Private Manning arbitration

[HRIP7]

Based on the responses I've gotten here, I'm assuming it is okay for me to credit Cla68 for that blog post by his real name. Cla68, please let me know if you disagree with that.

Suggest you drop him a PM.

[Zoloft]

Based on the responses I've gotten here, I'm assuming it is okay for me to credit Cla68 for that blog post by his real name. Cla68, please let me know if you disagree with that.

The email button on Cla68's profile is a good way to inform him.

Or here: link

[Vigilant]

Not as terribly interesting of an experiment as I thought it'd be, but

User:Tarc/Manning statement (T-H-L)

Pretending to be a conservative is perhaps the simplest thing in the world; just be outraged by everything you find disagreeable. But after awhile it gets terribly boring.

The only one I'd offer an apology to here really is Hex, who was right to call out my comments from the beginning.

Well done, good sir.

PS: You have no idea how nauseating it was to use that avatar for a month. Back to HST.

More than slightly ironic that you've become the thing that you pretended to be and declared yourself disgusted by.

Time has a way of wounding all heels.

[Tarc]

Er, what? I attempted a discussion via PM on Friday as I kinda considered us on the same page about some things, and your stance against the Wu/Quinn/etc...side of things I still find baffling, but it brick walls when you don't actually address the questions/points that people pose to you. Seems to be a favored tactics lately, a sort of extreme form of cherry-picking.

You can't possibly be dim enough to assert that those who condemn GG are followers of a conservative ideology, are you? Sexism/feminism is not a leftist vs. right-wing issue, so if you're trying to boil it, or me, down to that, then no wonder your "points" in all this are so scattershot and lost. Jesus.

[Cla68]

Er, what? I attempted a discussion via PM on Friday as I kinda considered us on the same page about some things, and your stance against the Wu/Quinn/etc...side of things I still find baffling, but it brick walls when you don't actually address the questions/points that people pose to you. Seems to be a favored tactics lately, a sort of extreme form of cherry-picking.

You can't possibly be dim enough to assert that those who condemn GG are followers of a conservative ideology, are you? Sexism/feminism is not a leftist vs. right-wing issue, so if you're trying to boil it, or me, down to that, then no wonder your "points" in all this are so scattershot and lost. Jesus.

I think what Vigilant is saying is that the anti-GGers are engaging in much of the same behavior and attitude as those who were against renaming the Manning article as "Chelsea."

[Vigilant]

Er, what? I attempted a discussion via PM on Friday as I kinda considered us on the same page about some things, and your stance against the Wu/Quinn/etc...side of things I still find baffling, but it brick walls when you don't actually address the questions/points that people pose to you.

We were also having a threaded conversation right before that wherein you bailed... Do you not recall that?

Seems to be a favored tactics lately, a sort of extreme form of cherry-picking.

I quoted your entire post, line for line, and broke it into sections and answered every section of yours.
How is that cherry picking?

You can't possibly be dim enough to assert that those who condemn GG are followers of a conservative ideology, are you? Sexism/feminism is not a leftist vs. right-wing issue, so if you're trying to boil it, or me, down to that, then no wonder your "points" in all this are so scattershot and lost. Jesus.

Nice strawman. Are you taking it to dinner later?
Show me where I've said anything like that or admit you're being stupid.

My point to you is that you are attempting to group a large, diverse demographic into a point so you can argue that everyone in that group is shit.
Then you say that anyone that anybody in that group has targeted, since the WHOLE group is shit by your tard logic, cannot be looked at critically, since the 'group' targeting them is shit.

Quinn, especially, is a manipulative sociopath.

[Parabola]

That's a pretty heavy claim to throw to a stranger, who presumably you know best from the angry ramblings of an ex.

[Tarc]

I think what Vigilant is saying is that the anti-GGers are engaging in much of the same behavior and attitude as those who were against renaming the Manning article as "Chelsea."

Well, his response made less sense than the first, so, let's go with this.

Gamergate began as a targeted, sustained campaign of vile harassment against specific women in the gaming business, and has since mutated into an opposition group pitched against feminism in general, attaching itself to the hip with the inherently misogynistic "Men's Rights" campaign. The rhetoric and mindset of early GG and today's GG are the same. If a person operates under this banner, voices support for these people, then they are hand-in-hand just as bad as the ones who literally tweet rape and death threats. If someone is going to collude with Gamergate and argue their aims (e.g. Masem), then they get tarred with the same brush. If someone thinks that's unfair, well, that's kinda too bad. Harassers, rape-threateners and all-around bigoted individuals do not get sympathy votes when their tactics boomerang.

Also, calling Quinn a "sociopath" seems to be a bit beyond the pale, but the again if an angry male is using such language against a strident feminist activist, it is probably a sign that she's doing something right.

That's the last thing I have to say about GG in this thread, we don't need to open this on 2 fronts.

As for the Manning case, I was never actually opposed to the Manning rename; that was an act, and a very ill-chosen one. Perhaps Vigilant has forgotten this, or did not know. If you wish to know what the motivations were of the genuine trans-discriminators, we have a few right here. So, ask Carrite about "This sort of activist stupidity is bringing WP into disrepute. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. WP:COMMONNAME. How it has gone this far the wrong direction is a little shocking. If there is transgender surgery and a legal name change, then the article should change.", DHeyward's ""Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist.", for starters.

[Randy from Boise]

title=Talk:Bradley_Manning&diff=569740420&oldid=569740335]Carrite[/url] about "This sort of activist stupidity is bringing WP into disrepute. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. WP:COMMONNAME. How it has gone this far the wrong direction is a little shocking. If there is transgender surgery and a legal name change, then the article should change.", DHeyward's ""Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist.", for starters.

To be fair (not that a serial troll like you cares a bit for fairness), when the AP stylebook shifted, so did my position. WP was being used as a tool of activism rather than following common name use, and I'll oppose that every time.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I didn't care what the article title was.

I was looking at Morven's, David Gerard's and a couple of other people's behavior.
The various spurious claims that anyone who wrote 'Bradley Manning' was committing violence against Private Manning.
Misnaming, transphobic, cisgender, check your privilege shitlord, etc, etc, etc.

They used this article as a vehicle for their political views and shit on anyone who contested that.

[Tarc]

I didn't care what the article title was.

I was looking at Morven's, David Gerard's and a couple of other people's behavior.
The various spurious claims that anyone who wrote 'Bradley Manning' was committing violence against Private Manning.
Misnaming, transphobic, cisgender, check your privilege shitlord, etc, etc, etc.

They used this article as a vehicle for their political views and shit on anyone who contested that.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Vigilant]

I didn't care what the article title was.

I was looking at Morven's, David Gerard's and a couple of other people's behavior.
The various spurious claims that anyone who wrote 'Bradley Manning' was committing violence against Private Manning.
Misnaming, transphobic, cisgender, check your privilege shitlord, etc, etc, etc.

They used this article as a vehicle for their political views and shit on anyone who contested that.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing.

There are more than a few shades of grey in the Manning situation.
The fact that you're proud that you can't see ANY shades of grey is particularly telling.

[Jim]

I was looking at Morven's, David Gerard's ... behavior.

Good focus. Volumes were spoken there. Wikipedia is defined by these aberrations.

[Tarc]

I didn't care what the article title was.

I was looking at Morven's, David Gerard's and a couple of other people's behavior.
The various spurious claims that anyone who wrote 'Bradley Manning' was committing violence against Private Manning.
Misnaming, transphobic, cisgender, check your privilege shitlord, etc, etc, etc.

They used this article as a vehicle for their political views and shit on anyone who contested that.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing.

There are more than a few shades of grey in the Manning situation.
The fact that you're proud that you can't see ANY shades of grey is particularly telling.

A) Either you respect a person's choice to inter-racially marry, or you do not.
B) Either you respect a person's sexual orientation, or you do not.
C) Either you respect a person's gender choice, or you do not.

There's 3 nodal points in each case, the moment in history where things pivot and go into a new direction. The first is when it becomes legally acceptable (in the case of B & C, this would be the point where such people were no longer remanded to mental institutions), the second is when it becomes morally acceptable, and the 3rd is when it becomes commonplace.

A is well past all 3 points, B has hit #2 and has #3 in sight despite the shrillness of Southern rednecks. C...well, C is like the Little Engine That Could when it comes to node #2, there's still a lot of pushback from otherwise reasonable people. There will always be people that are ahead of the curve, sometimes far, far ahead of it. Those people are generally called "progressives"; something which you are, obviously, not.

That's ok...well it's not "OK" ok, but it is what it is...as long as you realize that on this social issue, you're regarded as "conservative".

[Zironic]

I didn't care what the article title was.

I was looking at Morven's, David Gerard's and a couple of other people's behavior.
The various spurious claims that anyone who wrote 'Bradley Manning' was committing violence against Private Manning.
Misnaming, transphobic, cisgender, check your privilege shitlord, etc, etc, etc.

They used this article as a vehicle for their political views and shit on anyone who contested that.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing.

There are more than a few shades of grey in the Manning situation.
The fact that you're proud that you can't see ANY shades of grey is particularly telling.

A) Either you respect a person's choice to inter-racially marry, or you do not.
B) Either you respect a person's sexual orientation, or you do not.
C) Either you respect a person's gender choice, or you do not.

That's ok...well it's not "OK" ok, but it is what it is...as long as you realize that on this social issue, you're regarded as "conservative".

Article naming policy is not and never will be a social issue. Let's make that perfectly clear.

[Tarc]

Article naming policy is not and never will be a social issue. Let's make that perfectly clear.

Your naïveté is charming.

Sarah Jane Brown (T-H-L), particularly the talk page archives.

[Zironic]

Article naming policy is not and never will be a social issue. Let's make that perfectly clear.

Your naïveté is charming.

Sarah Jane Brown (T-H-L), particularly the talk page archives.

The SJB talk pages just makes it clear that Wikipedia needs a better title page policy in regards to common names and it's a bit of a travesty it hasn't managed to write one yet.

[Vigilant]

I didn't care what the article title was.

I was looking at Morven's, David Gerard's and a couple of other people's behavior.
The various spurious claims that anyone who wrote 'Bradley Manning' was committing violence against Private Manning.
Misnaming, transphobic, cisgender, check your privilege shitlord, etc, etc, etc.

They used this article as a vehicle for their political views and shit on anyone who contested that.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing.

There are more than a few shades of grey in the Manning situation.
The fact that you're proud that you can't see ANY shades of grey is particularly telling.

A) Either you respect a person's choice to inter-racially marry, or you do not.
B) Either you respect a person's sexual orientation, or you do not.
C) Either you respect a person's gender choice, or you do not.

There's 3 nodal points in each case, the moment in history where things pivot and go into a new direction. The first is when it becomes legally acceptable (in the case of B & C, this would be the point where such people were no longer remanded to mental institutions), the second is when it becomes morally acceptable, and the 3rd is when it becomes commonplace.

A is well past all 3 points, B has hit #2 and has #3 in sight despite the shrillness of Southern rednecks. C...well, C is like the Little Engine That Could when it comes to node #2, there's still a lot of pushback from otherwise reasonable people. There will always be people that are ahead of the curve, sometimes far, far ahead of it. Those people are generally called "progressives"; something which you are, obviously, not.

That's ok...well it's not "OK" ok, but it is what it is...as long as you realize that on this social issue, you're regarded as "conservative".

And I disagree.
You are making things arbitrarily binary.
You are so involved that you can't see the parody that you've become.

[Poetlister]

I was looking at ... David Gerard's ... behavior.

It's usually pretty easy to predict. No surprises on this issue, certainly.

[Tarc]

And I disagree.

And that makes you, on this issue, rather conservative. It's ok, bro, just own it.

[Vigilant]

And I disagree.

And that makes you, on this issue, rather conservative. It's ok, bro, just own it.

No, ding dong, it means I disagree.

Your problem is that you think you get to pigeonhole everyone into your neat little boxes and that's just not how real life works.

Perhaps the problem is rooted in your inability to deal with complexity?
Some sort of burning need, like Ryulong, to have simple answers to difficult questions?

Black and white is so much easier to hold in your head than a continuous range of opinions.
My guess is that you're just not setup to deal with something that difficult.

[Jim]

Your problem is that you think you get to pigeonhole everyone into your neat little boxes and that's just not how real life works.

There's a lot of that goes on. Reality is not binary.

[Tarc]

Your problem is that you think you get to pigeonhole everyone into your neat little boxes and that's just not how real life works.

There's a lot of that goes on. Reality is not binary.

I think on this, it kind of is. If a man transgenders into a woman, call her 'she", and call her by her new chosen name. What possible reason is there to do otherwise?

[Jim]

If a man says he's a walrus, call him a walrus, and call him by his new Walrus name. What possible reason is there to do otherwise?

See, you're basically right here, but by making it binary you open yourself up to ridicule. Reality is not binary.

[Tarc]

If a man says he's a walrus, call him a walrus, and call him by his new Walrus name. What possible reason is there to do otherwise?

See, you're basically right here, but by making it binary you open yourself up to ridicule. Reality is not binary.

So there should be a wiggle room where one could be opposed to, say, transgenderism, but not be classified as, say, transphobic?

[Jim]

If a man says he's a walrus, call him a walrus, and call him by his new Walrus name. What possible reason is there to do otherwise?

See, you're basically right here, but by making it binary you open yourself up to ridicule. Reality is not binary.

So there should be a wiggle room where one could be opposed to, say, transgenderism, but not be classified as, say, transphobic?

No. You're introducing all kinds of things I never spoke about, as is your wont. I'm just suggesting you may be a "man on a mission", and that your mission may be pointless. Nothing more, or less.

[Tarc]

If a man says he's a walrus, call him a walrus, and call him by his new Walrus name. What possible reason is there to do otherwise?

See, you're basically right here, but by making it binary you open yourself up to ridicule. Reality is not binary.

So there should be a wiggle room where one could be opposed to, say, transgenderism, but not be classified as, say, transphobic?

No. You're introducing all kinds of things I never spoke about, as is your wont. I'm just suggesting you may be a "man on a mission", and that your mission may be pointless. Nothing more, or less.

I was asking a question, as it wasn't clear what exactly you were getting at. If you think this issue has "shades of grey", I was inquiring about what those possibly were.

[Jim]

If you think this issue has "shades of grey", I was inquiring about what those possibly were.

Did I ask that? I lose track.

[Zironic]

I think on this, it kind of is. If a man transgenders into a woman, call her 'she", and call her by her new chosen name. What possible reason is there to do otherwise?

In an encyclopaedia, the reason to not call someone by their chosen name would be a desire to remain consistent and ensure that those looking for information on the topic can find the topic.

[Tarc]

If you think this issue has "shades of grey", I was inquiring about what those possibly were.

Did I ask that? I lose track.

Oh sweet Lordy...

You said

Reality is not binary.

If we're talking about transgenderismhere, and you don't like my "if you accept it you're A, if you don't accept it you're B", then what is it?

In an encyclopaedia, the reason to not call someone by their chosen name would be a desire to remain consistent and ensure that those looking for information on the topic can find the topic.

That would be a reasonable point if when searching the Wikipedia for "Bradley Manning" or "Bruce Jenner" returned errors or no article found.

[Jim]

"if you accept it you're A, if you don't accept it you're B", then what is it?

C. I don't expect you to understand that. Done here.

[Zironic]

In an encyclopaedia, the reason to not call someone by their chosen name would be a desire to remain consistent and ensure that those looking for information on the topic can find the topic.

That would be a reasonable point if when searching the Wikipedia for "Bradley Manning" or "Bruce Jenner" returned errors or no article found.

Honestly I find the way Wikipedia to be organised to be at fault for most of these silly arguments. The title of any particular article is mostly irrelevant, the page could be named SWOCXZ()!"# and it would still fill all the same functions as absolutely noone of significance reaches the article page by typing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning. They find it by either following one of the inter-wiki links or through Google (Wikipedias own search-engine is utterly useless).

[Tarc]

"if you accept it you're A, if you don't accept it you're B", then what is it?

C. I don't expect you to understand that. Done here.

Then I just cut my losses on this discussion, say "if you do not accept, then you are a transphobic bigot", and move on.

[Vigilant]

"if you accept it you're A, if you don't accept it you're B", then what is it?

C. I don't expect you to understand that. Done here.

Then I just cut my losses on this discussion, say "if you do not accept, then you are a transphobic bigot", and move on.

I'm sure that just drives people to accept your position on all sorts of topics.

[Jim]

transphobic bigot

You're precious. Go outside, or something.

[Tarc]

In an encyclopaedia, the reason to not call someone by their chosen name would be a desire to remain consistent and ensure that those looking for information on the topic can find the topic.

That would be a reasonable point if when searching the Wikipedia for "Bradley Manning" or "Bruce Jenner" returned errors or no article found.

Honestly I find the way Wikipedia to be organised to be at fault for most of these silly arguments. The title of any particular article is mostly irrelevant, the page could be named SWOCXZ()!"# and it would still fill all the same functions as absolutely noone of significance reaches the article page by typing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning. They find it by either following one of the inter-wiki links or through Google (Wikipedias own search-engine is utterly useless).

Yes it could be called anything, but the article title tends to be a symbolic thing that attracts the most grief and strife. Witness yoghurt/yogurt.

The meat of the Manning and Jenner Wikipedia debates though is what to do when describing past events. Obviously I'd want to respect the new name/choice whenever possible but at the same time you can't "1984" all the sports articles that covered Bruce Jenner in the Olympic prime of the 80's. I haven't looked, but wouldn't be surprised if there's debates at various "List of Olympic medalist" ancillary articles over referring to Jenner.

I would at least hope we'd all agree that crowd-sourced article-writing is by far the worst way that such a topic should be handled.

[Zironic]

Yes it could be called anything, but the article title tends to be a symbolic thing that attracts the most grief and strife. Witness yoghurt/yogurt.

The meat of the Manning and Jenner Wikipedia debates though is what to do when describing past events. Obviously I'd want to respect the new name/choice whenever possible but at the same time you can't "1984" all the sports articles that covered Bruce Jenner in the Olympic prime of the 80's. I haven't looked, but wouldn't be surprised if there's debates at various "List of Olympic medalist" ancillary articles over referring to Jenner.

I would at least hope we'd all agree that crowd-sourced article-writing is by far the worst way that such a topic should be handled.

Yes. Areas like these are where you need to pick your policy and stick to it. Warring over it on an article-by-article basis is beyond stupid.

The way I see it you have two options.
Option a) Always refer to the person by the name they had at the time and create a reasonably visible note that their name has changed with their new name visible atleast once per article.
Option b) Always refer to the person by the name they're currently known by and create a reasonably visible note that their name has changed with their past name visible atleast once per article.

[Moral Hazard]

Repeat after me, "Private Manning is stunning and brave", or face the consequences:

[Randy from Boise]

I'm glad that Tarc is back and that this thread has simultaneously emerged from the deep archive and the GG thread has simultaneously taken off with renewed vigor. I see now that my view of him as a troll, a gameplayer, and an obsessive was all thoroughly misplaced.

Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya;
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya;
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya;
Oh, Lord, kumbaya.

Someone's cryin', Lord, kumbaya;
Someone's cryin', Lord, kumbaya;
Someone's cryin', Lord, kumbaya;
Oh, Lord, kumbaya.

Someone's singin', Lord, kumbaya;
Someone's singin', Lord, kumbaya;
Someone's singin', Lord, kumbaya;
Oh, Lord, kumbaya.

Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya;
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya;
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya;
Oh, Lord, kumbaya.
Kumbaya.


RfB

[Zironic]

I'm glad that Tarc is back and that this thread has simultaneously emerged from the deep archive and the GG thread has simultaneously taken off with renewed vigor. I see now that my view of him as a troll, a gameplayer, and an obsessive was all thoroughly misplaced.

To be fair to Tarc. It was Vigilant that resurrected this thread and asked Tarc to come in.

[Tarc]

Yes it could be called anything, but the article title tends to be a symbolic thing that attracts the most grief and strife. Witness yoghurt/yogurt.

The meat of the Manning and Jenner Wikipedia debates though is what to do when describing past events. Obviously I'd want to respect the new name/choice whenever possible but at the same time you can't "1984" all the sports articles that covered Bruce Jenner in the Olympic prime of the 80's. I haven't looked, but wouldn't be surprised if there's debates at various "List of Olympic medalist" ancillary articles over referring to Jenner.

I would at least hope we'd all agree that crowd-sourced article-writing is by far the worst way that such a topic should be handled.

Yes. Areas like these are where you need to pick your policy and stick to it. Warring over it on an article-by-article basis is beyond stupid.

The way I see it you have two options.
Option a) Always refer to the person by the name they had at the time and create a reasonably visible note that their name has changed with their new name visible atleast once per article.
Option b) Always refer to the person by the name they're currently known by and create a reasonably visible note that their name has changed with their past name visible atleast once per article.

I think A is right out, and doesn't the article already pretty much do B? The beginning of the jenner article is

Caitlyn Marie Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner; October 28, 1949), formerly Bruce Jenner

Is that informative enough?

[Randy from Boise]

Hey, Tarc, the wonderful thing about reviving ancient threads is that they contain stuff and stuff...

ArbCom should never have taken this case, as was clear from the outset.

It's patently obvious at this point, probably even to Tarc, that the title should be Chelsea Manning with a redirect from Bradley Manning from the time that the Associated Press made this official style and sent out a notice of such to its member newspapers on Aug. 26.

As far as the case goes, after about a million wasted words there will probably be some sort of bland decision issued which does or does not commit to the central question of whether BLP trumps COMMONNAME and which topic bans about a dozen people, including most definitely Baseball Bugs.

I hope and presume that Gerard will lose tools.

Outside of that, this is all just a big waste of time — which should have been predicted weeks ago.

No matter what they do, ArbCom has failed by taking a case about a content dispute in the first place.

RfB

[Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:09 am]

[Tarc]

It's patently obvious at this point, probably even to Tarc, that the title should be Chelsea Manning with a redirect from Bradley Manning from the time that the Associated Press made this official style and sent out a notice of such to its member newspapers on Aug. 26.

Morwen moved it on August 22nd. If that had properly been allowed to stand, none of the rest would have happened.

[Randy from Boise]

It's patently obvious at this point, probably even to Tarc, that the title should be Chelsea Manning with a redirect from Bradley Manning from the time that the Associated Press made this official style and sent out a notice of such to its member newspapers on Aug. 26.

Morwen moved it on August 22nd. If that had properly been allowed to stand, none of the rest would have happened.

If Morwen had waited to follow the press instead of trying to be an activist leading and soapboxing and fighting the good fight, none of the rest would have happened. Also, the article would have actually been moved for reals about a month earlier than it actually was, which I found to be a delicious irony.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I'm glad that Tarc is back and that this thread has simultaneously emerged from the deep archive and the GG thread has simultaneously taken off with renewed vigor. I see now that my view of him as a troll, a gameplayer, and an obsessive was all thoroughly misplaced.

To be fair to Tarc. It was Vigilant that resurrected this thread and asked Tarc to come in.

I was deceived.
This Tarc is not the Tarc of old.
He has stared too long into the abyss.

[Vigilant]

It's patently obvious at this point, probably even to Tarc, that the title should be Chelsea Manning with a redirect from Bradley Manning from the time that the Associated Press made this official style and sent out a notice of such to its member newspapers on Aug. 26.

Morwen moved it on August 22nd. If that had properly been allowed to stand, none of the rest would have happened.

How sophomoric of you.
Are tautologies all we're to expect from you?

C-
Please see me after class.

[Randy from Boise]

I'm glad that Tarc is back and that this thread has simultaneously emerged from the deep archive and the GG thread has simultaneously taken off with renewed vigor. I see now that my view of him as a troll, a gameplayer, and an obsessive was all thoroughly misplaced.

To be fair to Tarc. It was Vigilant that resurrected this thread and asked Tarc to come in.

I was deceived.
This Tarc is not the Tarc of old.
He has stared too long into the abyss.

Pandora's box has been opened. Take a bow, Pandora!

RfB

[Tarc]

It's patently obvious at this point, probably even to Tarc, that the title should be Chelsea Manning with a redirect from Bradley Manning from the time that the Associated Press made this official style and sent out a notice of such to its member newspapers on Aug. 26.

Morwen moved it on August 22nd. If that had properly been allowed to stand, none of the rest would have happened.

If Morwen had waited to follow the press instead of trying to be an activist leading and soapboxing and fighting the good fight, none of the rest would have happened. Also, the article would have actually been moved for reals about a month earlier than it actually was, which I found to be a delicious irony.

RfB

I'd rather people follow their conscience and common sense then sail through the WP:ALPHABETSOUP of rules and regulations.

[Randy from Boise]

It's patently obvious at this point, probably even to Tarc, that the title should be Chelsea Manning with a redirect from Bradley Manning from the time that the Associated Press made this official style and sent out a notice of such to its member newspapers on Aug. 26.

Morwen moved it on August 22nd. If that had properly been allowed to stand, none of the rest would have happened.

If Morwen had waited to follow the press instead of trying to be an activist leading and soapboxing and fighting the good fight, none of the rest would have happened. Also, the article would have actually been moved for reals about a month earlier than it actually was, which I found to be a delicious irony.

RfB

I'd rather people follow their conscience and common sense then sail through the WP:ALPHABETSOUP of rules and regulations.

We have rules to mediate the inevitable differences of "'conscience and common sense." When one side tries to set these aside to enforce their vision via power tools, that's when we have problems.

POV warriors need to be back off or be backed off.

RfB

[Tarc]

We have rules to mediate the inevitable differences of "'conscience and common sense." When one side tries to set these aside to enforce their vision via power tools, that's when we have problems.

POV warriors need to be back off or be backed off.

RfB

Sometimes I'd agree with that, like in political or nationalistic topics where the real-life strife shouldn't be imported into the Wikipedia as another battlefront. But on social issues I'd rather see more activism and forward-thinking.