested that moving this back would only be trying to make a point. I see very little support for this notion, as most editors who supported moving the title back seemed to make earnest policy arguments.
A few editors registered opinions on this question without formally indicating support or opposition in the RM discussion. There opinions are noted, but only !votes in the discussion itself are counted towards the result. (Of course, any editor who has registered an opinion elsewhere may still participate in the discussion, up until it closes).
Editors may register opinions on this question without formally indicating support or opposition in the RM discussion. These opinions are noted, but only !votes in the discussion itself are counted towards the result.