Talk:Chelsea Manning/August 2013 move request analysis by BD2412

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.

History

It is important to lay out the history of the article as a foundation for determining the framework of the close.

Early history

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".

Recent history

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).

Role of the closing administrators

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.

Discussion

Procedural posture

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.

Substantive arguments

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.

!Votes

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.

WP:BLP

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.

MOS:IDENTITY

A number of editors have raised this guideline as an issue. The relevant language is:

• When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself.
• Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

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.

WP:COMMON

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.

Public perception

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.

Other arguments

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.

Survey

See also User:SlimVirgin/RM, a separate and independent tally by another editor.

Support (moving page back to "Bradley")

1. User:23 editor - "Per CaseyPenk".
2. User:5minutes - legal
3. User:A Quest For Knowledge - COMMON, RS
4. User:A Thousand Doors - premature, COMMON
5. User:Abductive - legal
6. User:Adjwilley - premature, legal
7. User:Agmonaco - COMMON
8. User:AjaxSmack - process, COMMON, sources, CRYSTAL
9. User:Alandeus - COMMON (as perceived by the public), legal, biology
10. User:Alex Bakharev - COMMON, not BLP since "Bradley" is already well known
11. User:Anagogist - biology
12. User:And Adoil Descended - legal
13. User:Andrewman327 - COMMON ("preponderance of reliable sources")
14. User:Antonio Hazard - COMMON (natural, citing Google Trends)
15. User:Aoidh - COMMON
16. User:Atshal - premature
17. User:AutomaticStrikeout - COMMON
18. User:Baseballbaker23 - notability acquired under former name, recognizability, process ("title should be moved back to Bradley if there fails to be a consensus for the "oppose" side. The fact that the name Chelsea "won" the wheel war shouldn't mean that it should be in the position of default winner".)
19. User:benlisquare - COMMON, premature
20. User:BHC - legal, COMMON
21. User:Blueboar - COMMON, per sources, "re-evaluate the situation in a month or so".
22. User:Bob K31416 - COMMON
23. User:Born2cycle - COMMON, recognizability, OR
24. User:Brandmeister - biology
25. User:Bright Darkness - COMMON, Google search
26. User:Bwmoll3 - legal
27. User:Capitalismojo - easier for readers (basically COMMON)
28. User:Carolmooredc - COMMON, process, premature
29. User:Carrite - SOAPBOX, COMMON, biology
30. User:CaseyPenk (nominator) - process, RM should have been used in the first place "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested".
31. User:Cavarrone - COMMON ("that's the name 99% of sources and readers know her, period")
32. User:Cengime - COMMON
33. User:CFynn - process ("bound to be controversial, should have been discussed and a consensus reached before the change was made")
34. User:Cjarbo2 - NPOV, notability acquired under former name
35. User:Coemgenus - COMMON
36. User:CoffeeCrumbs - process, CRYSTAL
37. User:Collect - notlegal (= no BLP)
38. User:ColonelHenry - COMMON, notability acquired under former name
39. User:CombatWombat42 - developing
40. User:Count Truthstein - biology, COMMON, premature
41. User:Cyclopia - COMMON, SURPRISE
42. User:Daffydavid - notability acquired under former name, legal
43. User:Daniel32708 - biology, legal, "Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda".
44. User:DebashisM - "Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender".
45. User:Deep Purple Dreams - sources
46. User:DHeyward - legal
47. User:Dicklyon - premature, "move to Chelsea Manning may be in order soon, depending on whether the new name catches on".
48. User:Dirac66 - biology, "follow the lead of external sources"
49. User:Dorsal Axe - per above, COMMON
50. User:DrCruse - per above, COMMON
51. User:Dyrnych - notability acquired under former name
52. User:Eclecticology - notability acquired under former name, "changing his identity is rewriting history".
53. User:Edge3 - premature, recognizability
54. User:Eopsid - COMMON
55. User:Eregli bob - legal
56. User:Fightin' Phillie - biology
57. User:Floydian - not IDENTITY, "the rush to be the first kid with their hand up is what led to such a blow-up"
58. User:FutureTrillionaire - premature, COMMON
59. User:Fyunck(click) - COMMON
60. User:Gaijin42 - COMMON
61. User:General Staal - "it is reality being really harsh towards Manning, and WP should reflect reality"
62. User:Giants27 - COMMON, legal, biology, "until sources start solely printing his name as "Chelsea", it needs to stay as Bradley".
63. User:GiantSnowman - COMMON
64. User:GregJackP - COMMON, Google Trends
65. User:GregorB - COMMON, not IDENTITY
66. User:Haxwell - premature
67. User:Hebel - COMMON ("Bradley Manning is what he is known by to most people")
68. User:Helixdq - COMMON (third party sources) or legal
69. User:Hitmonchan - legal, biology
70. User:Hot Stop - "reliable sources still call him Bradley"
71. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - process, premature, COMMON, NY Times
72. User:IFreedom1212 - legal, duress
73. User:Ileanadu - COMMON, notes Cat Stevens
74. User:IRWolfie- - COMMON, notability acquired under former name, no CRYSTAL, no RGW
75. User:Isaidnoway - notability acquired under former name
76. User:Iselilja - COMMON, NOTNEWS
77. User:It Is Me Here - notability acquired under former name, incongruity
78. User:Jaakko Sivonen - legal
79. User:Jackmcbarn - COMMON, "at least until he gets a legal name change"
80. User:JamesAM - COMMON, not BLP, not IDENTITY
81. User:JasonCNJ - COMMON, premature
82. User:JasonJack - per above
83. User:JASpencer - COMMON, NPOV
84. User:Jburman - duress
85. User:JCO312 - COMMON ("Bradley Manning is notable, "Chelsea" is not")
86. User:Jean-Jacques Georges - notability acquired under former name, "I have no doubt that Manning's personal journey is something serious, which I respect ; but writing the article like that just makes him/her look silly".
87. User:Joefromrandb - COMMON
88. User:Jonie148 - legal
89. User:Josepharari - "Wikipedia is not a soap-box for trans people to play with..."
90. User:Juno - premature, legal
91. User:Katana geldar - premature
92. User:Kelly - COMMON, reliable sources
93. User:Ken Arromdee - notability acquired under former name, process
94. User:Kevin W. - COMMON
95. User:Knowledgekid87 - legal, COMMON, "Is this some kind of a joke?"
96. User:KoshVorlon - legal (therefore premature)
97. User:KumiokoCleanStart - biology
98. User:Labattblueboy - COMMON, per Snoop Lion, "That is not to say the current baseline won't change in the future but Chelsea Manning simply isn't employed enough yet."
99. User:LionMans Account - COMMON, notability acquired under former name, "Nobody knows (or cares) who "Chelsea Manning" is. "Bradley Manning" is most well known for the release of documents to Wikileaks and subsequent trial".
100. User:Livitup - COMMON, process (BRD), SOAPBOX
101. User:Marcus Qwertyus - COMMON
102. User:Mareklug - premature
103. User:Maximilian Schönherr
104. User:McPhail - notability acquired under former name
105. User:Miraculouschaos - COMMON, Pretty Boy Floyd
106. User:Modest Genius - COMMON (not IDENTITY)
107. User:Mpgviolist - legal, "I would be okay with with a title reading: Bradley "Chelsea" Manning"
108. User:MrDolomite - legal, COMMON
109. User:My very best wishes - premature
110. User:Necrothesp - COMMON
111. User:Neutron - COMMON, NOTNEWS, not BLP, not IDENTITY
112. User:NewAccount4Me - COMMON
113. User:NickCT - COMMON
114. User:Norden1990 - biology
115. User:Obiwankenobi - COMMON
116. User:Oren0 - COMMON, premature, not IDENTITY
117. User:OSborn - not swayed by legal, but POV to switch
118. User:Penwhale - "technical Support / return to original title"
119. User:PiMaster3 - COMMON, later added not BLP because referenced
120. User:Psychologicaloric - "IDENTITY is irrelevant. He didn't know what he was saying." Account with limited activity.
121. User:Pudeo - legal (official documents), "[R]ecent news related to his gender-identity announcements take that into account, but we'll have to see if all of the common use switches to Chelsea."
122. user:Purplepox01 - legal, COMMON ("name that the public uses")
123. User:Raeven0 - premature
124. User:Randy2063 - legal, biology, "This article is a joke".
125. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid - common, recog
126. User:Red Slash - reliable sources
127. User:Richard75 - premature, not IDENTITY
128. User:Rlendog - COMMON, not BLP, not IDENTITY
129. User:Sangrolu - notability acquired under former name, "Chelsea didn't announce her new name/gender identity until her trial as Bradley was over", no incongruity
130. User:Sbingner - legal, not IDENTITY
131. User:Scottywong - COMMON per sources or legal
132. User:Shii - COMMON
133. User:Skyraider - COMMON, premature
134. User:SmokeyJoe - recentism, "Chelsea is not (yet) commonly recognized outside of those following the story".
135. User:Smyth - process
136. User:Sodaant - COMMON ("vast majority of sources, including the trial")
137. User:Solarguy17 - legal (per Chad Ochocinco)
138. User:Sovetus - process
139. User:StAnselm - premature, legal
140. User:Stryn - legal/OFFICIAL
141. User:Surfer43 - biology, sources
142. User:Talmage - legal, notability acquired under former name
143. User:Tarc - recognizability, COMMON
144. User:Tariqabjotu - COMMON, natural, recognizable, premature
145. User:Taylor Trescott - "laughable and embarrassing"
146. User:TeddyTesseract - activism, "'Sensitivity' for Private Manning's feelings (who is a criminal convicted of treason) is just a red herring".
147. User:Thehistorian10 - Biology, mail
148. User:Themfromspace - premature
149. User:Thinking of England - premature, "Had WP:BRD been followed, and this was an RM on Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning, I would be leaning towards support, but would suggest that we wait another few days to see how the media sources finally settle in".
150. User:Tivanir2
151. User:Tocino - process
152. User:Toddy1 - notability acquired under former name
153. User:Toyokuni3 - biology, legal, "until 8/22, 100% of the news coverage was of 'bradley' manning"
154. User:Trinitresque - process
155. User:TripleU - COMMON ("because that's what they're known as")
156. User:Two kinds of pork - "status quo ante belleum"
157. User:Ukrained2012 "adhering to the Wikipedia rules. I mean, seriously? Really? AYFKM?"
158. User:Uvaduck - premature
159. User:Vanisaac - COMMON, principle of least surprise, (but, "I find the trans-phobic comments in support of the move pretty reprehensible")
160. User:Vobedd - process ("the R in WP:BRD")
161. User:Walterego - COMMON, SOAPBOX, (not IDENTITY)
162. User:Wasmachien - activism
163. User:wctaiwan - premature (not BLP)
164. User:WeldNeck - biology, legal, "still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths". Editor is a single-purpose account.
165. User:White_whirlwind - no reason stated
166. User:Wikipeterproject - recognizability
167. User:XMattingly - legal, "up-to-date, factual information".
168. User:Yintan - COMMON
169. User:Yourself In Person - COMMON, not IDENTITY

IP support

1. ("Wikipedia is... not a site designed to protect people's "feelings"). 91.153.87.155
2. ("per Rannpháirtí anaithnid, common sense, and general opposition to the use of Wikipedia as a platform for radical political advocacy")168.12.253.66
3. ("no biological or legal rationale to refer to Manning as anything but male") 198.161.2.241
4. ("move was incredibly premature, and seems to be done only to please the social justice warriors") 142.161.97.237
5. ("Per CaseyPenk. When media outlets refer to Manning by his preferred name the title should change".) 71.179.167.242
6. ("we shouldn't be abruptly and unrecognizably renaming an article based on a very recent revelation") 71.231.186.92
7. ("The name a person chooses to use, their legal name, and their "common name" can be three different things. For Wikipedia's article naming purposes, it is only the "common name" that counts, not the self-chosen name nor the legal name".) 99.192.64.222
8. ("As a political statement against wikipedia's identity policy and the idea that a person can demand which pronoun another person uses".)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.230.213 (talk • contribs)
9. ("when Manning named herself as "Brianna (Breanna?) Manning" we didn't change the article name, so why should we do so now?") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.34.11 (talk • contribs)

Out-of-process support

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).

1. User:BabbaQ (here; cites Thomas Quick)
2. User:BlueSalix (here)
3. User:Baseball Bugs

Oppose (moving page back to "Bradley")

1. User:-sche - BLP, IDENTITY, later added note on incongruity
2. User:7daysahead - "Basic human decency requires that we do not continue to use Chelsea Manning's old name, given the real distress it would cause her".
3. User:Abeg92 per Sue Gardner
4. User:Adrian - IDENTITY
5. User:Agnosticaphid - IDENTITY, newer sources
6. User:Ajfweb - IDENTITY
7. User:Alanscottwalker - IDENTITY, newer sources
8. User:Alaric - IDENTITY
9. User:AlexTiefling - per above; respect
10. User:An Editor With a Self-Referential Name - IDENTITY, COMMON "seems less-than-decisive", "Wikipedia should not veer into trans-hate for the sake of the news outlets and governments that have not internalized the message"
11. User:AndyTheGrump - IDENTITY
12. User:AnonNep - IDENTITY, redirect
13. User:Anthonyhcole - BLP, IDENTITY
14. User:April Arcus - "An uncomplicated case of basic human decency. I am not an expert on MOS:IDENTITY, WP:COMMONNAME or WP:BLP, but if any of these policies counterindicate a move to Chelsea Manning that is self-evidently a problem with the policy and not with the move".
15. User:Archaeo - IDENTITY
16. User:Badanagram - "nothing to lose by changing the article title for the time being"
17. User:Bdell555 - "natural outcome of years of Wikipedia's political evolution"
18. User:Bearcat - IDENTITY, not COMMON because exception are allowed; either name would be POV
19. User:Belorn - sources are ambivalent, but moving back would be WP:POINT
20. User:Bernarddb - per above
21. User:BFWB - IDENTITY, respect
22. User:Bluerasberry - "This is a transgender rights issue".
23. User:Bob bobato - IDENTITY
24. User:Brettalan - IDENTITY
25. User:BrownHairedGirl - BLP, IDENTITY
26. User:Cam94509 - IDENTITY, COMMON (newer sources)
27. User:Chelos - IDENTITY, "basic human decency"
28. User:Cindamuse - BLP, IDENTITY
29. User:Count Iblis
30. User:Cullen328 - IDENTITY
31. User:David Gerard - BLP
32. User:Dee Earley - IDENTITY, "The fact the mass media are constantly misgendering her is not an excuse to perpetuate the transmisogyny".
33. User:Dezastru - BLP, IDENTITY
34. User:Dmarquard - IDENTITY
35. User:Dralwik - IDENTITY
36. User:DracoEssentialis - "per Nick, Scott, and Slim", newer sources
37. User:EdChem - incongruity
38. User:Eddpayne - IDENTITY, redirect
39. User:Edison - BLP, IDENTITY
40. User:Emarsee - IDENTITY
41. User:FeydHuxtable - BLP, IDENTITY, COMMON (newer sources)
42. User:FormerIP - respect
43. User:FoxyOrange - COMMON (newer sources)
44. User:Gaurav - IDENTITY
45. User:GenericBob - respect
46. User:Ginsengbomb - IDENTITY, newer sources
47. User:Gobonobo - IDENTITY, newer sources
48. User:GorillaWarfare - BLP, IDENTITY
49. User:Guettarda - BLP, IDENTITY
50. User:Guy Macon - IDENTITY, cites Wendy Carlos
51. User:Haipa Doragon - libel
52. User:Hobit - respect
53. User:Hurtsmyears - IDENTITY
54. User:I JethroBT - IDENTITY, cites many sources, counters COMMON with IAR
55. User:Insulam Simia - BLP, IDENTITY
56. User:Jayen466 - IDENTITY, newer sources, "Reasonable arguments can be made either way"
57. User:Jonathandeamer - IDENTITY
58. User:Joshuagay - newer sources
59. User:Josh Gorand - BLP, IDENTITY
60. User:K7L - IDENTITY
61. User:Kairi Izumi - IDENTITY
62. User:Kiralexis - IDENTITY
63. User:KTC - IDENTITY, respect
64. User:Labellementeuse - IDENTITY, newer sources
65. User:Lawsonstu - BLP, IDENTITY
66. User:Longsight - IDENTITY, newer sources
67. User:LtGen - IDENTITY
68. User:LudicrousTripe - IDENTITY
69. User:Lyo - "The first line of the article can simply clarify the change to avoid confusion".
70. User:Mark Miller - IDENTITY, "This isn't a political or social issue...its personal."
71. User:MaxHarmony - no need for legal change with so public an announcement
72. User:McGeddon - newer sources
73. User:me_and - IAR, respect
74. User:Miranche - IDENTITY
75. User:Mispy - IDENTITY, newer sources
76. User:MONGO - BLP
77. User:Morwen - IDENTITY
78. User:Muboshgu - IDENTITY, "outside organizations instruct that we should identify the transgender individual as they want to be addressed"
79. User:Neljack - BLP, IDENTITY, newer sources, "pointless to move it back on procedural grounds"
80. User:Netcrusher88 - newer sources
81. User:Nicholas Perkins - BLP, IDENTITY, not Notability (per Chaz Bono)
82. User:Nick - respect
83. User:Nil Einne - BLP, IDENTITY
84. User:NinjaRobotPirate - IDENTITY, newer sources, incongruity
85. User:NorthBySouthBaranof - BLP, IDENTITY, respect
86. user:OohBunnies! - BLP, IDENTITY
87. User:Ou tis - IDENTITY, newer sources
88. User:Pass a Method - IDENTITY
89. User:PauAmma - redirect
90. User:Paul Erik - IDENTITY
91. User:PenguiN42 - not premature, not legal, newer sources
92. User:Pez Dispens3r - IDENTITY
93. User:Phil Sandifer - newer sources, redirect
94. User:Phoebe - "per GorillaWarfare, Sue Gardner, and others"
95. User:Prototime - IDENTITY, SYSTEMICBIAS
96. User:Psychonaut - IDENTITY, recent sources
97. User:QuackCD - BLP, IDENTITY
98. User:Richard BB - IDENTITY
99. User:Rinnenadtrosc - newer sources
100. User:Robin Lionheart - IDENTITY, newer sources
101. User:Robofish - IDENTITY ("should trump COMMON"); concedes IDENTITY does not specifically address titles, but "it also comes down to a matter of general decency and respect for a living person's wishes"
102. User:Roscelese - BLP
103. User:Ross Hill - IDENTITY (trumps COMMON per IAR)
104. User:Sailsbystars - newer sources
105. User:Sam Blacketer - IDENTITY, COMMON is "a rapidly decreasing factor"
106. User:SarekOfVulcan - IDENTITY
107. User:SchreiberBike - IDENTITY
108. User:Scott Martin - IDENTITY
109. User:Scray - BLP, IDENTITY
110. User:Shezthemann - IDENTITY. Editor is a single-purpose account.
111. User:Shrigley - respect, AP stylebook
112. User:Silver seren - precedent, BLP
113. User:Sj - "nothing to be gained now by moving back"
114. User:SlimVirgin - IDENTITY, newer sources
115. User:Smowton - IDENTITY
116. User:Snappy - BLP, IDENTITY
117. User:Space simian - IDENTITY, newer sources
118. User:Sportfan5000 (unsigned, very few edits) - IDENTITY, not a new issue
119. User:SqueakBox - "moving back to Bradley would be POV pushing to make a point"
120. User:Srlevine1 - comment is very confusing: "I believe that any gender references should be applied after the date of the announcement, lest the changes give the impression that the events were performed by a woman which changes the nature and character of the conversation." Seems to be addressing pronouns, not article title. Unsigned comment, account with very limited activity.
121. User:Steeletrap - BLP, IDENTITY, not biology
122. User:Steven Zhang - BLP, IDENTITY
123. User:Sue Gardner - IDENTITY, newer sources
124. User:Surtsicna IDENTITY, "the amount of pure, policy-unrelated bigotry displayed by a vocal minority is appalling"
125. User:Synchronism - BLP (overrides COMMON)
126. User:Tazerdadog - "Per Jimbo's reasoning, and also because that Manning's declaration was about as unambiguous as they get".
127. User:Thatbox - BLP, IDENTITY (account with very limited activity)
128. User:TheCatalyst31 - IDENTITY
129. User:Theodolite - "The rapidity of Wikipedia's response in moving the article to Chelsea is something to be proud of."
130. User:Theodore! - IDENTITY, newer sources (The Guardian)
131. User:Thryduulf - BLP, IDENTITY
132. User:Tivanir2 - COMMON, BLP/IDENTITY are "tenuous"; notability
133. User:TParis (changed from support) ("we lose legitimacy by returning to "Bradley" on procedural grounds alone")
134. User:Tryptofish - spirit of BLP, (COMMON will change soon)
135. User:Trystan - ultimate, BLP
136. User:U-Mos - switched !vote due to newer sources ("trend of sources towards Chelsea"); "beginning to understand the WP:BLP argument for keeping the article at Chelsea"
137. User:Vexorian - IDENTITY
138. User:Vinithehat - IDENTITY, redirect
139. User:Wadewitz - BLP, IDENTITY
140. User:Wikid77 - IDENTITY, newer sources, cites Muhammad Ali
141. User:Wing gundam - IDENTITY
142. User:Wnt - "The newest name generally wins in article titling", cites Sears Tower.
143. User:Wslack - IDENTITY, newer sources
144. User:Yetisyny - IDENTITY
145. User:Zoe Brain - IDENTITY, neuro-anatomy

IP oppose

1. ("Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification".) 151.230.243.44
2. ("The fact that she wanted her name changed has been known for over a year now".)97.90.153.202
3. ("Bradley Manning is now an inaccurate name, as Manning no longer identifies as Bradley".)86.16.146.123

Out-of-process oppose

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.

1. User:Jimbo Wales - would apply IAR to favor IDENTITY as a matter of sound editorial judgment
2. User:88.88.162.176 "Chelsea Manning appears to be the common name now. Otherwise I am in general agreement with Jimbo Wales's out-of-process oppose".

Other comments/opinions

1. User:69.244.220.253 proposed renaming the page to "Pte Manning" (a reference to the British abbreviation for "Private").
2. User:John Cline, "I remember discussing the exact principles floating here, in a slightly less contentious manner at the RM for Talk:Laura Jane Grace. Participants of this discussion would have been better acquainted with propriety had they respected that a consensus for best practice had already been hammered out".
3. User:Matticusmadness - vote begins "Oppose" but rationale is for support: "In my book we should have waited until the gender changing had been done. It would have made more sense to do that. What if he changed his mind? (Unlikely but not impossible) Anyone who voted it to be moved to Chelsea would be kicking themselves! I sense a WP:CRYSTAL violation in the midst of all this".
4. User:OtterSmith ("Split Two articles, one Bradley, one Chelsea".)
5. User:Pointillist, "Wikipedia isn't a democracy so why are all these good people attempting to vote here? If there is a vote in future, please let us know. In the meantime, don't count any votes here, just weigh the arguments".
6. User:TParis proposed temporarily moving the page to "Private Manning"; this proposition was supported by User:Benlisquare, User:CaseyPenk, and User:Knowledgekid87, and was opposed on various grounds by User:Thryduulf, User:Vexorian, User:Josh Gorand, User:Miraculouschaos, and User:FT2.
7. Wallie ("Don't know".)

Support withdrawn

1. User:DPRoberts534 (changed to Moot, as "a week later, news sources are mixed")
2. User:FoxyOrange (changed to oppose)
3. User:George Ho (in limbo, move was not unreasonable, IDENTITY is just a guideline)
4. User:Moncrief
5. User:Scs
6. User:StuartH ("mistake can't be undone now")
7. User:TParis (changed to oppose)
8. User:U-Mos (changed to oppose)