Talk:Chelsea Manning/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

Please revert all names referring to Mr. Manning as "Chelsea Elizabeth" back to what his parents assigned to him upon his birth. The US Military does not currently recognize transgender and I feel some people may be mislead by what this Wikipedia page is implying. Thank you. 96.227.225.28 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Read this talk page and the archives, this has been extensively discussed and debated. Cannolis (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "confidential" in lead versus "classified"

I haven't looked at the article for awhile so I just noticed the change. While the cited source may use the word "confidential," it does have the potential to cause a little confusion. The reason is because U.S. Government agencies actually use three levels of classification for classified material, with "Confidential" being the lowest level and "Secret" and "Top Secret" being higher. I'm not trying to tread into the original research area, but technically the source is incorrect calling all of the documents confidential when a good portion of them were secret. If we must use the word confidential because that is what the cited source says maybe we could consider seeking another source so the correct term is used in the article. Amducker (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Although "confidential" is presumably used here in its generic, nontechnical sense, you make a good point, Amducker. If we can settle on a less ambiguous term, I would support replacing "confidential" in this context. During the presentencing phase of Manning's court-martial, Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy testified that of the 251,287 U.S. embassy cables Manning uploaded to WikiLeaks, 133,887 were unclassified; 101,748 were confidential; 15,652 were secret; and none were top secret. Since it is impractical to provide a breakdown of the various levels in our lead, we must formulate comprehensive nomenclature that applies to all such files. I suggest substituting "sensitive national security" for "confidential," so that the clause will read: "…after releasing the largest set of sensitive national security documents ever leaked to the public." Kent Krupa (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Sensitive" seems a POV term to be careful with; much of what the government deems to be sensitive might not be considered that way by a neutral observer (or not, I'm not making the claim). At the very least, we'd need a good source that there was more actual sensitive material here than elsewhere to use that. "Restricted" or "controlled", perhaps? --Nat Gertler (talk)

Nat Gertler, "sensitive" is a term of art within the intelligence community, as described in Wikipedia's article Information sensitivity. Note in particular the subcategory Classified Information, which states: "Whistleblowing is the intentional disclosure of sensitive information to a third-party with the intention of revealing alleged illegal, immoral, or otherwise harmful actions. … Espionage, or spying, involves obtaining sensitive information without the permission or knowledge of its holder." (Emphases added.) This certainly applies to Manning, who was convicted of violating the Espionage Act. Moreover, recall that Manning downloaded the files she later uploaded to WikiLeaks while working in the Army's Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at Forward Operating Base Hammer. There is no question that her leaks involved sensitive information. Your alternative "Restricted" invites confusion because, as explained in Wikipedia's article Classified information in the United States, "The U.S. treats Restricted information it receives from other governments as Confidential. The U.S. does use the term restricted data in a completely different way to refer to nuclear secrets…." Ditto your second alternative "controlled," which the same Wikipedia article describes as a specific type of Unclassified Information. To reiterate, I believe "sensitive" is a fully substantiated descriptor of the files stolen by Manning. Kent Krupa (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I originally changed it from confidential to classified a year or two ago because the documents that were classified varied from confidential to secret but it was changed back to confidential due to the cited source using that word. Regardless of if we use sensitive, classified or some other word the issue is that the source itself says confidential and short of us finding another source it's probably going to be changed back. For civilians that aren't familiar with the government's classification system, the word confidential may not be a big deal since they are used to other sensitive information such as bank account and Social Security numbers as well as medical information being considered confidential. On the other hand, using the word classified may not be appropriate either if a good portion of them were unclassified since the government doesn't consider "unclassified" as a classification. Amducker (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Amducker, the word "confidential" appears twice in Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning article: once in the lead, where it is unsourced, and again in subsection 3.5, where it is supported by a citation to WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by Leigh and Harding. In that book, the referenced passage states: "WikiLeaks called it, accurately, 'the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain.'" The quotation derived from WikiLeaks' November 28, 2010 press release: Secret US Embassy Cables. As its title indicates, this press release concerns Cablegate—which, as Wikipedia has tabulated, represents only 34% of Manning's documents published by WikiLeaks. Accordingly, it is thoroughly misleading to rely on that source for the assertion in our lead that Manning was convicted "after releasing the largest set of confidential documents ever leaked to the public." As far as it goes, that's true. But it ignores the role of the non-Cablegate files—66% of the total published. It's long past time to straighten this out in our lead, and stop misinforming Wikipedia readers. Kent Krupa (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For me, this seals it. In her opinion piece "The years since I was jailed for releasing the 'war diaries' have been a rollercoaster," published today (May 27, 2015) by The Guardian, Chelsea Manning writes: "It all began in the first few weeks of 2010, when I made the life-changing decision to release to the public a repository of classified (and unclassified but "sensitive" ) documents that provided a simultaneously horrific and beautiful outlook on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.) If Manning herself calls the unclassified documents "sensitive," Wikipedia should follow suit and change our lead so that the clause will read: "…after disclosing to WikiLeaks a large repository of classified or unclassified but sensitive national security documents." Kent Krupa (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Post trans picture

Can we get a post trans picture?--88.104.136.143 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

IP 88.104.136.143, we cannot. No post-transition photograph of Manning has been published. The only available post-transition image available is How Chelsea Manning Sees Herself, an April 2014 drawing by Alicia Neal that (a) already appears at the beginning of section 8 of our Wikipedia article and (b) is part of the discussion above on this talk page. Kent Krupa (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015

See the FAQ at the top of this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bradley Manning (legal name) is biologically and anatomically male. If a person is male it is imperative to use the male pronouns. Why? If we being to use pronouns that are not truly indicative of the person, we may as well refer to all other objects and animals by what they aren't. Doing so is confusing and detrimental long term. Gender is an abstract construct to refer to a state of mind, one which can change and is more volatile than a fixed anatomical state, being sex. Therefore referring to his sex is a more consistent and logical approach. We can still be respectful of his gender in understanding the wish to live a life looking like a woman, but simply he is not one. Use of the pronouns 'he', him' would be setting a non-confusing long term precedent for our future and Wikipedia's future - assuming Wikipedia wishes to remain non-confusing. I do use Wikipedia occasionally for my medical studies, and if Wikipedia wishes to address things based on whims rather than hard science that is unfortunate. I will be reconsidering use of Wikipedia for factual reference that is certain. If these changes are not within your administrative privilege, I would most appreciate you referring my text onto someone who can set a uniform standard at your organisation. Regards, V 101.170.213.83 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)  Declined. See the FAQ at the top of these page. More generally, see the many archives of this page, where this subject has been discussed to death. -sche (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything to say: Snowden, Assange and Manning statues unveiled in Berlin

I am sure this might have been brought up before but shouldn't this article mention the statues erected in the main square of Berlin which represent Manning, Assange and Snowden as heroes of freedom and free speech? This was completely ignored by US media, understandably, but I think it is worthy of mention... http://www.firstpost.com/world/anything-say-snowden-assange-manning-statues-unveiled-berlin-2226700.html Kind regards,--Mondschein English (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mention of statue, supported by US mainstream source, added. – S. Rich (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rich, well done, but I wonder if we should omit the "square" after "Alexanderplatz", given that "Platz" is indeed German for "Square"... It is a bit like saying "Piazza San Pietro square in Rome". Make sense? Up to you, of course, I doubt it makes a huge difference, but still... Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

Prison Life In March 2015, Bloomberg News reported that Manning can be visited only by those she had named before her imprisonment, and not by journalists. However, in April of 2015, Manning was visited at Fort Leavenworth by Glenn Greenwald a reporter for the online publication, The Incercept.

199.48.121.51 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2015

Given that Chelsea Manning has been particularly vocal as a trans woman, is it not more appropriate to feature an image of Chelsea that she prefers, i.e. as female-presenting? The image that accompanied her "I am Chelsea Manning" statement or Twitter image come immediately to mind. My email is ragnarok@brown.edu, I am a transfeminist writer and have written on CM from a transfeminist perspective. -Ragna

You can find a fairly long discussion of this very question here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Manning's Army photo

The caption for the photo says it was taken in April 2012, when Manning was arrested in May 2010. It seems the caption that states the picture was taken in April 2012 is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa44 (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That photo was taken sometime while Manning was in pretrial confinement near Washington. While I don't know the exact date, sometime after Manning was arrested, the Army may have made the decision that such a high-profile case that would obviously be featured in worldwide news coverage required their defendant to be in a more up-to-date uniform (Manning's first court appearances before the actual court-martial started were in the green Class A uniform, not the blue Army Service Uniform featured in the lead photo). If you look at Manning's shoulders, which is where a soldier's unit crests go, you can see that it featured the insignia for IMCOM, not the 10th Mountain Division unit of Fort Drum Manning was arrested in. Amducker (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

British categories

I see that a user added three British categories to the article on August 24, which I am assuming is based on Manning's mother being a British citizen. The only reason I would probably consider that move as premature and a possible target for removal until sourced is because when a person enlists into the US military for a job that requires a security clearance, they may be required to renounce any non-US citizenships held as a prerequisite to accept the clearance. In other words, prior to being granted a TS/SCI clearance, Manning might have been required to renounce British citizenship. I'm not saying that Manning had to renounce British citizenship (assuming Manning even had it in the first place), but it would be a strong possibility. Amducker (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

Change the picture from Chelsea Manning as a male in their military uniform to one of her being female

OraTexLadi (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: A consensus should be established for that.-- Chamith (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning, an American political prisoner

The article gives almost no information about the worldwide support Chelsea Manning enjoys. I believe there should at least be a mention of Ellsberg personal message, [1] of comments in the media about her conditions of detention[2] and of the appeal by Amnesty International to release her or, at least, commute her sentence.[3] Her sentencing to 35 years for leaking classified information about government’s wrongdoings is unparalleled in the civilized world and has shocked many people around the world. She has a support network with a website dedicated to her. I think this is also a notable fact that we should mention. [4] Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read our neutral point of view policy, we aren't going to start placing in heavily one sided content into the article. The second reference with the guardian is usable, and possibly Amnesty International. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with the fact that Wikipedia should try to remain neutral. However, sources do not have to be, and they generally are not. In my opinion, the outcry that followed Chelsea Manning's sentencing to 35 years in prison and the existence of her support network are notable enough to be reported in an article about her. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, was your comment just in passing, or do you have a real interest in this article? Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015

In 2014, it was published an italian song about the story of Chelsea Manning. The album is called "Bioscop" by Wu Ming Contingent (Wu Ming contingent is part of the Wu Ming collective, here the wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Ming), the song is called "Soldato Manning" ("Soldier Manning").

185.35.95.12 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
• In addition, Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources per WP:CIRCULAR. Please give a reliable source for the changes you want to make along with explicitly stating what changes you want to make. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm not familiar to wikipedia code. Anyway my request was to add in the section 7 ("Non-military tributes") something like: "In 2014, the italian group Wu Ming contingent (part of the Wu Ming collective) has released a song about the story of Chelsea Manning. The song is called "Soldato Manning" (english: "Soldier Manning") and it's part of the album "Bioscop". " Anyway as i'm not an english speaker, maybe the sentence should be changed in a better form. About the source, here it is the link to the official Wu Ming blog about the release of Bioscop (only in italian, i couldn't find any english page) http://www.wumingfoundation.com/giap/?p=17152 and here it is the official record label page http://www.woodworm-music.com/shop/wu-ming-contingent-bioscop/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.35.95.20 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning, an extraordinary sentence

The article gives almost no information about the worldwide support Chelsea Manning enjoys. I believe there should at least be a mention of Ellsberg personal message, [5] of comments in the media about her conditions of detention[6] and of the appeal by Amnesty International to release her or, at least, commute her sentence.[7] Her sentencing to 35 years for leaking classified information about government’s wrongdoings is unparalleled in the civilized world and has shocked many people around the world. She has a support network with a website dedicated to her. I think this is also a notable fact that we should mention. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

Article lacks source for "petition was quickly granted" under section #2014. Suggest adding source for it such as http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27132347 82.243.60.91 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Done /wia🎄/tlk 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maybe I worded that first question wrongly. What I meant was, when we first heard about this individual, it was "Bradley Manning" and nobody was calling him female---it was just that some guy leaked info. Now suddenly it's "Chelsea" and "she" and it doesn't even say that the person was known as a guy till recently. If it hadn't been for the section about the crimes committed, I wouldn't even realize this was the same person as "Bradley." This is confusing to people like me who don't keep up on every little tidbit of trans news. Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please study Q3 of the FAQ in the talk header. Georgia guy (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Georgia guy, that is frankly a completely arrogant and useless response. I think "Mean Mister Ketchup" is not entirely without merit. Saying "hey I'm confused" deserves more of a response than, "hey dummy look at <x>" where x only half explains the problem. Next time just let someone else response who isn't going to be arrogant. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question Mean Mister Ketchup For better or worse wikipedia has decided to allow people to determine their own gender pronouns and name no matter how confusing it make the article. It was decided a long time ago, both sides are entrenched and it will likely never change. Think of this as the WW 1 of arguments. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Chelsea was Bradley is covered in the very first paragraph, as well as the very first thing in the infobox at the right of the page. And if someone is actually looking for Bradley on Wikipedia, they will wind up on this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, CombatWombat42. I agree that this policy does make the article confusing. It's even worse at Caitlyn Jenner, where the subject was well known as a male for doing exclusively male things (competing in men's Olympic events, impregnating women), yet they act like she was *always* a woman. Yes, she may have been that way mentally, but to everyone else she was a man for 65 years. It's almost like history-erasing Newspeak at times. Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It boils down to respect, and how much influence you have over others. Per WP:HARM if a notable person wanted to identify as x no matter how insane it may appear to others we would go along with it because that is their preference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we let people dictate our coverage of them in any other way? Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that I can think of, it depends on what reliable sources are saying as well. If a majority of sources were still referring Manning as a he then we would be doing the same as here on Wikipedia as editors try and take the neutral route. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Mean Mister Ketchup, you are confused. There's plenty of information out there to get un-confused. The last thing I, or most people, want, is yet another tedious round of edit wars and talk page debates because some people don't like, or aren't used to, the existence of trans people. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling: Oh, shut up, you whiny Social Justice Warrior. Your type has only embraced them in the past decade or so. Stop expecting everyone else to follow suit overnight.

To embellish my point, transgenderism typically stems from gender dysphoria, which to this day is considered a mental illness by many in the medical community. A very convincing case could be made that transgenderism is thus a manifestation of mental illness, but you're too afraid of hurting someone's feelings to even think about that. Any attempt to correct an article on this subject gets called "POV." Okay, maybe that's the case, but writing articles in a style tantamount to outright advocacy is surely "POV," too. Mean Mister Ketchup (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks will get you everywhere. By which I mean, nowhere. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Service ribbon(s) descriptions in the text

I've removed the sentence about how Manning qualified for the GWOT service ribbon. The 30 day time frame of "service in support of" is not really relevant. In fact, Manning is wearing 5 service ribbons and only 3 are listed in the info box. (All were issued because of a certain amount of time in the service.) These ribbons are simply handed out after a company clerk makes note in the members service record. The are hardly awarded. In Manning's case the amount of support actually provided to GWOT is problematic. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is the information regarding the conviction of "aiding the enemy"?

The article states that Chelsea was convicted of aiding the enemy. If possible, I would like to know more details on that specific matter instead of just seeing that Chelsea aided the enemy. Xdanx1232 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I see two places where the article says Manning was acquitted of that charge was correct. Where exactly do you think it says otherwise? Neutron (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

Hello. This is David Moulton. I am actually not a Captain in the Navy--the press got my rank wrong. I am a Commander, and was a Commander at the time of the trial. The abbreviation is CDR, and I prefer to be referred to as CDR David L. Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist. I was on Manning's defense team for about two years. Also, I don't feel the way the quoted paragraph is referenced clearly identifies me, though that was my statement.

Also, the correct abbreviation for Private First Class is PFC, all caps.

I think you can reference the transcripts from the freedom press website, and if so, I think the whole of the wiki article would be improved upon.

Might I suggest:

CDR David L. Moulton, a Navy forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Manning for over 20 hours in the months after the arrest, said Manning showed signs of both Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Asperger syndrome. Moulton acknowledged that while Manning had narcissistic personality traits, Moulton did not agree with past clinicians who had diagnosed Manning with a personality disorder. Rather, Moulton identified Manning was suffering from Gender Dysphoria, exacerbated by Manning's inability to access appropriate psychological services from military mental health providers. Under the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell, Manning feared he would be administratively separated from the Army for disclosing his sexual orientation and gender identity. Moulton stated Manning did not feel he could participate in any meaningful way with military mental health without his gender identity being identified. As such, Manning had no effective treatment for his mood disorder, nor a sounding board to process his disenchantment with the wars and his preoccupation with effecting a change. Moulton said that, in leaking the material, Manning had been "acting out [a] grandiose ideation." that stemmed from post-adolescent idealism. In his testimony, Moulton provided insights into Manning's agenda:

"PFC Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and future wars, actually. This was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of the war, and it was his opinion that if ... through crowdsourcing, enough analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important, that it would lead to a greater good ... that society as a whole would come to the conclusion that the war wasn't worth it ... that really no wars are worth it."[123]

Happy to provide further discussion. I can be reached at david.moulton@hsc.utah.edu

50.160.81.61 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request response – partially done. Your rank has been removed and the "forensic" psych added. "Pfc" remains as is. We comply with MOS:QUOTE so that even if the source gets it wrong (per our own knowledge), we stick with what the source says. (Congrads on your early promotion to O-6!) – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Former soldier

The intro currently states that Manning is a "former soldier". Isn't she technically still a soldier as is indicated by the infobox under years of service? As I understand it the discharge is only effective once her term has been completed. Another Article (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I belive you are correct - if she weren't still a soldier she would not be in a military prison. I'll fix. LaMona (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

New charges

Keep a watch on this, Manning may face solitary confinement. [8] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I added that information to the article several days ago... Funcrunch (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

New photo

I got (via a friend) approval from Chelsea to use this photo (https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*phC-t2GE3W_iESjvn4HUzw.jpeg) on her WP page. It was coded as CC-BY-SA for this purpose. My first thought is that I would like to replace the military photo in the infobox with this, but I realize that might not be completely representative of the article. So I'm reaching out to other editors for advice on where best to place it in the article. I'm somewhat "design challenged." I'll upload the photo to commons now, but wanted to get this discussion going. thx, LaMona (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I added it to commons, here. LaMona (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe that this is still a picture of Manning before her body was changed with surgery despite having a description from which I concluded that it's a more current picture. This description is "a new photo that someone wants to use to replace the current one". Georgia guy (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Georgia guy if you look at the article it is indeed from 2008 before beginning transition. At least, that's what is said by CM herself, and I presume we should believe her. I think it demonstrates how miserable she is in the military, since other casual photos here show a very different person from the official one in the infobox. By her post that this was attached to, this is how she prefers to be seen. I'm sure we can find a place for it. By "new photo" I meant new for the article - I hope that doesn't confuse things. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I read and responded to Manning's article on Medium (the source of the photo) earlier this month. I agree that this photo should be in her Wikipedia article somewhere. I'm not certain if it should replace the infobox photo, but as it is a selfie that she chose to illustrate a very recent article, I do think it would probably be better than the military picture, even though the selfie was taken earlier. Funcrunch (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No to replacing the info-box picture, but yes it can be used in the article's body. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The infobox is more repsentative of the military/whistle-blower aspect of the story, while this speaks more to the personal side. I'll see if I can insert it somewhere relevant, but feel free to move if it would be better elsewhere. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the info-box picture needs to be something that represents a majority of the article, a pre-transition manning selfie in a car doesn't do this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I added it to the section on her suicide attempt by incorporating there the article she wrote afterward. Let me know if anyone thinks this WASN'T the best solution. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to be a let down but I do not see what value it adds to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It may not be of vast importance, but there are few photos of her available, and this is one that she herself chose to use. Given that no current pictures of her are allowed, we haven't much to work with. LaMona (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily accurate to state based on that article that the selfie is "a better reflection of how she sees herself." We shouldn't be putting words into her mouth. Funcrunch (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right - that came from another source, but not from the article. I'll re-word that. LaMona (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Intro

There is something wrong with the Intro - Manning is not known for being convicted but for leaking classified documents. The Intro should reflect that somehow bettr than it does right now ...--ChristopheT (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It's in the very first sentence:

Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted by court-martial in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly three-quarters of a million classified or unclassified but sensitive military and diplomatic documents.

References

To me, she is widely known for both the leak and the resulting espionage conviction, and the two aspects are directly connected (it's not like she is known for the leak, but convicted of something unrelated). If memory serves, there was significant media coverage concerning the trial and conviction, as well as the leak itself. Do feel free to suggest an improved wording for it. Personally, I don't see a major problem with the opening sentence as is.

Murph9000 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, she should be known for being convicted.

Her transgender nature could be better exampled, within the boundaries. b. roffmann (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

September 2016, CNN news

Chelsea Manning will receive gender transition surgery:: Today news is Michel is nervous on this Obama . This is trans verb citat from CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B15F:20E7:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please cite a source. Murph9000 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a link from The Guardian on the news. Funcrunch (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ther is no definitive source it suposed be strategy for michael and abry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing Award: Iraq Campaign Medal

From the infobox photo we can see the iraq campaign ribbon that is missing from the infobox awards section.

sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Campaign_Medal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

On the same note, also missing the Army Overseas Service Ribbon

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Service_Ribbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of feminine pronoun

already resolved – see archives and FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Manning is physically and biologically male. Period. To use the pronoun 'she' is factually false. Period. End of discussion.65.49.176.54 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure you understand how discussions work. You may want to research that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Please see MOS:GENDERID. This is the Wikipedia policy for using pronouns related to gender identity, and it is what this article is following. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Please keep in mind WP:DENY.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Female presenting image

The copyrighted image of Chelsea Manning in the blonde wig should be the main image of the article. As Manning is female identified, it is only right that this image be used, and I believe that it falls under the fair use rationale. Asarelah (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ above, this has been discussed time and time again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture in Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure about the rules for fair use, but I think it's inappropriate to have a picture in the infobox from when Chelsea was still identifying as male. I think that the most appropriate thing to do would be to have a picture of her where she is presenting as female, as long as one is available; otherwise, I would suggest removing the picture entirely. It is misleading to readers to show a picture of Manning that is outdated and might confuse people about her gender identity. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As it says in the FAQ at the top of this talk page, "Manning's lawyer has said that Manning is proud of the current main image, and would want Wikipedia to use it until a better one is provided.". --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see that in the FAQ. Thank you for pointing it out. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How about two pictures. The present one and a female gender one below it, or vice versa. It wouldn't require extra space in the article because there is plenty of white space below the info box for the infobox to expand when the new picture is added above. However, there might be a problem getting a female gender picture that is of good enough quality. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No as it is just too much, when she is set free we can try and find a picture of her in female attire but for now we cant really do much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point that after she is freed some good quality pictures may be taken. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. My thoughts entirely. Wikipedia can wait four months for a more appropriate image. 07:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs)

There are images of her that are good enough for newspapers. Obviously it would be better for her that she be seen as female now, and not just when there's a publically accessible image of her presenting as female complete with female attire. 217.151.98.42 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Manning's lawyer indicated that she "would want Wikipedia to use [the current image] until a better one is provided." I believe that the image used today in many media outlets existed back then — therefor it would seem keeping the current image remains her preference. That being said, it is not wikipedia policy to allow subjects of pages to choose their own images. As per WP:MUG "images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." In light of that I suggest we keep the current image as the subject has indicated through her lawyer that she is proud of it and other photographs of her are of lower quality and poorer format (at least the one I have seen—the selfie from 2010 pictured in the article—maybe there are more). BananaCarrot152 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing Award: Iraq Campaign Medal

From the infobox photo we can see the iraq campaign ribbon that is missing from the infobox awards section.

sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Campaign_Medal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

On the same note, also missing the Army Overseas Service Ribbon

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Service_Ribbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixoaqui (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done – albeit without the ribbon icons, which are visable on the official photo. – S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange Extradition promise if Manning given Clemency

It's been put on twice, and it's got no place here. The claim is related only to Assange and has no bearing on Manning at all. Since there is no indictment (and therefore no extradition) it's not as if there's any form of quid-pro-quo entered in between Obama and Assange. If it belongs anywhere on wikipedia (unlikely, because it's by a non-repubtable source about themselves) then *maybe* on Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority but given it was an empty boast, even that is stretching it. Ktetch (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's a moot point now... Funcrunch (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange has since commented on this: "I stand by everything I said, including the offer to go to the United States if Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted." ("Julian Assange confirms he is willing to travel to US after Manning decision". The Guardian. 19 January 2017.). This is a reaction to Manning's clemency and probably merits a mention here. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender

The accounts of events prior to the medical intervention, are confusing. It seems apparent that it was a "he" that was born in Oklahoma, it was a "he" that enlisted in the Army and "he" leaked the documents. The actor was physically male, and for all we know genetically male as well, and so "he did those things". It is not clear what reason outside of POV or some sort of political correctness, there would be for using "she" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKN1 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Applying the gender the subject currently identifies as throughout the article is the Wikipedia standard through MOS:GENDERID. Explanation of why some see this as the appropriate policy can be seen at Wikipedia:Gender identity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is this an issue? What kind of evil bigot doesn't use the gender that one identifies as? Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ignorant people often insist that gender identities of transgender people work by arbitrarily wanting to change gender. Georgia guy (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The changing of pronouns due to self-identified gender is quite a recent thing and most people are unaware of this or the reasons why. So it seems especially odd that people who are aware and comfortable with the idea tend to be so dismissive and hateful towards those who are not. It's unlikely that you are so young that the attitude towards pronouns and gender has persisted throughout your entire life - at some point you were persuaded of the value of it, yet you're unable to afford tolerance and understanding to those who have not been. It does not make them evil, bigots or ignorant. Do you honestly think your behaviour is likely to persuade people of the validity of your position? Give it long enough and some of your attitudes and beliefs will seem horribly outdated by those younger than yourselves.Kodabar (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an issue because using the gender that a person identifies as, just to make them feel better, when the physical reality is otherwise, seems completely phony and dishonest to many people. Calling them "evil" doesn't change that. Should a online encyclopedia be sensitive or truthful is the choice that this issue creates.Walterego (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You do have a point, if we were neutral then all instances of "she" or "her" would be replaced by "Manning" or the like. I don't agree with Manning being referred to a he so we have to respect both sides even if we disagree. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a valid debate, but in the wrong venue. This article follows the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender identity. If you think those guidelines should be changed then please raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This article is a biography of a living person and Manning may well read it. We need to take special care what of is discussed here, and how it is discussed. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It has been debated to death, editors rely on their own emotions rather than a neutral point of view. If someone wants to take it up then okay, but I don't want to open another discussion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

See FAQ at top, and note that talk page is also under discretionary sanctions.

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’ http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change Bradley Manning was born a man, is presently a man, and will pass from this earth as a man. Wikipedia is knowingly pushing a demonstrable lie, enabling the delusions of a clinically disordered individual, and imposing this insanity on Wikipedia readers by brute force. This is dishonest, thuggish and completely without any basis in fact.65.49.176.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid is right. This is purely an editing issue, not one of personal feelings on the part of Manning or any individual editor. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That is an OpEd in Bret Bozell's conservative media, covering the opinion of Paul R. McHugh, whose opinions on sexuality are very far out of the mainstream that they are considered fringe. See Paul_R._McHugh#Controversy_over_gender.2C_sexuality_and_sex_reassignment_surgery. ValarianB (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Spike in page views

And those 500,000+ page views came before this article was added to In the News a couple of hours ago. Funcrunch (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

So where are you going with this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this article is experiencing a high amount of traffic. Not trying to imply anything. Funcrunch (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, keep in mind that this has been in the news as well all day long. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of arrest incorrect

The date of arrest is listed as May 20th 2007, whereas it should be May 20th 2010.

there was an edit request

I fixed the info they suggested but there's something wrong with the section. Not sure how to edit it. ValarianB (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello ValarianB: could you be more specific about whats wrong with the section. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC).

There was a section above this with an edit request but the header wasn't working, I couldn't reply directly to it. Looks like you fixed it. ValarianB (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Should the name "Bradley Manning" appear prominently?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I understand that Manning is still known as "Bradley Manning" to many people, but many trans people who have changed their name are uncomfortable with their name assigned at birth. Do we know how comfortable Manning is with her name given at birth appearing in the first sentence of this article, as well as in the info box to the right? I know at least one trans woman who believes that this name shouldn't appear in the article at all. In the trans community, the name "Bradley" is known as Manning's "dead name," and being referred to by that name is often seen as hostile misgendering.

As with the photo appearing on the page, I think Wikipedia should go by how the subject wants her name assigned at birth to appear (or not appear) in this article.

67.242.214.51 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As a trans person myself I know where you're coming from, but the current guideline at MOS:BIRTHNAME is "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out." Manning was definitely notable prior to her transition. For other issues surrounding how her gender and name are described in this article, please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commutation

I question why Chelsea Manning's 1/17/17 Commutation by Pres. Obama isn't at the top (nor the bottom) of her Wikipedia page. If it is there, it was not easy for me to find it, but hope I just missed it.

(Don't believe it's necessary to cite sources for this common knowlegde.)

Joyce S. Tucson, AZ (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Joyce S. Tucson, AZ

Joyce S. Tucson, AZ, it's in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph in the intro. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone change the part under "Commutation" where it says that she criticized President Obama? That quote is somewhat out of context and the column was not so much critical of him as it was expressing her dissatisfaction with his opposition's stubbornness and refusal to compromise. I'd probably say something like "On January 26, 2017, in her first column for The Guardian since the commutation, Manning lamented that President Obama's political opponents consistently refused to compromise, resulting in "very few permanent accomplishments" during his time in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.164 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017‎ (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the current text in our article accurately reflects the tone and content of Manning's article. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree, edited the article to reflect the actual tone. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

This is not a neutral article when it fails to detail Manning calling a military leader a dyke and bragging about punching them in the face. That is an important issue in regards to Manning's demonstrated homophobia, and it should not be allowed to be written out Manning's history.

Chat Logs:

(01:45:18 PM) bradass87: i punched a dyke in the phace…

(01:46:46 PM) bradass87: i got sick of these dykes and their drama… it was worse than “The L Word”…

https://www.wired.com/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/ Estrogin (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please propose a specific change you would like made, such as "change X to Y", "delete x", or "add X before/after Y". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New picture

How would we feel about replacing the bio picture with this one? [9] Artw (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as it is in the public domain or permission is given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

We should probably get something a bit more direct, but this tweet suggests appropriate permission has been given. MaxHarmony (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

While I would welcome using this recent photo of Manning, I very much doubt that the indirect tweet cited grants legal public domain status on this image. We're not even sure who the photographer is (likely not Manning herself). Funcrunch (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the image from the article until we can get something more direct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

See CC BY-SA license: https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/865313431930507270 —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 21:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi first time I've done a talk page, confused about the format, sorry if I do it wrong. What do people think about this new image? https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/865250670831702016 JacobK (talk) 5:23 PM, Thursday, May 18, 2017

I just had the same thought and was trying to edit the Talk page and ran into a conflict with this comment! TimCamber (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said above it comes down to fair usage or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh my goodness this is clear fair use. Please don't be internet lawyers about this. ChrissMari (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If I wanted to I could claim to be "Chelsea's team" on twitter, this isn't going to cut it. We need a solid source for permission here just as we would for any other picture of a living person that may not be in the public domain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the image talk page, I sent a direct message to the person posting the tweet, with links to this page and the image page, asking about permissions. She said she would forward my request to Manning's publicist. (The issue is not "fair use" here, the image was uploaded as "public domain" to Commons. Fair use images are not allowed on Commons.) Funcrunch (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The ACLU said on their Facebook page that the photographer was Tim Travers Hawkins who I believe is a filmmaker doing a documentary about Chelsea. ACLU Facebook Page. Larla77 (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Larla77: I found Tim's Twitter profile but he doesn't seem to accept direct messages, and his web site appears to have been taken over by another party. I'd rather not post on the ACLU Facebook thread publicly, but if someone else wants to contact him about getting permission to use this image, he can submit this form to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Funcrunch (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we at least remove the current image in the meantime (either with no image or the sketch of her)? Including a picture of her from prior to her transition is very disrespectful to her. Emilystremel (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Emilystremel: See the FAQ at the top of this page. Manning said that she was pleased with the photo that's currently on this page, and fine with it being used until a newer one could be provided. Funcrunch (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI this is all worked out now; the photographer has confirmed the CC licensing of the new photo. See discussion on Commons for details. Funcrunch (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Good work everybody! Artw (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Obtaining a new public domain image

As she is out of prison now, could someone perhaps comment on her Instagram and ask her to upload a public domain image to Wikimedia Commons that could be used of her presenting as female to replace her old, male-presenting image? I'm sure she'd be quite eager to get the old image replaced. Asarelah (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Asarelah: See discussion in the above section. Funcrunch (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New photo for infobox

Now that Manning has taken a new high quality picture of herself since her release, should the infobox photo be changed to reflect her current self? Nee1927 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops, just saw the other thread. Disregard this. Nee1927 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

Change the 2012 photo of Chelsea Manning to the/a photo she posted upon her release, due to her transition and 5 year difference VBudler (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@VBudler: See discussion above. Funcrunch (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to naval gaze here, but it's interesting how many folks are interested in changing the picture. NickCT (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference to sex change

Is it there anywhere a reference to him/her stating or mentioning about his/her intention of switching sex prior to being incarcerated? [conspiracy]It came out of the blue for many. It could be interpreted by other whistleblowers as a threat [/conspiracy]. It's just a question, cause probably he mentioned it way before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.160.138 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see the article's section Chelsea_Manning#Contact_with_gender_counselor. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Preview image

Why does the preview image still show her old picture when I post a link Facebook? Does it just take a while for the data to update? Asarelah (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Clear your browser history or cookies maybe? That's odd. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Asarelah: When you share a link on Facebook, Facebook checks the site and determines the image to use and keeps that data cached for a while. It may take a couple of days before Facebook's image cache is updated. Nothing Wikipedia can really do about that, I'm afraid. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You can force a rescrape here: [10] - just did and it seems to have done the trick? Artw (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017

The following sentence on the top section of the article has the wrong date.

"On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to a total of seven years of confinement dating from the date of arrest (May 20, 2010) by military authorities."

Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010. Not May 20. Can someone fix this please? Thanks! :) 75.115.245.131 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done – the difficulty is in the "7 year confinement" calculation and the sources for that figure. You are correct that Manning was probably arrested on 27 May because the Charge Sheets ("indictment") refer to wrongful acts that took place on 27 May. But because the sources for the 7 year commutation refer to 20 May, we are stuck with them. If the sources can be cleared up, and/or the sentence re-worded, the change might work. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Reworded IOT avoid date conflict. 01:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this talk page

It's important to know that many people edit this talk page saying that this article's title needs to be moved because they think transgenderism is just playing make-believe. Please semi-protect this talk page indefinitely; otherwise people will continue. Georgia guy (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed as there are trolls and people who legitimately believe in transgenderism being a birth defect. We aren't censored and have to answer these kinds of people the best we can. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems that according to Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Article_talk_pages, it would be unlikely to get this talk page protected unless there was a huge torrent of trolls. It's probably easiest to just respond saying "No. Read the FAQ above." and hide it with {{hat}}{{hab}} tags (easier than deleting comments because some wikipedians don't like deleting comments from talk pages even if it's obvious trolling, and despite there being no rule against it). --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a new Q&A to the FAQ above that should also answer the bias questions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

For most comments, I agree with ChiveFungi; hat the section and point to the FAQ. But obvious trolling should really be deleted instead. Consider the impact on trans editors like myself who have to read this page. Funcrunch (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

per WP:DISC we aren't able to fully stop any given added content even if this page were protected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In the template at the top of this talk page (and many others) there is the notice "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Comments of the variety "Men have penises, women have vaginas, end of story" do nothing to improve this Wikipedia article and do not belong on this talk page, even collapsed. This isn't about censorship. Funcrunch (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one, but not all comments are like that. I am saying that if this is having an impact on you then there isn't much that can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course not all comments are like that, which is why I'm fine with hatting some of them as I said. But obviously provocative comments that do nothing to improve the encyclopedia should be removed from talk pages. At least that much can be done. Funcrunch (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Per the blurb explaining MOS:GENDERID: "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to WT:LGBT or, in the case of living trans women, to WP:BLPN." Is this something that is worth doing at this point? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@BananaCarrot152: Possibly; I'm not sure exactly what to ask at either of those forums though, in this case. Funcrunch (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the latest edits, I have alerted WT:LGBT. I tried to word my post neutrally. Funcrunch (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have edited and expanded the answer to also reflect that perceptions of bias can be in line with, or differ from, one's own beliefs. KnowledgeKid87 has reversed this tweak to the question. Input from editors on the question and answer is requested. EdChem (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with what you wrote, I wasn't aware of the tweak you made so my apologies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with talk page comments

For the preceding discussion, see Please semi-protect this talk page.

Per WP:BLPTALK talk pages of biographies of leaving persons must follow the same general rules that apply to WP:BLPs. This means that libel must be removed immediately, and that potentially libelous content may be discussed but should be linked to and not hosted on wikipedia. Further, “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.”

Per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL “derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.” These two edits certainly fall into this category (and were rightly removed - that IP has also been suspended).

The following conclusions were made by the Arbitration Committee regarding previous conflicts on this page and it’s talk page:

7) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

10) All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the biographies of living persons policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy.

11) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.

Moving forward I propose that we make a more concerted effort to remove comments which assert that the subject of the article, or any living person mentioned in it, or an editor is delusional or mentally ill for thinking that Manning is a women. Similar remove any personal attacks. A warning should also be posted on that editors talk page. Following that reasoning, these edits [11] [12] should be removed. (From their edits, @Srich32977: seems to disagree. Perhaps you could add your perspective?)

However, I do not believe that polite comments made in good faith should be sanctioned, even if they question the name of the article or the use of female pronouns etc. These comments are about the content in the article and show a desire to make wikipedia better. I think it is best to err on the side of caution and assume good faith whenever possible. If the comments are discussed directly in the FAQ then collapsing them and linking to the FAQ seems like the best solution.

Lastly I oppose semi-protecting this talk page as there have been several valuable semi-protected edit requests. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with everything above. I've been posting warnings and discretionary sanctions notices on editors' talk pages when appropriate regarding this and other gender-related articles. Funcrunch (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Trolling and personal attacks should be removed, not replied to, per WP:BLPTALK and AGF is not a suicide pact. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The recent IP edits are blatantly offensive per the edit summaries (which should be removed). The [3] and [4] edits referred to above are not so bad as to get bent out of shape over, and they got polite replies. I do not think labeling polite edits as trolling will be helpful. Besides, this talk page gets archived quickly enough so questions like "why is he a she?" etc. will get resolved and filed out of sight. – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

[13] is clearly a BLP violation. [14] is a personal attack against the editors who wrote the Wikipedia policies. The first one definitely needs to be removed. I'm ambivalent about the second one. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that there is a difference between trolling, and asking why x is the way it is which would relate to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

True, but see also: Sea lioning. Kaldari (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I trust editors to use their best judgement here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting [6] is also a general attack on trans wikipedia editors, saying that views from editors suspected of being trans should be disregarded. Rab V (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not, for the record, Wikipedia's place to simply deny the validity of transgender identity — medical science confirms that it's a real thing, and the only known treatment for it is some form of gender transition — so it's not the role of a neutral encyclopedia, or contributors to it, to pretend that's not true. Our general concept articles about transgender issues can certainly document any controversy about this — but they cannot simply assert that it's not a real thing as if that were some kind of given, and individual BLPs of individual transgender people are most especially not the place to wage that war. Our job is to err on the side of respect for our article subjects, inclusive of their right to define their own gender identity — our job is not to placate people who aren't Chelsea Manning in their views on the validity or invalidity of the entire phenomenon of transgender identity, and our job is not to simply call it a psychological delusion as the commenters in question did. Medical science accepts that it's a real thing, and that's that — the general concept article transgender can document the existence of alternative views on the matter, but individual biographies of individual people aren't the place for it any more than individual biographies of individual Ismailis would be the appropriate platform for debating whether Ismailism is a branch of Islam or a heretic sect (which has also, inappropriately, happened more than once.) Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank those taking the time to discuss these problems. Just reading a couple of the examples I find them childish but at the same time too upsetting to want to engage with or talk about, so am glad I feel I can walk away and let others safely handle the problem. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thus will be done by deleting remarks deemed unpalatable by transsexuals, refusing to debate changes to the article and not allowing challenges to general, unsubstantiated remarks such as 'medical science accepts' this and that. Nor will debate on the attitude Wikipedia should adopt in its articles be allowed. I am camping out here (good phrase for it, really). I have spoken. 12.201.7.201 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent material to add

I have not been a contributor to this article and am not sure how her press appearances are being incorporated into it but believe there should be reference somewhere to this feature article and this movie. - phi (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Military status incorrect?

In the first sentence of the article, it says Chelsea " is a former United States Army soldier..." However, it is my understanding that due to her continued appeals in the military court system, that she must continue in the service and is subject to the UCMJ. Until all appeals are denied, or she withdraws from the service (or President Trump's order about transgender personnel is implemented), I think it should say that she "is a United States Army soldier on excess leave..."

Johnd39 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Johnd39 The lede is correct. Please see the article's subsection 5.7 Release, which explains:

Although sentenced during her court-martial to be dishonorably discharged, Manning was reportedly returned to active unpaid "excess leave" status while her appeal is pending.[195] However, in July 2017, Manning tweeted from her verified Twitter account, "I am not in the army."[196][197]

KalHolmann (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A SCRA check shows that "Bradley Manning," born on 12/17/1987 is still "[s]till [s]erving." You can perform your own check at the ref . I think a military database is a reliable indicator that a person is still serving in the military. Manning might not be showing up to duty everyday, but that doesn't mean Manning is not still in the military. This particular source was established to be an authority on status checks. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

GnarlyLikeWhoa, thank you for providing the link to SCRA. The issue here is whom do we believe—SCRA or Chelsea Manning? Since being released, Manning has tweeted from her verified Twitter account no fewer than five times stating that she is not in the military. She posted her most recent denial just three days ago, tweeting on 21 Aug 2017: "This is not true, i dont know where this keeps coming from." It's feasible that, given the unique circumstances of her commutation, Manning's administrative separation has not yet been entered into SCRA's database. However, I don't see how one can argue that she herself would not be the best authority on her status. Unless, that is, you are seriously suggesting that Manning is for some reason lying about this. KalHolmann (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You jumped over a couple possibilities on the road to suggesting I'm accusing Manning of lying. Manning could simply be misinformed or even unwilling to acknowledge military affiliation. But ultimately, it should be the United States military which is the ultimate authority on someone's military status. I know this discrepancy presents quite the dilemma; admittedly, it is weird and unusual. But the SCRA check, as I said already, was established exactly for the purpose of resolving questions about a person's military affiliation. Chelsea Manning is an active member of the United States Army, whether or not that is acknowledged. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

GnarlyLikeWhoa, no WP:RS have challenged Manning's repeated denials, which began on July 9, 2017 (54 days after her release), that she is on active duty. Just two days ago she tweeted: "im not active duty, this is some weird confusion caused by the fact i still have a court-martial appeal in the works." If you propose to contradict Ms. Manning on this point through edits to her WP:BLP, relying solely on SCRA, please explain how that would not violate WP:NOR. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The explanation for why asserting that Chelsea Manning is still in the military, and would not violate WP:NOR, which refers to "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist," is as follows: my SCRA check is not the only source for this fact; there are hosts of other reliable sources that assert that Manning is in the military still. I can list them here if you'd like, or you can run a quick Google search of "Chelsea Manning is still in the military." Yes, Manning is awaiting administrative separation, but that separation has not yet occurred. We will know it will have occurred when those reliable sources you just Googled are updated to reflect that change. At this point, to fight for this idea that Manning is not still in the military reveals that there is no real interest in maintaining a factual account of Manning's service. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

GnarlyLikeWhoa, your recommended Google search for "Chelsea Manning is still in the military", which I conducted after clearing my browsing data, produces no exact match. Removing the quotation marks and repeating the search with custom date range from 7/9/2017 (when Manning first denied being on active duty) finds no WP:RS challenging or refuting her denial. If you have discovered such a source to supplement your WP:OR, please provide a specific link. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Controversy regarding Chelsea Manning's duty status and benefits eligibility

On September 20, 2017, The Daily Caller posted a story by its National Security/Politics Reporter, Jonah Bennett, titled "Pentagon Debunks Chelsea Manning's Claims To Have Zero Access To Gov't Health Care." In it, Bennett quotes Army spokeswoman Valerie L. Mongello: "Manning is currently on excess leave pending completion of the appellate review of the court-martial conviction. While on excess leave, Manning is on active duty, but in an unpaid status. As an active duty Soldier, Manning is statutorily entitled to medical care."

In turn, Manning told The Daily Caller: "[I] have private healthcare with kaiser permanente, i am banned from all military posts and installations, i am statutorily barred from receiving any form of benefit from the DoD or VA by statute, and this administration has an incentive to claim i have access to healthcare in order to bolster its trans ban narrative. DoD and VA cite title 38, U.S.C. section 6105, due to the convictions under 18 usc 793(e). its kind of obscure but still has force and effect. [I] dont think that DoD is knowingly lying so much as there is a lot of confusion because everything is obscure, and medical information is considered extremely private under the Privacy Act."

This dispute affects our WP:BLP in two ways:

• Relying on Manning's repeated tweets since July 2017 from her verified Twitter account, we identify her (lead) as "a former United States Army soldier" and quote her directly (5.7 Release), "I am not in the army."

• Again relying on Manning's tweets, we state (8.6 2017) that her healthcare from the military stopped on May 16, 2017, and that she secured a private health plan.

It's probably easier to deal with the second point first. The Army spokeswoman quoted by The Daily Caller does not claim that Manning is now receiving or has at any time since her release received government healthcare, merely that Manning "is statutorily entitled to medical care." Accordingly, our BLP does not contradict The Daily Caller story in that regard, and requires no change.

Manning's duty status is another matter, since our BLP and The Daily Caller are in clear disagreement.

I request editorial discussion and consensus on how to deal with this conflict. For the time being, I suggest we await clarification from additional WP:RS before identifying Manning as an active-duty soldier. I am troubled by the historical controversies enumerated on Wikipedia's page describing The Daily Caller, calling into question The Daily Caller's reliability, as well as by Jonah Bennett's consistent misgendering of Chelsea Manning—a sure sign of hostililty to transgender individuals. KalHolmann (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait for more WP:RS. I also don't think that this is an area of high priority as it is not a contentious issue (yet). Should manning be charged with a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which i believe is only possible if she were in the military) then this might become an important issue. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sex Reassignment Surgery

On July 10, 2017, Guy Benson, political editor of Townhall.com, posted "Chelsea Manning: 'The Wealthy' Don't Pay Taxes, So We Must Force Them To, or Something", discussing the "gender-reassignment treatment and surgery [emphasis added] she received courtesy of taxpayers while incarcerated."

Under Chelsea_Manning#Gender_transition (2016), we incorporate the ACLU's September 2016 announcement that "the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery." In the next sentence, we add that a month later, "Manning's attorneys reported that her military doctor, Dr. Ellen Galloway, refused Manning's request to change the gender on her military records to female." Since the source article does not mention surgery, it's unknown how, if at all, Dr. Galloway's refusal affected the Army's promise to provide Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS).

In January 2017, Charlie Savage wrote in The New York Times that, according to Manning, she had not seen a surgeon.

In the ensuing four months, I saw no news story that Manning had received SRS. And of course on May 17, 2017, she was released from prison.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't cite a lone source on such an important development. Yet on July 10, 2017, via her verified Twitter account, Chelsea Manning retweeted the Townhall article to her 246K followers, with a comment but conspicuously not denying Townhall's thesis that "Taxpayers Financed Her Gender Reassignment Surgery."

Coming from Manning herself, this not-quite-confirmation suggests, to me anyway, that Townhall may be accurate in disclosing that she has received SRS.

Since we extensively cover her Hormone Replacement Therapy, I presume medical confidentiality would not preclude similar coverage of her reliably sourced SRS.

Still, I think it's prudent to wait until this story is picked up elsewhere, or until Manning herself more definitively verifies it, before wading in. I'd appreciate guidance from more experienced editors. KalHolmann (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Calling her response a "not-quite-confirmation" is a real stretch. Yes, we should wait until a reliable source reports something before we include it in a person's biography. They're clearly jumping to some conclusions and haven't done any basic fact-checking. (If they had, they might have seen that Chelsea tweeted, the day before the article was published, that her transition has cost taxpayers a total of $600 - not $50k). --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi Thanks for your response. For future reference, are you saying that Townhall.com is categorically not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia? KalHolmann (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS is a good resource for these sorts of questions (regarding wether a source is reliable or not). As I understand it, wikipedia rarely categorizes entire news media services as "not reliable", but editors should verify reliability on a case by case basis. If sources contradict each other, extra care should be taken, especially for biographies of living persons. For instance, just because the New York Times says something doesn't make it true even if the Times is often reliable. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with ValarianB's peremptory reversion of edit 801843574 by 2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54. I find nothing transphobic about the reverted commentary. It contained an allusion to Chelsea Manning as "this poor thing"—but that is not necessarily transphobic. Nor is the on-topic assertion that "the U.S. Army has not performed a single vaginoplasty in its history. The U.S. Army doesn't even have a urologist who can perform this type of surgery." While I dispute the opinion that "this article is propaganda," I see no reason to summarily delete the comment in question. KalHolmann (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as a trans person myself, I didn't read that comment as transphobic either; I thought it was more a criticism of the U.S. military for being ill-equipped to handle the medical needs of their trans personnel. However, the comment was not specifically related to improving the article, so only borderline appropriate for a talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear. It was my comments. I totally support Chelsea's trans rights. However, the statement "the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery, a first for a transgender inmate" is inaccurate. It seems to portray the U.S. Army as pro-trans rights place in the same way that the Sex reassignment surgery article makes it seems like the Islamic Republic of Iran is the hub and haven of transsexuals. I wrote the same thing there: "Shahryar Cohanzad is the only sex change surgeon in Iran. He does not perform vaginoplasty.[15] As of 2017, not a single surgeon existed in Iran who performed vaginoplasty." Basically, the U.S. Army was willing to do everything except vaginoplasty which is what I, a transsexual, and other transsexuals friends of mine want. The U.S. Army spends $30,000/year (and year and year for the same soldier) for each soldier's marriage allowance, but they cite inflated figures for vaginoplasty for which they don't have qualified urologists and which is currently only $10,000 to $15,000 in Thailand.--2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54 (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54, please recommend a change to the following statement, which you call inaccurate→

• "the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery, a first for a transgender inmate"

Thanks for your input on this. KalHolmann (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I recommend removing the word "surgery." The blameworthy party is actually The Guardian for mis-leading readers both in the Manning article about "surgery" and the Iran article about "surgery". In the trans context, the surgical operation typically refers to vaginoplasty which is why even trans women with breast implants who haven't had vaginoplasty are labeled pre-ops.--2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54 (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54, your suggestion makes no sense. I cannot conceive anything more misleading than to remove the word "surgery" from the statement in question. KalHolmann (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The full sentence in question (which I think I added to the article myself) currently reads "On September 13, 2016, the ACLU announced that the army will be granting Manning's request for gender transition surgery, a first for a transgender inmate." On its face this is a true statement, whether the army was sincere in their intention to grant her request or not. Now that Manning is no longer in the Army (though I know that is a separate topic of contention in this article), it almost seems like a moot point. Funcrunch (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I now see. Chelsea requested the surgery (vaginoplasty). The vaginoplasty operation hasn't been completed by the Army. So, it isn't inaccurate to write that the surgery was requested.--2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54 (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP user stated "The U.S. Army wasted this poor thing's time..." (emphasis mine). Referring to a transgender person as a "thing" or "it" is a slur. ValarianB (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB: At least in US English, "poor thing" is a common expression of sympathy for a person in distress. Funcrunch (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Parole

In the article it states that Manning "would have been eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence." As far as I am aware the U.S. Military like the Federal prison system doesn't have a parole system in place. I could be wrong if some would provide further clarification since the Washington Post Article is no longer available unless you paid. YborCityJohn (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

YborCityJohn, each branch of the U.S. military has its own Clemency and Parole Board. In Manning's case, it was the U.S. Army Clemency and Parole Board. Also, here is a link to 132 Internet Archive captures of The Washington Post story cited in subsection 5.4 Guilty Plea, Trial, Sentence of our article. KalHolmann (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

While the arba.army link might explain the process in general, using it to explain the calculation of Manning's parole with particular dates is WP:OR. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

S. Rich, the citation in question immediately followed the word parole and came before "after serving one-third of the sentence," which has a separate citation. I made no attempt to explain the calculation of Manning's parole with particular dates by citing the U.S. Army Clemency and Parole Board. KalHolmann (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

MoS Gender Identity Guidelines – birthname, etc

The MoS gender identity guidelines section on retroactivity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Retroactivity) states that chosen names, pronouns, and other terminology in keeping with a person's current gender identity, should be used even in reference to events preceding the individual's transition or legal name change (except in specific circumstances, such as the individual publicly stating they should be referred to by their birth name and related terms when discussing the period before their transition). The subsequent section, "Common name", also provides relevant instructions. It basically states that chosen names should, generally speaking, be promptly updated and used in virtually all circumstances, though the birth name should be kept as a re-direct if it is well-known.

I believe the following are violations of the guidelines referenced above:

• The bolded inclusion of her birth name in the introductory sentence
• The reference to her birth name in the sidebar
• The description in the first paragraph of the "Request for release" subsection of the "Legal proceedings" section in which it states Manning's petition for presidential pardon was filed under her birth name
  • To clarify, I only take issue with the explicit inclusion of her birth name. I would revise it to read "In the petition, which was filed with Manning's birth name and used male-gender pronouns..."
• The caption in the photo in the "Reaction to disclosures" section
  • To clarify, since the photo displays a banner using Manning's birth name, I would revise the caption to refer to her as Chelsea Manning while including reference to the fact that the pictured banner used her birth name

On the other hand, I believe the following do not constitute violations of the MoS, and should remain unchanged:

• The quote by another soldier in the second paragraph of the "Enlistment in the Army" subsection of the "Military service" section, provided by The Guardian
• Chelsea's own quote including her birth name in the "Suicide attempts" subsection of the "Prison life" section

I understand Chelsea Manning was a prominent public figure before her transition, but I believe including her birth name as a redirect, along with the content in the introductory section that describes her transition, is sufficient to prevent confusion about who she is without unnecessarily misgendering her.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihhavens (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What you are pointing to as the MOS guidelines are not actually a part of the Manual Of Style, but rather an essay (as the page identifies itself at the top, and notes specifically that it is not a guideline.) The relevant MOS guidelines are at MOS:BIRTHNAME, which states "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out", which is clearly the case here. There is a large body of material referring solely to the birthname (largely things that were published before the transition) and the reader who comes here seeking an understanding of something they read should not have to go deep into the article to figure out that they are not in the wrong place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting that this article is used as an example in MOS:BIRTHNAME of how to deal with the lead sentence in BLPs with name changes / gender transitions. The "Request for release" subsection's mention of her birth name and the fact that male pronouns were used in a document seems unnecessary to me regardless of what the MOS says. I think we could just have "In the petition, which was filed with the legal name "Bradley Manning" and used male-gender pronouns, Coombs contended that Manning's disclosures did not cause..." I don't see how what pronouns were used in the document is relevant as no use of those pronouns appears in the quotes. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

BananaCarrot152, I disagree that using Manning's deadname to apply for a presidential pardon is irrelevant, since it was filed by her lawyer on September 3, 2013, two weeks after that same lawyer appeared on the Today show to announce his client's new gender identification. It is noteworthy that—for whatever legal reason—her lawyer did not use Manning's transgender name and preferred female pronouns in applying to the President of the United States. KalHolmann (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the CBS source we are using for reference there does make specific note of the use of the name but doesn't make note of the use of pronouns. This strongly suggests that we should not be taking it on ourselves to make a point about the pronouns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, I added a citation to Reuters, same date as CBS, reporting use of male pronouns. We are now relying on WP:RS, not taking this on ourselves. KalHolmann (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I told Ihhavens at Talk:Chaz Bono: "In the case of people who were well known by their birth names before transition, as is the case for Chelsea Manning, Caitlyn Jenner, and Chaz Bono, we do include their birth names. MOS:GENDERID, which is an official guideline, does not support removing the previous names of transgender people. In fact, it states, 'The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first.' What you are pointing to is a WP:Essay. Our essays are not the same as WP:Policies and guidelines. They do not have authoritative weight." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In cases of gender pronouns, accepting whatever standards are set, there remains grammatical issues. A gender pronoun refers to the last person of that gender mentioned. So I think the solution is that in cases where gender pronoun guidelines conflict with established rules of grammar, the conflicting pronoun should be replaced with the explicit name. Thus "Born Bradley Edward Manning in 1987, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, she was the second child of Susan Fox" should be changed to "Born Bradley Edward Manning in 1987, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Chelsea was the second child of Susan Fox." Sadena (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In your example, there is no confusion. The pronoun "she" obviously refers to Manning—the last person named preceding the pronoun—and not to Susan Fox. You're really stretching to make whatever your point is here. KalHolmann (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Grammatically, there is no named female earlier in the sentence, so the pronoun "she" can't refer back to anything. And actually, reading through the article, accurate pronoun use, not related to gender identity, is a problem throughout. While we, in context, understand the following statement: "At the time of her release, Manning's attorney stressed that she would be pursuing her own medical care", the 'she's and 'her's could be thought of as referring to Manning's attorney. Changing it to "At the time of her release, Manning's attorney stressed that Chelsea would be pursuing her own medical care" removes the ambiguity. I have a feeling the poor grammer throughout was the product of efforts to correct all gender pronouns word by word, without stepping back and reading the whole sentence. Sadena (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sadena, I agree with your latest example, and have corrected the sentence accordingly. But we don't use the familiar "Chelsea" that way in a BLP. Anyhow, thanks for pointing this out. KalHolmann (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Position of birth name in lede

In this edit, I moved the positioning of Chelsea Manning's birth name in the lede. There is a consensus to include in the lede, in bold, the birthname of any transgender person who was notable before they transitioned; I thought it would make sense to put the birthname somewhere it relates to the rest of the article content, so I reworded the first paragraph to include the sentence "Manning is a trans woman who came out in August 2013; during her tenure in the military and sentencing, she was known by her birth name, Bradley Edward Manning."
This edit was reverted by an editor (@KalHolmann:) who claimed that it goes against existing consensus, but such consensus isn't mentioned in the FAQs on this talkpage. So I would like to know the details of that consensus, and whether or not it should be changed. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue of "(born Bradley Edward Manning)" as part of the lead's opening sentence was discussed in the following archived threads:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

I believe a fair reading of those debates would conclude that its placement in the opening sentence was indeed the result of consensus.

Moreover, Chessrat's repositioning is highly misleading: "during her tenure in the military and sentencing," he writes, "she was known by her birth name, Bradley Edward Manning." In fact, Manning was known for the first 25 years, 8 months, 5 days of her life as Bradley Edward Manning, not just during her 5 years, 10 months, 20 days in the military prior to announcing her new name.

The lead's opening sentence should remain as it has stood for the past four years. KalHolmann (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that those discussions support only the current wording - Archive 9 predates the move, so the conditions were different then. Also it's a bit ridiculous to split hairs over the first 20 years - all that is indicating is that during the time she came to notability, she was still known by her birth name. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, you are mistaken. The discussion I linked to in Archive 9 transpired in the immediate aftermath of Manning's August 22, 2013 announcement of her new name. KalHolmann (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the article move, not the announcement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the lede is good as is: "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is an American activist,[5] politician,[6] and former United States Army soldier." This immediately resolves any confusion about whom the article is and doesn't place any undue weight on her transition and name change. Per MOS:GENDERID, "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." Because Manning was known as "Bradley" when she first became notable some readers might not have made the connection that this is the same person. Her transition is not, however, the reason for her notability and I think bolding her birth name at the end of the first paragraph draws attention away from the main reasons for her notability. I think the other changes to the first sentence are good (moving the court martial to the second sentence and saying she is an activist...). BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For sake of comparison, List of transgender people contains 289 such individuals to whom Wikipedia devotes an article. Not all have changed their names, and I checked only a few, but the lead for each of the following high-profile persons begins:

• Chaz Salvatore Bono (born Chastity Sun Bono)
• Wendy Carlos (born Walter Carlos)
• Caitlyn Marie Jenner (formerly known as Bruce Jenner)
• Christine Jorgensen (born George William Jorgensen Jr.)
• Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning)
• Lana Wachowski (formerly Laurence "Larry" Wachowski)
• Lilly Wachowski (formerly Andrew Paul "Andy" Wachowski)

Please, let's keep Manning's consistent with the others. KalHolmann (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed that it should remain as is and consistent with those other high profile persons. It's short and to the point, is clean, and has long-standing consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, given the wording of the ledes in other articles about trans people, I guess it's okay bold her deadname in the lede like that, for consistency. Still not entirely sure that it's the most respectful format, but given the lack of any better alternatives, I'll retract my previous objection to this wording. Thank you KalHolmann for the well-reasoned reply. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Attending pro-Trump gala

That Chelsea Manning attended a pro-Trump gala after announcing her Senate candidacy has been covered by RS. There is no reason to exclude this from the page. If any other Democratic politician would attend pro-rump parties, it would be covered on their Wikipedia pages. The fact that Manning states that she was there to engage in a political dialogue makes this explicitly connected to her status as a politician. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, your content violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which states:

• Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
• Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
• News reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

Moreover, there is no clear nexus between this appearance by Manning at a social event and her candidacy for U.S. Senate, under which subheading you have placed it. Not everything Manning does in public from now until election day will necessarily be related to her campaign.

Before engaging in WP:EDITWAR to restore the disputed content, please allow editorial consensus to form. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A Democratic Senate candidate attending a pro-Trump gala and consorting with far-right conspiracy theorists is as explicitly political as it gets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, thanks for your reply. But please address my observation that your content violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. That should also be an important element as editors forge consensus on whether or not to include this and other such contributions. KalHolmann (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is RS. NY Daily News[19] and the Observer[20] also covered it. The content is accurate, notable and of long-term significance. As I mentioned earlier, this would be included on any politician's Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That it's of long-term significance is unclear, especially given that we don't know why she did it. And on that note, stating that it is unclear is inappropriate in the article; something that is unclear to whoever wrote the source may be clear to others, and is not something that should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed's coverage was pretty terrible in this particular case. It would be wise to wait for more reliable sources to weigh in. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out. It's gotten coverage from a few sources (for some reason RT thought it worth mentioning, now there's a "reliable source" for you), but not enough coverage to be worth including. And of the ones that did cover it, nobody seems to have cited any evidence that it was part of her Senate campaign. Candidates go to a lot of events, there's no reason to list this one. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support inclusion, Chelsea Manning is now a politician, a declared candidate for public office. These sorts of things are not routine, run-of-the-mill coverage, but rather the heightened scrutiny that comes naturally to all candidates. If a sub-article is created, however, such as "Chealsea Manning 2018 Senatorial bid", it would be more appropriate to mention it there rather than the main bio. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

ValarianB, your suggestion of a subarticle ("Chelsea Manning 2018 Senatorial bid") is intriguing, and would avoid the kind of issues we're discussing in this thread. However, it's premature. Her campaign is only eight days old, and already shows signs of imploding. A comprehensive subarticle would consist of little more than a paragraph or two. Anyhow, for the time being, including what little we know of Manning's party-crashing at last Saturday's Cernovich Gala in this BLP risks infringing WP:WEIGHT. We should wait and see what transpires. KalHolmann (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely do not need a WP:CONTENTFORK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Three days after the event, MSM—in the form of The Washington Post—has finally covered what now seems like nothing more than an overblown Twitter spat. Certainly The Post does not frame Manning's presence at the Cernovich Gala as part of her senate campaign. Indeed, The Post mentions her candidacy only twice: once in passing ("I f‑‑‑ing crashed!" Manning, a current candidate for a Maryland U.S. Senate seat, told a New York Observer reporter at the coat check) and again in an embedded video that predates both her January 18 filing at the Maryland State Board of Elections and thus the January 20 Cernovich Gala. All of which leaves me more convinced than ever that this Page Six-style tabloid tempest does not belong in Wikipedia's BLP of Chelsea Manning. KalHolmann (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that this Manning story has received coverage by WaPo, the Guardian, Buzzfeed, Newsweek, NY Daily News, the Observer and the Forward, it is obviously not a minor trivial story. The remarks about this not being part of her Senate campaign are bizarre. When do RS ever explicitly frame something as being part of or not being part of a politician's campaign? I've literally never heard this as a rationale for removing something newsworthy that politicians do, and I've edited the pages of hundreds of politicians and been involved in disputes on a large number of them. She was not doing something nonpolitical (say, attending Seth Rogen's wedding) but attending a political event that celebrated the President of the opposition party and featured far-right radicals. The title of the WaPo article explicitly ties her appearance there to her participation in politics: "Chelsea Manning showed up at a far-right pro-Trump bash, infuriating the far left". Why on Earth would the far left be infuriated by something completely unrelated to politics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning has always been a politically polarizing figure. Infuriating people—which she does on a regular basis—is not specifically related to her Senate candidacy. In this case, it's merely about optics. Historically considered a leftist icon, she is now controversial for hanging out with alt-right luminaries on exactly two occasions, neither of which pertained to her candidacy. She herself claims she attended the Cernovich Gala to "gather intel." Unless WP:RS report (which they have not) that she sought intel against Senator Cardin or her other Democratic primary opponents, it's safe to presume she was infiltrating the alt-right for intel to discredit them, against whom she is not running. KalHolmann (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So this "not part of her Senate campaign" thing is basically a requirement that only RS stories where Manning declares "This is part of my Senate campaign" can be included? A completely workable standard that if acted on will ensure that almost zero content be added to the sub-section for the remainder of the election season. If this bizarre standard is applied for Wikipedia as a whole would, it ensure that 90% of the content on politicians' pages be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can marshal editorial consensus that every self-serving publicity stunt by a political candidate ought to be included in her/his Wikipedia BLP, I shall naturally abide by it. KalHolmann (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way is this part of a "campaign"? Did she give a speech, solicit votes, solicit contributions? I have yet to hear that she did anything campaign-related in this appearance. (As for "Why on Earth would the far left be infuriated by something completely unrelated to politics?", I cannot say that the reputation of the far left is that it avoids getting infuriated at anything unless it is substantial and due.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Since this has now matured into a standalone story, distinct from and unrelated to her Senate campaign, I created a new subsection 10.5 Contacts with alt-right social media figures to accommodate it. I appreciate everyone's patience in waiting to see how this developed over the course of a week. KalHolmann (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Contacts with alt-right social media figures

The cited sources, as well as Chelsea Manning herself, use the word "intelligence" or "intel" in describing what she sought to gather in infiltrating the alt-right. The Daily Beast, for example, reminds us that Manning "received military intelligence training in her time in the Army," and reports that according to an "organizer who was connected to from Manning's team who spoke on the condition of anonymity, one of the foundational goals of anti-fascist organizing is to gather intelligence into the activity of fascists and the alt-right."

However, Srich32977 insists that "'intelligence' is really a specific technical term, the article also uses 'information' and 'insight', which are more neutral; let's avoid WP:SYN."

Considering Manning's professional background in military intelligence, plus her own and reliable sources' use of that word in this particular context, I believe we ought to substitute it in the following sentence:

Manning afterwards stated that she was acting as a double agent, infiltrating the alt-right to gather information intelligence and insight about alt-right rally plans.

I'd appreciate any discussion. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Manning was a low-level intelligence analyst, not an intelligence operative (much less a spy). If we selectively start using Manning's words to describe the activity, we are adding our own spin on the activity. "Infiltrate", like "spying", have implications that we should avoid. Also, if we glamorize Manning's socializing with the alt-right, then we loose NPOV. – S. Rich (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd also note that military intelligence (Manning's area of training) does not involve human intelligence collection, she would be no more qualified to gather intelligence than your average civilian. In addition to the rather obvious issue that her political leanings are well known, and the information they'd give her would (presumably) not be secret. GrizzlyRich (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Impact of Release of Information

The article referred to when stating that Manning's leaks did not have any strategic impact appears to have misread the heavily redacted report . The article says that the leaks had no strategic impact in Afghanistan, however the document itself (page 13/35) says only that the leaks had no strategic impact on intelligence sources. Similarly, the article claims there was no increased risk to US senior leadership in Iraq, but that only means that the top US military leader himself has not been exposed to additional risk. Therefore, the article is incorrect in stating that the leaks had no strategic impact in the war effort.

I propose that we reword the statement on the leak's impact to reflect this, something like "A heavily redacted report on the Manning document leaks impact was made available, but strategic impacts of the leaks were not included." GrizzlyRich (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

GrizzlyRich, please familiarize yourself with our core policy Wikipedia:No original research. The phrase in question, "no strategic impact," is taken directly from Ed Pilkington's June 20, 2017 news report at The Guardian, which is considered a reliable source. To dispute this, you must cite another such reliable, published secondary source (not the primary source document) that contradicts The Guardian, propose it here at the Talk page, and allow time for editorial consensus to form. KalHolmann (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Maybe an error?

Under the section Manning and Adrian Lamo there is a picture labelled that it is from 2001, but Lamo and Manning did not meet until 2010, and the Manning does not look 14 in the picture. Whats going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.216.85 (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Manning is not in that photo, nor is it suggested they are. – Jonathan Williams (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

Remove "born Bradley Edward Manning". 100.36.164.66 (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Consensus is for this name to remain. I'm afraid additional requests would require additional discussion here on the talk page before changes can be made.  .spintendo  18:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Small formatting issue

I'd peep under the hood, but the article is full protected: Why is the See also section in mouse script? And on my screen at least, the last 2 items are differently aligned. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blatantly abused my administrative powers to remove "small=yes" (hadn't seen that before--what's the point?) and the last two items (intended via double asterisk), for reasons of economy, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Alleged suicide attempt

At 21:04, 29 May 2018, User:BananaCarrot152 removed a newly added, reliably sourced section Suicide concerns, explaining, "WP:NOTATABLOID I think we should err on the side of privacy regarding acute medical emergencies." I request discussion as to why devoting a new section to suicide is inappropriate in this WP:BLP, which already contains longstanding sections describing Manning's experiences on suicide watch and prevention of injury status in 2010 and 2011, and her suicide attempts in July 2016 and October 2016. I am puzzled as to why actual attempts to kill herself are encyclopedic, but the apparent contemplation of self-destruction now constitutes an acute medical emergency that is taboo. Note that sources cited in the removed section reported that the operators of Manning's Twitter account tweeted that she is safe, and that people on the scene in Milan said "Chelsea Manning is fine and is already traveling to America." Additionally, Manning's friend and political communications director, Kelly Wright, told The Associated Press that Manning has not suspended her Senate campaign. Does this sound like someone in the grips of an acute medical emergency? KalHolmann (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My objection is only that these are recent news stories, the tweets in question have been removed and that the reporting is mostly speculative. The long term implications of previous suicide attempts are clear, however it is not clear whether this incident has long term implications or what these might be (sources have not covered this -- even if you think it will be important). This is not an issue of "taboo", but rather this article is not the place for sensational news stories of apparent or ongoing acute medical emergencies. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BananaCarrot152, please cite WP:RS supporting your contention that Manning is now suffering from an ongoing acute medical emergency. Even if you are a psychiatrist, I doubt that you've had a chance to examine Ms. Manning in the past 48 hours. KalHolmann (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Recording a politician's suicide attempts is not "sensationalist".--MagicatthemovieS

I notice the Baltimore Sun, the one source about this event cited that I know for sure is a RS did not use the word suicide in it. NY Daily News is a tabloid and I'm unclear on the Italian source but the title seems very sensationalist for a sensitive BLP-related topic. Rab V (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also unsure if naming a section 'suicide concerns' is too leading, sensational and vague for a BLP-related topic. Who is concerned? Better to title sections after something concrete that happened instead of the reactions or concerns of an unnamed group. Rab V (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So, as you see it, no one was concerned. And if they were concerned, it was not about suicide. Got it. Thanks. KalHolmann (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Cooperation. If you want to misrepresent editors issues, you will have a hard time editing in a collaborative medium like wikipedia. Rab V (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am fine without the word "suicide" being associated with the tweets. The contents of the tweets speak for themselves. However, as Manning is a candidate for the U.S. Senate and a public figure, and as this issue has been covered by major news sources such as CBS, Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, etc it certainly deserves inclusion in the article. We should probably follow the lead of sources such as that which although they are not hesitating to cover it, they are refraining from using the word "suicide". It's the tabloids and the click baiters which are using that word and I don't find it necessary. Marteau (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Marteau, in lieu of Suicide concerns as the section title, what would you suggest? KalHolmann (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That is, of course, a good question. CBS DC is headlining it as a "Window Ledge Tweet" as is Boston Globe. I kind of like that. "Window ledge Tweet" or "Window ledge photo" under "Post-prison life". Marteau (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Geez, I dunno. Couldn't we possibly find something more vague? I'm afraid a few readers might actually get what this is about. KalHolmann (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: "May 2018 tweets". Marteau (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone actually seen the photo? I suspect that Wikipedia editors enforcing a taboo against the S word have not seen the picture that Manning attached to her second "im sorry" tweet on May 27, 2018. Google and MSM have essentially scrubbed the image from the Internet, no doubt out of privacy concerns. One outlet that hasn't is The Gateway Pundit. I do not suggest that we include them as a source. God forbid! But if anyone remains skeptical about whether or not this incident involved the threat of suicide, I invite you to look at the photo attached to what we are now timidly calling the "Window ledge tweet." And then think about how we are misleading our readers by camouflaging the truth. KalHolmann (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not our job to add "the truth" as KalHolmann defines it. Instead, we summarize what high quality independent reliable sources say, complying fully with BLP policy. So why the heck are you bringing this Gateway Pundit crap to this discussion? It is counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it... don't recall where. It seemed like the cry for help it probably was. Anyway, the issue is that labeling Manning's action as a suicidal gesture or whatever involves interpretation. Of course, it is an obvious and almost certainly correct interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless. Labeling the thing the "Window ledge tweet" does not involve any interpretation... it's a bare-bones fact. Marteau (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What part of WP:NOTNEWS do people not understand? Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and we don't report on the daily Twitterverse. There has to be evidence of lasting historical significance. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is more than just someone tweeting a pic of their kitten. This is a tweet from a candidate for the United States Senate which led, by all accounts, to widespread concerned for her well-being. This led to a later assurance, presumably by a friend, that she was "safe". It has been reported by multiple reliable sources including CBS News, Baltimore Sun (the newspaper of record in the state she is running) the Boston Globe, the NY Daily News and dozens more. Were Manning a private citizen, more discretion might be indicated, but as she is a public figure who willfully put herself in the public eye, and as a candidate for Federal office, it is eminently includable. Marteau (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also,your invocation of WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this issue. Partisans in particular often invoke NOTNEWS when Wikipedia includes issues that don't paint their candidate in the light they desire... hundreds of times editors have re-iterated the fact that actions by politicians are more includable than if those same actions were performed by someone not not in the public eye and by someone not running for office. And last time I checked, Manning is still running for U.S. Senate. Marteau (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I find Kaldari's point more persuasive here. This was a couple tweets that got some fleeting attention that was resolved quickly, unclear if there is lasting importance here. The arguments from Marteau seem to assume bad faith from Kaldari and be based on arguments I don't see in RS for lasting political importance. Rab V (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It has not "resolved quickly". The latest tweet from Mannings account (19 hours ago) said the candidate is "recovering" which does not mean "resolved". Marteau (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think what's relevant is if this story resolves quickly in terms of news coverage as opposed to keep coming up in RS. I don't see yesterday's tweet keeping this story going in RS so it seems resolved. Rab V (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I added to Manning's BLP a Glenn Greenwald quote saying Manning's two tweets "clearly were strong suggestions that she was strongly contemplating suicide." I cited Democracy Now! This was reverted by User:Rab V, who advised, "blp issues and due issues, take to talk page." So here it is. The talk page. Where reliably sourced quotations by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists come to die. KalHolmann (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am unclear about how his Pulitzer prize makes his speculation about someone else's mental health not have BLP issues. Also unclear on why you want to use primary sources when you know this topic has raised BLP concerns for several editors. Rab V (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Rab V, Glenn Greenwald is not just any passing journalist with a Pulitzer Prize. He was among the first to cover Manning in 2010, and has written dozens of articles about her at various publications, both during and after her incarceration. As he reminds us in the Democracy Now! interview that you expunged, "I spent many hours on the phone with her while she was in those prison facilities. I visited her in Kansas at Leavenworth while she was there. … Remember she twice tried to kill herself while she was in the military brig in Leavenworth. Those were serious suicide attempts. They weren't dramatic or fake. They were very real. … Clearly she is struggling in a lot of ways." Of course you're entitled to belittle Mr. Greenwald's journalistic status and suppress his thoughts about this latest incident involving a public figure whom Greenwald considers a hero and a personal friend. You're entitled to do so because you are, after all, a Wikipedian. KalHolmann (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have anything against Glenn Greenwald as a journalist. Still not sure how using his speculation on someone else's mental health is not a violation of BLP. It seems from your edit summary your main reason for using this quote is to include the word suicide, though we have already discussed RS and BLP issues around doing so. Rab V (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed all references to the tweets per BLP. Please gain consensus here before re-adding info about this recent incident. Valeince (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I have been able to find, nearly all news stories about the tweets are from 28 May, and the only commentary or new development is a tweet from Manning's twitter page on 29 May reiterating that she is ok and the Greenwald interview which is not particularly noteworthy for this page as discussed above. I can't find any WP:RS from 30 or 31 May that discuss the tweets and all RS about the tweets seem to be the initial news stories. Taking all of this into account, it seems to me that the enduring notability of the events is unclear and specifically not discussed in sources except for the statement by Manning's spokesperson saying that she is not suspending her campaign (which isn't noteworthy on its own). I'm sure that these events could have lasting and significant implications, but as of right now the events are confined to a single news cycle (WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE). Given that this article is a biography and not, for instance, a page about a political campaign, I think that without further RS showing lasting implications, the section should not be included. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This section should not be included, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM; at least, not right now. There may be other reasons to exclude it as well, concerning interpretation and WP:OR, but for now, not-news/recentism are reason enough. The question here in my view is that if one accepts these guidelines as valid, then what is the big rush? Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Why must we hurry up and have information about these tweets in the article right now? If there continues to be ongoing coverage about this by reliable sources over a period of time, then I'm pretty sure everyone currently opposing inclusion, myself included, will change their mind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't have to include stuff that just happened, until the perspective of time has made it clear that it is of sufficient import to merit more than just a passing mention in a bunch of newspapers in the first news cycle, and then never mentioned again. We should simply wait and see. Mathglot (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I am astounded that editors here think that withholding well sourced information that a candidate for public office evidently has continuing issues with their mental state and with threatening to harm themselves is in any way responsible behavior. Politicians have awesome power over us, with the power to either help protect or trample our personal and property rights and our freedoms. They stand up in the public fora and say, "Vote for me! You can trust me to do the right thing! Give me that power over you!" People look to Wikipedia for help in making their decisions on how to vote and your deciding to withhold information directly pertinent to the state of mind of someone who proposes to have that power over us is one of the most obscene things I have witnessed in my life. What you are proposing is in my opinion a dereliction of duty and editorial malpractice of the highest order and you are, again in my opinion, putting your subjective application of Wikipedia guidelines over the well being of the American nation. Am I being overly dramatic? Absolutely not. It is true that Manning almost certainly will not win, but votes given to her, which may have been given to another candidate, may in fact sway the election (see Ralph Nader in the 2000 election who most likely was the reason we got Bush that election). I urge you all to re-consider what you are proposing and exercise the explicitly permitted right you have to use your common sense in the application of the notability guidelines. If ever there were a time for exercising that common sense, now would be the time. Marteau (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Both Wapo[21] and NY Times[22] carried the AP story. It's unconscionable that editors would argue that it is not noteworthy to include in the middle of her election campaign. It met the highest journalism standards to make national news on a topic that is not covered generally by the press. Why is Wikipedia censoring reliably source and widely covered notable incident that has been covered before regarding this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is a biography of "an American activist,[5] whistleblower,[6] politician,[7] and former United States Army soldier", not an election or voting guide. Currently, we have no sources that shed any light on what impact, if any, these tweets have except for your own analysis. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to state everything that someone might be interested in reading -- even when it is well-sourced. Without analysis or continued coverage, news reports do not constitute notability on their own. And as User:Mathglot has said, if RS continue to cover the events and their implications become clear and notable, then I too will happy to change my mind. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

From the NY Times: Kelly Wright, the communications director for her Senate bid, told The Associated Press on Monday that the 30-year-old transgender woman now needs the "space to heal." She did not reply when asked if Manning was seeking professional help. When asked whether Manning had suspended her Senate campaign, Wright wrote: "Negative." - not our analysis. That is AP asking and receiving answers. Manning requested space and said the campaign is not suspended. Those are notable outcomes for a candidate for senate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:9081:f571:c597:f64 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2018‎ (UTC)

(edit conflict) Careful, Marteau; in saying as you did here that editors are "withholding well-sourced information", which is censorship—something clearly contrary to Wikipedia's principles—you are failing to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors and coming close to making a personal attack. You need to assume that those editors who don't see eye to eye with you about this topic are not a cabal of politically-minded hacks out to gut Wikipedia and censor it to their political liking, but simply honest editors, applying the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as best they know how, for the benefit of the encyclopedia. For starters, you should strike out that portion of your earlier comment where you said that, or reply here, stating that you assume good faith on the part of other editors and meant no accusation or attack. If you feel you cannot do that but need to hold to your earlier view, that's fine: in that case, please place a warning about censorship behavior on my User talk page (here), and provide diffs so I will know what you are talking about. Be prepared to have this go to the Administrator's Noticeboard and back up your allegation with evidence, but I advise you to read WP:BOOMERANG first.

I couldn't give a hoot which way the Manning election turns out, and personally, I think that anybody that would use Wikipedia to inform their vote is about as foolish as those who use Facebook for that purpose. I don't doubt many people do so, but this is an encyclopedia, and that is a social network, and you can't stop fools from getting their information wherever they choose. In the meantime, let's keep it civil here, tone down the accusations, and stick to the goal of improving the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my words. I am alway willing to discuss what I have written, but not in answer to a threat. Marteau (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your words are erroneous, and I reject them. Your invocation of the word "threat" in response to a neutral description of standard Wikipedia procedures for raising user behavioral issues, is risible. If you want to discuss a user's supposedly censorius behavior, you know the proper venue for it, and this is not it. Can we now please get back to discussing the content you wish to add to the article? Or not; I'm content to let this thread die. In fact, that would be the best outcome at this point, imho. Mathglot (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

threat (n) a statement of an intention to visit hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. Telling me that if I did not either strike out my words and/or publicly proclaim my feelings of good faith that you would take me to Wikicourt was in fact a threat. Marteau (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been no further coverage of these events in the past 4 days or so and I've been unable to find any new sources that add anything. All we have is a single wave of news reports saying that Manning's tweets/window ledge photo caused concern for her well being, that her account tweeted a short while later that she is "safe" and that her campaign is not suspended. We also have an interview with Glenn Greenwald where he speculates about her. This seems textbook WP:NOTNEWS to me. If User:Marteau is correct and these events are inherently notable then they will have a documented effect on something to do with Manning in the future. Until then we can only speculate. Therefore, I would like to close discussion here until further RS appear and ask that everyone refrain from re-adding the window ledge section so that our kind admins can unlock the page and we can all get back to editing as usual? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, consensus of page watchers is clear that it is not currently includable, and I will of course not add it until such time as consensus changes, perhaps in an RfC. Marteau (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies would you be so kind? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's unprotected by now, isn't it? Sorry, was hanging out by the pool. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

On June 5th, Manning authorized publication of video of "police wellness check" in intercept article that discusses attempted suicide. I appreciate the sensitivity, and responsible posting past few days. With explicit consent, I think it's noteworthy and ethically compliant to keep it there. Full transparency, I reverted a revert Shushugah (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS seemed to be the main issue when the talk page decided to wait. I'm not sure this one article will extend the life of this story. And even though she released her video, it seems like the article is talking in a speculative voice about a possible suicide attempt which seems to indicate she hasn't made a statement either way on that front directly. Rab V (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Rab V, for the record, the content that you removed does not mention suicide, excepting the title of one citation to "Chelsea Manning 'safe' after tweeting alarming photo hinting at suicide" in the New York Daily News. If I were to replace that reference with a different one to support the four words "half an hour after," and the replacement did not include "suicide" in its title, would you continue to revert this addition? KalHolmann (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The title of the news articles is not the issue. Rab V (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Rab V, please state the issue in plain English, without resorting to Wikipedia jargon and linked acronyms. I'm honestly trying to understand, but this is a long thread and various pretexts have been used to suppress our inclusion of this important incident in the life of Chelsea Manning. KalHolmann (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll quote BananaCarrot since their's was the first objection at the top of this section and pretty much the same points have been brought up every time since. "You seem predisposed reasons given multiple times are "My objection is only that these are recent news stories, the tweets in question have been removed and that the reporting is mostly speculative. The long term implications of previous suicide attempts are clear, however it is not clear whether this incident has long term implications or what these might be (sources have not covered this -- even if you think it will be important). This is not an issue of "taboo", but rather this article is not the place for sensational news stories of apparent or ongoing acute medical emergencies." Rab V (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself! I'll try again though because I had already written the following before I saw Rab V's last answer.

The issue is that there has been a lack of ongoing coverage. If something happens in someones life and reliable sources like newspapers cover it, that is not on its own enough reason to include it in a biography on Wikipedia. Rather, we need ongoing coverage or something in the sources that shows that this event has lasting impact. News events are only notable if they are relevant in some bigger context. Right now we have two events that are obviously related (the police came because she made those tweets) but that are not strongly related in terms of context; the tweets stories discuss that people were concerned for her well being, the Intercept article is about Manning's view that the US is a police state as demonstrated by the "raid". Neither of these has gotten attention for more than one news cycle (at least so far). The Intercept article is not a continuation of last weeks coverage because it's primarily about the raid and police use of force, not the tweets or concern for Manning's well being.

You also say that this is an "important incident in the life of Chelsea Manning". I won't dispute this, that's not the point, but the sources/coverage of the incident don't demonstrate its importance. If it is important, we would see continued coverage. Maybe we will (for instance if she suspends her campaign as a result). But one initial news cycle just after the tweets, and then a tangentially related story in the Intercept isn't enough. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Rab V, you quote User:BananaCarrot152 saying "this article is not the place for sensational news stories of apparent or ongoing acute medical emergencies." Yet when I asked him on May 29 to please cite WP:RS supporting his contention that Manning is suffering from an ongoing acute medical emergency, he did not do so. Since you appear to endorse his unsupported claim, I'll make the same request of you: please cite a source (other than BananaCarrot152).

As for the separate issue of "long-term implications," I remind you we already have in this article a section titled "Suicide attempts" discussing Manning's dry runs in prison on July 5 and October 4, 2016. User:Funcrunch added the first on July 6, the same day it was reported by The Washington Post, although he used the heading "Hospitalization" until The Guardian confirmed, a week later, that she had indeed tried to end her own life. Funcrunch then changed the heading to "Suicide attempt." Funcrunch added Manning's second suicide attempt on November 5, 2016, one day after it was reported by The New York Times. As of November 2017, Funcrunch "greatly decreased" his editing on Wikipedia, which is unfortunate. I'm sure his advice would help us understand how he ascertained the long-term implications of Manning's 2016 suicide attempts contemporaneously, not retrospectively. KalHolmann (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Commenting just to acknowledge and thank KalHolmann for the ping, but this is precisely the kind of topic/discussion I can't deal with right now. (P.S. I also prefer singular they pronouns) Funcrunch (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to speak too much for bananacarrot but I believe they are talking about the speculation around suicidality or depression.Rab V (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Speculation? Falsely claiming, unsupported by WP:RS, that the subject of this BLP is suffering from an ongoing acute medical emergency—now, that's speculation. KalHolmann (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This gotcha moment is more confusing than it is illuminating but don't let that stop your enjoyment. If you are interested in improving the article, that is the actual purpose of this talk page though. Rab V (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not reply earlier (regarding acute medical...) because it no longer felt relevant to the discussion when I returned. My reasoning, however, is that suicide, attempted suicide and suicidal ideation are considered medical emergencies; see Outline of emergency medicine#Psychiatric. I meant acute as it is described here; Acute (medicine). I never intended that my characterization of her medical condition end up in the article. Specifically, I was only trying to characterize the medical condition described in the sources (especially the one's that used the word "suicide"). But now, regardless of whether or not there was a medical emergency, I believe that the reason for exclusion of the events from the article is that there has been a lack of continued coverage or clear future implications, as I described in my previous post which I am happy to discuss further. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: it is a very high bar and high standard which is being set here regarding the insistence on "continuing coverage". Despite the matter-of-fact "this is how we do things on Wikipedia" tone, the bar is higher for this article than for almost any other on Wikipedia. I suspect a fair bit of what's in the article now would not have been included had that standard been applied in the past. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if that bar remains so high next time some marvelous and flattering news about Manning comes down the pipeline and there's a rush to include it. I will be sure to bring the popcorn and the diffs of this debate for the event. Marteau (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I share your cynicism. A double standard is indeed being applied here by overprotective editors hellbent on shielding Wikipedia readers from the tragic reality that is Chelsea Manning's life. KalHolmann (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Assuming good faith. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

...said the cat to the canary. Marteau (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

Can the incident in question in the following article from The Intercept, a well respected newspaper, be added to Chelsea's page?

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/05/chelsea-manning-video-twitter-police-mental-health/

It represents a flagrant abuse on the part of police in the question of how to deal with mental health incidents, and it was widely covered by the press so it meets the importance standards of article inclusion. Resentcontributor (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Your question asks can this be added, but it's not clear how this reference you've mentioned is to be added - as an external link, as a reference, or as part of the prose. If it's textual information you'd like to add, your request should specify verbatim, which text is to be added, such as "Please add the following sentence to the third paragraph of text under this heading."  spintendo  01:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent Twitter posts

Note that I've opened a discussion at here regarding the repeated addition of contentious material based on conjecture. Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, please ensure that there is consensus for the inclusion of any such material prior to restoring it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:Ponyo, I am glad you saw this too; I saw your earlier revert and summary and I agree. I have protected the article since an editor or two, or three, didn't seem to take you seriously. Marteau, KalHolmann, MagicatthemovieS, it is a good idea to pay attention when an admin reverts and invokes the BLP. Also pinging Kaldari, who knows a thing or two, or three. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• WaPo covered it with AP story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/manning-friend-says-shes-safe-after-window-ledge-tweet/2018/05/28/a5804156-629b-11e8-81ca-bb14593acaa6_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds like NEWS to me. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • You need to remove about 300 sources then as the entire article is constructed of news sources. Also, suicide attempts are not covered by news outlets generally but notable events are. A prominent figure and political candidate tweeting from the top of a building, however, is a notable event covered by papers of record. Obviously, the notability of the event overrode the general news position of not covering suicides or attempts. This is patently obvious since previous suicide attempts are covered in our article and other news outlets. Why would you think this event deserves different editorial judgement than previous attempts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I think you're confusing "suicide attempt" with "Tweet possibly showing picture of someone on ledge". Drmies (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
        • You mean the tweet that gave out the suicide hotline number after the image was deleted? That tweet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:9081:F571:C597:F64 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Unfortunately the BLP page discussion is no longer there, as far as I can see. I have added a section using only high quality sources (AP News, etc.). It is NPOV with no original research or conjecture. All quotes are taken from in-line quotes in the cited articles. I have not stated who wrote the Tweets on Manning's account, who appeared in the photograph, or what they might have implied. The focus is as much on the police response as on the Tweets themselves. I hope this is satisfactory for all. Cloudspert (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I especially like the word attended in your contribution: "…the Montgomery County Police Department attended Manning's apartment…." Pardon me while I head over to our page for September 1, 1939 and revise the wording to: "On this day, Germany attended Poland to mark the beginning of World War II." Oh, and the BLP page discussion is the section right above this one. It's only 4,857 words, so is easily missed. KalHolmann (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Coughs* Godwin's law *coughs* AnonNep (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What word would do you think is more appropriate? The BLP page link above does not lead to the discussion above, which is labelled 'suicide attempt'. Since Manning attempted suicide in prison and since the recent Tweets don't seem to constitute a suicide 'attempt', it did not occur to me that it was the relevant section, so apologies for missing that. Based on the discussion there, I would add to my comment above that the incident has received continued coverage on one of the sources that I added (The Intercept) and on other media such as RT, Daily Beast, Medium, and Advocate. Note that these are not being used as sources (though some could be), so their reliability is not an issue. Rather, I mention them to demonstrate continued coverage (the lack of which earlier on was a primary objection to the incident's inclusion). Importantly, Manning is quoted as making a political point in relation to the incident, saying "This is what a police state looks like." Some such as Common Dreams have picked this up and are themselves framing the incident in political terms. Cloudspert (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed the section per reasoning discussed Talk:Chelsea Manning#Alleged suicide attempt. The tweets story and the intercept article are tangentially related and neither have seen ongoing coverage on their own. The sources Cloudspert provides above are just talking about the intercept article, the medium one appears to be the only one that was posted more than a day later, and as it says at the top "This is mostly for feelings." We are still in the same position we were in when the discussion in the above talk page section ended. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Donald Trump tweet 2017-01-26 at 0604.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• On 19 July 2018, in anticipation of its deletion, I removed that file from this article space, substituting a {tweet} template to reproduce the same content in different form. KalHolmann (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning accuses Wikipedia of transphobia

During the Q&A portion of her paid appearance on July 21, 2018 at the biennial Circle of HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth) conference in New York City, Chelsea Manning was asked about her Wikipedia page. "It's changing constantly," she replied. "I have noticed that. I went from a convicted leaker, to a whistleblower and convicted leaker, to politician and activist and whistleblower. And I'm not done yet, trust me. I got plenty of stuff down the line." However, she added, "There's a lot of inaccurate things on my Wikipedia page and on the history about this case. I know that they're wrong but I'm not gonna fight it or anything like that. I'm not so focused on it that I'm gonna like try to correct it."

During a follow-up radio interview immediately after her keynote talk, Manning was asked, "What were some of the most incisive things that you've read in your Wikipedia page where you almost said something?"

A. Honestly, it's like little things about like my early life where I'm just like that sounds really transphobic. I've had moments where I feel like people like look at my past and look at the things I've done like take away my political agency and my ability to think for myself and like I'm some hapless person who's just like falling like, oh, I don't know what I'm doing and therefore I'm falling—
Q. Falling down the stairs into the position you're currently in.
A. Yeah. I'm like, no, I can make mistakes, I can learn things, I can do things, I can make my own decisions, including bad ones, including good ones, and including mediocre ones. And I don't like the tone sometimes of me as like this hapless transgender person who's just dealing with so much that she can't handle it.

I've reread the entire Background section of our BLP, including its Early Life subsection, and I honestly do not understand what Manning considers transphobic. Perhaps, as a Top 10 editor of this page, I'm too close to it. I urge other editors to review that content for any hint of transphobia, and form consensus here as to how to remedy it. KalHolmann (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Much of the section about her early childhood reads to me like the story of a girl who is simply bouncing from one unfortunate set of circumstances to another. I wonder if there is a mundane reason for this: Maybe editors have been referencing reliable sources that are easy to find, and these happen to be sources that present Manning as passive. Does anyone know of sources we have overlooked -- sources that that present Manning as having more agency? -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 23:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, in what sense does a child have agency? KalHolmann (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair question. After all a child certainly does not have agency in a legal sense. Perhaps it would be better to use words like "autonomy", "self-determination", and "activity" -- qualities associated with being a subject as opposed to an object.

Think about how differently the following would read if it were not for the italicized portion:

When Fred Rogers was young, he was made the target of bullying because he was fat, and his parents raised him in an environment in which he was discouraged from verbally expressing his anger. But he learned that he could express his feelings, including his anger, through the way he played the piano.

-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 00:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I re-read that section looking for what it might be. I don't know but, with the possibility of transphobia in mind, the paragraph: "Manning's sister Casey told the court-martial that both their parents were alcoholics, and that their mother drank continually while pregnant with Chelsea. Captain David Moulton, a Navy psychiatrist, told the court that Manning's facial features showed signs of fetal alcohol syndrome.[31] Casey became Manning's principal caregiver, waking at night to prepare the baby's bottle. The court heard that Manning was fed only milk and baby food until the age of two. As an adult she reached 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed around 105 pounds (48 kg)." implies unstated assumptions of male or female. ('Men are tall' etc). Also "Friends and neighbors considered the Mannings a troubled family." etc. In general, a sense of nurture rather than nature. Again, I don't know. I'm trying to, carefully (I hope), offer thoughts, as requested by the OP, that may lead to the article's improvement. AnonNep (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

We rely on what Reliable Sources say. We can't go searching through the Reliable Sources to find some way to reword them or recast them because of an implication someone might draw from them. I propose we not do a lot of soul-searching about this offhand comment by Manning and just continue to do our job as encyclopedists. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In this instance, I don't think we should be casually dismissive. Chelsea Manning is one of the most famous transgender individuals in the world. When she complains that a section in her Wikipedia bio "sounds really transphobic," we ought to take notice and strive to correct it where appropriate. KalHolmann (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As another Top 10 editor, I'm at a loss as to what exactly Manning is concerned about. If we could see the particular items, then they can be tweaked. But "I don't like the tone sometimes of me as like...." is not enough. And certainly not enough to say WP and the ≥1,000 editors of this article are transphobic. MelanieN is right, soul-searching is not needed or helpful here. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Naming

I'm slightly vague as to what the official policy is, if any (I checked the archives and I'm not sure about the consensus, but the link to gender identity for BLP seemed to just go to the MOS with no obvious reference) but it strikes me as a bit off that Manning's former name is quite so prominent in the intro. Though I would agree that it's reasonable to have it somewhere reasonably obvious, putting it in bold right after her real name seems a bit much and actually looks a little adversarial. Couldn't it be dialled down just a little without risk of compromising the article's usefulness? I can't help feel there's a reasonable balance between being respectful and conveniently informative and even at a glance that seems to be rather conspicuously awry.

If it is a policy (regardless of whether or not I could find it) to highlight a person's former name that they no longer identify with quite so assertively (indeed I'd go further and say aggressively) I can't help but feel that the policy should perhaps be revised. --Vometia (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vometia: This issue has been previously discussed in multiple threads, most recently on 19 January 2018. Please review those discussions and respond here. Note: you will have to click Show under "Use of feminine pronoun" at the bottom of the archive page to display the relevant discussion, which is headed "Position of birth name in lede." Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I suspect it may be worth putting that in the Q&A section at the top of this page; at present there's a link to MOS:IDENTITY that goes nowhere and a similar one in an archive regarding gender that again just linked to the MOS page, so it could perhaps do with being reviewed. Which is an observation rather than a demand that "someone must do this!", someone not being me but someone else: I lack the boldness and knowledge to do so but that's still quite the demand.

I do think the consensus is wrong, though: I know it's a Wikipedia standard since forever but strength of numbers and loudness of voice etc doesn't make something right and this is something I would say is quite wrong, regardless of it apparently now being a standard. But that's not an argument for here, it's a debate for elsewhere and I'm not the person to lead that debate. And it's why I raised it as a concern on the talk page rather than being... well, "bold", though I suspect without knowing the entire history of this matter but now having an inkling, "unintentionally reckless" would be the likely reality of "be bold!" --Vometia (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vometia: I found two links to MOS:IDENTITY under Frequently asked questions (FAQ) on this talk page, and both function properly. KalHolmann (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

How curious. It just takes me to the top of MOS with "redirected from MOS:IDENTITY" underneath it.

Though regardless of what the seemingly errant section says, I'm not convinced about its appropriateness. For the record, if it really needs re-stating, at least by me... --Vometia (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

Please remove "born Bradley Edward Manning." It directly goes against the guidelines to include a trans person's birth name, and is highly disrespectful. Thank you. Transoulrebel (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: From MOS:MULTIPLENAMES: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." This article is actually specifically mentioned as an example within that guideline. She was certainly notable under her birth name, so the article is written correctly under current guidelines. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No mention of post prison suicide attempts?

Why are there no mentions of her suicide attempts after being released from prison? These have all been verified by reputable sources, and discussed by them as well. It seems highly pertinent considering that Manning was a senatorial candidate. A senate candidate actively attempting suicide seems noteworthy for Wikipedia's standards. I lived in Maryland when this event originally happened, and believe me I would have preferred to have known this. It's bizarre why it was never listed in the first place. 2601:982:4200:A6C:B09F:9AE8:DADF:71BE (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively in the now-archived discussion at Talk:Chelsea_Manning/Archive_16#Alleged_suicide_attempt. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2019

In 2018 Manning challenged incumbent Senator Ben Cardin for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate election in her home state of Maryland. On June 26, 2018, Manning finished second among eight candidates. Manning received 5.7% of the votes; Cardin won renomination with 80.5% of the votes cast.

Manning has returned to prison and I would like this to be included in the article

In 2018 Manning challenged incumbent Senator Ben Cardin for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate election in her home state of Maryland. On June 26, 2018, Manning finished second among eight candidates. Manning received 5.7% of the votes; Cardin won renomination with 80.5% of the votes cast.

On March 8, 2019, Manning was jailed again after refusing to testify before a grand jury about Wikileaks. 2601:447:4101:5780:C1F1:F850:EBD1:D353 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now This has been included in the body of the article, but is not fit for the lead at the moment per MOS:LEAD. Although there is a tempation to include all recent news in the lead, generally such information is not notable enough long term to justify inclusion in the lead, and is instead included in the body. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Should the coverage prove to be notable and enduring, then we could justify its inclusion into the lead. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Her reimprisonment clearly represents a fundamental change in her status and warrants immediate inclusion in the Lede in my view. I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS is applicable here. But if you don't agree, no worries I guess, we can wait for others to chime in. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I've looked it up a bit and done some research, and on second thought it does warrant inclusion. I like how you implemented it into the lead FeydHuxtable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify

I don't understand the subject well but this seems like a notable event

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47501763
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chelsea-manning-jailed-refusing-testify-grand-jury-virginia-n980016
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/08/chelsea-manning-judge-jails-wikileaks-case

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Also notable is the name of the Federal Court Judge who ordered the jail: District Court Judge Claude Hilton. Hilton was a Reagan nominee; in 2000 he was appointed by another Reagan nominee (Chief Justice Rehnquist) to serve on the secret, pro-govt FISC. These additional details may not be relevant to the main article, but surely the Judge's name is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.223.46 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Who is "Nick" so many times cited in the article?

I was not able to find any mentioning or source here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraktik (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are references to this book, which you will find listed in the references section:

• Nicks, Denver. Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History. Chicago Review Press, 2012. ISBN 978-1610390613

--Nat Gertler (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

reading the article, 'Nicks' is referenced on so many occasions I think a minor rewrite is required to state who that is within the article. If you search for 'Nicks', you only get the answer you want at approx number 59/64 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A314:4A01:3908:2F83:4638:C546 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be better if the relevant entries in the "Citations" section were individually linked to the relevant entry in the "References" section. For example, the following is quite cumbersome to decipher (as Fraktik may agree).

168. ^ Nicks 2012, p. 179.

—DIV (1.129.111.49 (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC))

P.S. Yes, there is already a general note, "Note: Sources that are used repeatedly or are central to the article are presented in shortened form in this section; for full citations for those sources, see the References section below. Other sources are cited in full in this section." but this is easily overlooked when jumping to a citation in the middle or end of the list (e.g. Chelsea_Manning#cite_note-168). —DIV (1.129.111.49 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC))

Section headings for footnotes & bibliography

I propose the following.

• The existing "Citations" heading be renamed "Footnotes". (In most articles it would be called "References", but I think that is also not quite right here). In some cases the entries are brief citations (e.g. "Nicks 2012, pp. 237, 246"), in other cases they comprise full references ("Manning, January 29, 2013, p. 2."), and in yet other cases they are instead notes (e.g. "Note: WikiLeaks tweeted on January 8, 2010, that [...]"). But in all cases they are indeed footnotes.
• The existing "References" heading be renamed "Bibliography". While the entries in this section are indeed references, they do not comprise all of the references used for the article, contrary to what may be expected from the existing heading. A bibliography is generally understood as a more concise listing of the most pertinent source materials and/or recommended resources for further reading. Given the existing heading "Further reading" in a following section, readers should readily understand that the former meaning of bibliography is intended, not the latter meaning.

The Manual of Style is not prescriptive on this matter. —DIV (1.129.111.49 (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC))

IMO the two "Note:"s should be made to use <ref name="foobar" group="note">, and put into a "Footnotes" or "Notes" section. Then the "Citations" section could be left as-is or renamed "References" if the section currently called "References" were renamed to "Bibliography" as you propose (or to "Further reading" as I have seen in some articles). -sche (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Boldly done. -sche (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)