Disputatio:Chelsea Manning

Unauthorized sources

Jondel, mutasti "inlicitas personas" (unauthorized persons) ad "inclitas homines fontium" (famous female men of sources). It's probably best to ignore the English word sources here, which gives a wrong or weird perspective: after all, it's Manning who's the alleged source, and any entities (e.g. WikiLeaks) to which he might have leaked information are recipients, not sources. They could perhaps be considered secondary sources, with regard to whoever might read them, but that phrasing tends to put the argument ahead of itself. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:22, 4 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

ok. Got it.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:49, 4 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Movenda?

There is a proposal to move this page to Chelsea Manning. It was turning into an edit war, which I hope I've stopped, but it's a reasonable suggestion: here's the place to discuss it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

No objection to the move, no reason to object (do we have a counterpart to en:MOS:IDENTITY?) - let's fix the name, fix the genders, get it all in order. —Mucius Tever (disputatio)

We don't have that counterpart yet ... you could write it, Mucius! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence, which may of course disappear again in a thorough re-edit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:55, 27 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

We give both names in the text, but up to now the page has remained at "Bradley Manning". A visiting editor, Fitoschido, has moved it to "Chelsea Manning". Since there was a sort of unfinished discussion here, I've moved it back pending further comment. My opinion is that Wikipedia generally chooses the names under which people were best known and most notable: this person's notable acts were done under the name "Bradley Manning". But I don't feel strongly about it. Any other comments? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

[Fitoschido's summarium was: This person is (legally) entitled to choose their identity, you have issues with that? Are you narrow?]

Comparing the wikis

Each of two potential solutions to the problem has widespread support in Vicilandia; here's how they might look, more vicipaediano Latino concepto:

1. Bradley Eduardus Manning, qui ex Augusto 2013 nomine Chelsea Elizabetha Manning utitur (natus . . .), . . .

As in French, Indonesian, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, Welsh, &c.

2. Chelsea Elizabetha Manning (natus Bradley Edward Manning, . . .). . . .

As in English, Esperanto, German, Hungarian, Polish, Portuguese, &c.

Fasciculus:Chelsea Manning mural.jpg

The first is more informative, in the sense that it packs more detail—the date of the transformation—into the definition (perhaps the most important sentence of any article), but that fact may not be dispositive; on the other side of the argument is the fact that we typically lemmatize the most recent names of things, speaking, as it were, of New York (formerly New Amsterdam), not New Amsterdam (later New York). Maybe, as with Novum Amstelodamum and Novum Eboracum, Bradley and Chelsea deserve to have separate articles, one for each personal manifestation. So far, as Andrew points out, the text about Bradley would be vastly longer than the text about Chelsea. ¶ All three images in the present article show the person named Bradley Manning at the time the images were made, two of them being posters spelling that name out, but at least one image featuring Chelsea is available (dextra). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:39, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. I've added it to the page. A picture speaks a thousand words. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

An equivalent of the English sentence would actually be Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (nata Bradley Edward Manning...); Lesgles (disputatio) 16:42, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a typo. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:49, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

note that the English MOS recommends using using the grammatical gender corresponding to the person's self-identification "in references to any phase of that person's life". My vote would be for that, as well as a move to Chelsea Manning. Note that this is someone who continues to be in the news and I think is referred to more and more by the new name. I wouldn't support two pages, as it is the same person (unless we get so much text about the gender transition that it needs to be split off). Lesgles (disputatio) 16:42, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen any news references for a long time. If, as you say, they continue to appear, then evidently those sources will use the new name, and my doubt, which was based on the "most used name" rule-of-thumb, is dissipated. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:57, 7 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

Changes of name can invite amusement ("Here's a photo of Mrs. Smith in her pram"), but their sense is ordinarily understood ("Here's a photo of Stalin at age six"), and the principle of calling people by the name they prefer should hold great weight, as long as the text is clear about who did what. The most recent biography of the original Pater Patriae that I've read (by Anthony Everitt, 2006) is careful to call him Octavian until page 208, after which it calls him Augustus: Octavian did certain things, and after the famous vote in the Senate in 27 B.C. Augustus did certain things, and both characters were the same person. Applying that practice here would mean attributing the deeds of Bradley to Bradley and the deeds of Chelsea to Chelsea. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:49, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

How do Suetonius and other historians of the first few centuries a.C.n. deal with the Octavian/Augustus issue? They'll have set a precedent for how name-changes by historical figures might be handled. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:41, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

To answer part of the question: Suetonius #5 has "Natus est Augustus M. Tullio Cicerone C. Antonio conss. VIIII. Kal. Octob. paulo ante solis exortum." No time to check the rest of Suetonius or other sources. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:52, 6 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

That's a very persuasive example anyway!

Similarly "Vespasianus natus est" and "Domitianus natus est" (I am not sure whether they had those names from birth). Other emperors with whom Suetonius deals continued to use some form of their birth name, so they wouldn't help us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:57, 7 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

Movenda? again

Continuing media references to the name "Chelsea Manning" suggest to me that we should move the page. Surely his current symbolic importance, attached to the new name, now outweighs his army career, attached to the old name. Most other wikis have now moved their equivalent page, I guess for similar reasons. Would others agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 18 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should and it is good that you spotted this. --Jondel (disputatio) 15:10, 18 Maii 2016 (UTC)

I agree! Lesgles (disputatio) 20:09, 18 Maii 2016 (UTC)